Nov. 7, 2007

‘Fundamentally Inconsistent’ With University Values

Organizers of the Academy on Capitalism and Limited Government Fund hoped to turn their new program at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign into a Hoover Institution of the Midwest, a model for getting more free market ideals and ideological diversity into major research universities.

Looking for a job?

See all 272 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 2,719
Administrative: 2,095
Executive: 157
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

But when a faculty committee was able to get all the details of the agreement that created the new center, it found provisions that were “fundamentally inconsistent” with university values that are designed to ensure a diversity of views. Specifically, the panel found that portions of the agreement would have restricted funds to research designed to reflect certain points of view, and that donors were given control over matters traditionally left to academics.

The faculty panel — which was appointed by the chancellor — said it was “deeply troublesome” that the agreement to accept the center was made without faculty consultation and that many details were kept secret until recently. The panel called for Chancellor Richard Herman to renegotiate the deal for the academy and on Tuesday, a spokeswoman confirmed that he had pledged to do so.

Faculty leaders praised Herman for backing away from a deal that has angered many professors — even while it was cheered by many conservatives.

The agreement to create the center was signed in July 2006 between the university and a group of wealthy alumni but for almost a year there was very little public information about the arrangement, although rumors started to spread about it. In the summer of 2007, the academy became more public, planning a debut conference and announcing its plans to support research, conferences and events promoting capitalism. Funds were placed in the university foundation, not an academic department, and faculty members started to complain that it sounded like a research center was being created with donor control and an ideological agenda. Those complaints led the Faculty Senate to urge Herman to appoint a committee to study the issue. He did — and the professors on the panel (nominated by the Senate) were from a range of disciplines and political perspectives.

The panel’s report said that some of the work envisioned in the new center was “outcome neutral,” such as the idea of supporting work on “the philosophical, moral and economic underpinnings of capitalism.” But other kinds of research agendas, the panel found, “unmistakably signal an ideological predisposition or presupposition.” For example, the governing documents the university agreed to said that the center’s research would focus on “the relationship between economic growth and reduced government size” and how “free market capitalism can become more effective in providing opportunities and prosperity for individual nations.” Another topic cited for research support: “why communism, socialism, government bureaucracy have failed to bring prosperity, and how capitalism brings material wealth to a broad spectrum of society.”

There is nothing wrong with any Illinois professor holding those views or doing work that supports those views, the panel said, but there is something wrong with a research center supporting only such work and thereby refusing to support research that might, for example, find that Nordic countries with high tax rates have brought considerable wealth to their societies.

Further, the panel found that documents creating the academy had it housed indefinitely in the university foundation, governed by a self-perpetuating advisory board, and that the board would be making funding decisions, assuming the chancellor’s approval. The faculty panel found that it was “highly problematic” to house such an organization in the foundation, the university’s fund-raising arm.

Two key principles were at stake, the panel found: institutional neutrality and university autonomy. On the former, the panel said that “a university ... and especially a public university exists for the common good, not for the propagation of the views of its donors.”

The faculty panel repeatedly stressed that its objections were on issues of principle, not politics and that it would have had the same reaction to a center with a different ideology — even if the would-be donor could point to greater diversity that might result from the gift. The panel report imagined a situation where the American Socialist Party, citing the lack of socialists on campus, proposed a center that would support research “examining how public ownership of the means of production and higher income equality achieved by a redistributional tax system will bring economic and moral well being to a broad spectrum of society.” Such a donation would be rejected, the panel said, just as the one that was accepted should have been rejected as a “breach of the principle of neutrality.”

On the issue of autonomy, the report noted that donors are entitled and welcome to work with fund raisers and academics on shaping gifts that reflect donor interests. But for donors to play a role in handing out grants or approving recipients for research is inappropriate, the panel said. Decisions about who receives funds for academic work — whether research or teaching — “lie at the core of the university’s functions” and need to be made by professors, the panel said.

While the panel was emphatic that the relationship with the capitalism center needed to be renegotiated, it said that the faculty would be open to an arrangement with these donors that met university standards, and the report stressed that it was not trying to discourage the involvement of the donors.

Nicholas C. Burbules, chair of the Senate at Illinois and professor of educational policy studies, said he thought the faculty panel issued “a very strong report” with an emphasis “on the most important things — they stuck with issues of academic principle and policy.” Some Illinois professors have criticized the politics of the donors, and Burbules said it was important that no attention was paid to that issue in the report.

He said that faculty thinking on the capitalism academy has evolved. At first, as people heard just little bits of information, there was a “what the heck is going on here” feeling. Then as more information came out, many professors felt “anxiety” and there was considerable criticism of the chancellor for making the agreement. But Burbules said that he thought that the chancellor acted correctly in agreeing to renegotiate the deal, and that professors appreciated his quick response to the report.

“We’re open to working in a collaborative way with the donors,” Burbules said, as long as any arrangement shows “unambiguous” respect for academic principles.

James E. Vermette, a businessman and investor who was one of the founders of the center, said that he had “no problem” with renegotiating the agreement with the university, and that he thought that all that would be needed would be “some wording or clarification.” He said he has not read the report.

Vermette said that he and other founders wanted research to be “objective and neutral,” and that he didn’t have any problem if some of the research supported didn’t adhere to his views on capitalism. But he also said it was “absolutely wrong” to say that the original agreement sought to favor some views over others and that the founders’ “basic principles” can’t change. “We understand what the university is all about,” he said. “I’m confident that rational people will be able to work their way through this — as long as our basic principles don’t change.”

Anne D. Neal, a member of the advisory board for the capitalism program and president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, was more critical of the faculty report. She said that “it goes without saying that the principle of neutrality is central to academic research. Donors cannot condition their gifts on preordained conclusions, and any language that suggests otherwise should be modified.”

But she said that she did not believe all departments and programs at Illinois were held to the same standard, saying that she found “ideological terms” in the African American Studies and Research Program at Illinois, and noting that the women’s studies program presumes that people should “integrate feminist theory into their professional work and everyday lives.”

Neal added: “While the committee report raises serious and legitimate questions, I am left with the nagging feeling that the committee’s concern about ‘ideological predispositions’ goes only one way — and that its problems with the Academy on Capitalism, underscored by its repeated, snide footnotes on the benefits of Sweden’s state-run economy — expose its own ideological predispositions rather than a genuine, consistent concern
about a free marketplace of ideas.”

— Scott Jaschik

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

Inconsistent?

First, ” ... There is nothing wrong with any Illinois professor holding those views ..”

Yes — ignore the recent Harvard study about the ideological monopoly in liberal arts in public colleges.

Then, ” .. (might) find that Nordic countries with high tax rates have brought considerable wealth to their societies ..”

If one ignores their free-market, capitalistic sales in the U.S. to college students and the random nature of technological invention, economic cycles, and 200+ other v’bles.

Finally, ” ..a public university exists for the common good ..”

Golly — looking forward to the U-Ill. works on the productivity advantages of private K-12 and Justice O’Conner’s U-Mich. comment that affirmative action should end by 2030. Those would be “diverse” experiences, yup-per.

P.S. to the unapologetic: be sure to double-check your facts and logic before posting. Saves valuable advertising-supported bandwidth. Thanks.

L.L., at 6:00 am EST on November 7, 2007

I gather some of the founders and Anne D. Neal think capitalism is a pretty great idea. So shouldn’t they have confidence that their belief will triumph in the free marketplace of ideas, rather than trying to write it into the center’s charter?

Ben, Enormous State University, at 6:00 am EST on November 7, 2007

Off the Point

Ann Neal’s comments are off the topic, if, as I presume, women’s and African American studies programs have been established at Illinois through normal approval channels. This Academy was not so established, and I commend the faculty and administrative leaders for realizing this, and for the administration for realizing its mistake in accepting the Academy under its previous terms. I don’t fault the administration, as I understand the enormous pressures upon educational entities to at least consider, if not outright accept, silver-lined sponsorship deals.

A. G. Rud, Purdue University, at 7:45 am EST on November 7, 2007

The Usual Right Wing Buzz!

And as usual. L.L betrays the fact that he, she or it is not interested in the “common good,” but only the daily task of blowing Horowitz’s horn! Behold the blare with all its usual off key, right wing special pleading and political cacophony! Good poster, LL! Dave will throw you another milk bone! You serve your master well! This committee did its job and spared the university from disgrace and yet another attempt at a right wing Trojan horse, burying its secret agenda in hundred dollar bills. Now I just can’t wait to hear from Chuck, Buzz and the rest of the Horowitz Center gnats earning their paychecks from Young America!

Diogenes, at 8:05 am EST on November 7, 2007

Wearing Hypocrisy Like a Badge of Honor

Anne Neal demonstrates once again (What is this, the 500th time?) that the right-wing culture warriors care only about pushing their ideology by any means necessary. They may, when convenient, talk about principles such as intellectual diversity, but to them, words are merely weapons in their never-ending battle to dominate every institution of American life.

Thus, when the capitalism institute establishes ground rules clearly intended to squelch intellectual diversity, Ms. Neal, a member of the program’s advisory board, apparently does not object. Only after the Illinois faculty pointed out the one-sidedness of the document does she disingenuously aver that “it goes without saying that the principle of neutrality is central to academic research.” (If it goes without saying, why did she fail to speak out until the U of I faculty said it first?)

The culture warriors do not, by and large, emerge from an academic tradition of ideas, reflection, and criticism. They come from a nakedly political tradition in which all that matters is who wins and who loses, and means are invariably justified by ends. When faced with an inconsistency, people like Anne Neal do not pause before counterpunching. Oh, we’d never do that, she says. Besides, look at what the dirty liberals in women’s studies are doing! And, dear me, how dare those nasty faculty members attack us with “snide footnotes on the benefits of Sweden’s state-run economy” (state run, people, STATE RUN, like Communism!).

The thing that gives the Anne Neals of the world an advantage in this battle is that they are perfectly at peace with their own hypocrisy. Regardless of their intellectual inconsistency, they are never afflicted by self-doubt. They can help design an institute that violates the principle of neutrality and then tell us with a straight face that “it goes without saying” that such neutrality is a bedrock virtue of the academy. They’ll push until you give, and then they’ll push a little bit more until you give in.

Don’t be fooled for a moment: the people are not your colleagues; they are your enemies. And even if you fail to see it that way, they never will.

Unapologetically Tenured, at 8:05 am EST on November 7, 2007

Hamilton College Redux?

This sounds like the ruckus over Alexander Hamilton Center for the Study of Western Civilization. I’ll bet it ends the same way: being canceled due to lack of consensus over how it should be run. The “fundamentally inconsistent” line is the tip off.

Why can’t diversity of thought be measured across the university rather than in each and every department and program? Surely there are other venues for economic and governmental thought at Illinois.

justaguy, parent & taxpayer, at 8:20 am EST on November 7, 2007

double standards

Where would the College of Engineering be if it didn’t accept donor money for specific research on a specific agenda with a specific point of view? What shape would the University’s budget be in if it didn’t accept DoD money for specific research at its National Center for Supercomputing Applications?

Is this not the same University of Illinois that promised 100 full-ride scholarships to military veterans, changed its mind after faculty protested that “too many jarheads will bias the class demographic,” rescinded veterans already admitted, then got caught by the Illinois Attorney General who has been investigating Champaign for over a year?

I would love to be the fly on the wall between Richard Herman and Joe White. I can just hear Richard, “Thanks, Joe, for another fine mess you got me into!”

Anne Neal’s point about a double standard was interesting. Go to the “Call for Papers” section of the Gender and Women’s Studies Program at University of Illinois (http://www.gws.uiuc.edu/News/call_for_papers.htm) and read about the First Amendment and Feminists for Free Expression who are sponsoring a paper-writing “competition.” Here are a few of the suggested topics:

Information about birth control or sex education Freedom of information about the war in Iraq Freedom of content in a school newspaper or literary journal Freedom of religion and freedom from religion Your right to protest government policy Freedom to express your sexual orientation

Then go to their web site. Decorum prevents me from citing topics on the web site of this organization. Suffice to say it has a definite point of view which may not be balanced.

University of Illinois is in a tough spot. Government support is dwindling from the State of Illinois. Rankings are falling. Good faculty members are leaving for higher salaries elsewhere. Where is the money going to come from?

Jack Dornan, at 8:35 am EST on November 7, 2007

Tsk, tsk

This ad-hom attack —

” .. And as usual. (sic) L.L betrays the fact that he, she or it is not interested in the “common good,” but only the daily task of blowing Horowitz’s horn!”

Despite this, “Inside Higher Ed seeks to be a place for civil and constructive exchange ..”

Tsk, tsk.

For today’s students, a respite from Lindsey and Paris, on an authentic truth-seeker (v. unapologetic yuck-yucks on IHE) —

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope

As for this, ” .. They’ll push until you give, and then they’ll push a little bit more until you give in ..”

No pushing required. Just yank the tax-money. Because the money is what this is really about. If the money weren’t, there would be no job interviews at MLA, APSA, et al. Anyway, here’s the future —

http://www.usatoday.com/news/educ.../2007-11-06-freereading_N.htm?csp=34

Why borrow $20,000 to listen to a bunch of bitter, unhappy old-fogies complain non-stop? Lindsey didn’t.

Merci pour les rire.

L.L., at 8:35 am EST on November 7, 2007

Well, it’s about time

We’d just like to propose a bold new interdisciplinary center that would support research examining how public ownership of the means of production and higher income equality achieved by a redistributional tax system will bring economic and moral well being to a broad spectrum of society. We think it’s long overdue, actually.

American Socialist Party, at 9:27 am EST on November 7, 2007

UT writes: “right-wing culture warriors care only about pushing their ideology by any means necessary.”

-The University of Delaware wasn’t pushing conservative philosophy on their residents were they? No, it was liberal dogma.

-A group called By Any Means Necessary formed in Michigan last year to help protect racial preferences in admissions. Their tactics are spelled out in their name.

-The campus left have been the active censors for the last several decades with speech codes.

Is it really the “right-wing” who adopts the “any means necessary” approach to advance their views? No, it’s the left.

Unapoletically Tedious, Math teacher, at 10:25 am EST on November 7, 2007

This Isn’t a New Message for Anne Neal or ACTA

The following is a direct quote from Anne Neal’s remarks at the University of Illinois Foundation’s conference launching the Academy on Capitalism and Limited Government Fund:

“It’s worth underscoring: academic programs are for open-minded inquiry and teaching. They are not for advocacy or for research to buttress predetermined conclusions.”

Charles Mitchell, Program Director at American Council of Trustees & Alumni, at 10:56 am EST on November 7, 2007

This is Happening All Over

Recently, Virginia Tech got $1 million for the business school to promote Ayn Rand.

http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/story.php?relyear=2007&itemno=593

Matthew Gabriele, at 11:40 am EST on November 7, 2007

How tedious

These people (ACTA, Horowitz, Rush Limbaugh, LL—name your poison) have been drinking their own Kool Aid for so long they’ve lost all contact with reality in academic institutions. One is tempted to treat them as one treats all those who resort to silly attention-getting behaviors, and just ignore them. Regrettably we now inhabit a political climate in which these barbarians are listened to by policy-makers. I still find it distatsteful even to enter their strange mental world to take up their accusations. G.K. Chesterton once pointed out that crazy people have not lost their reason: a man who thinks he is Napoleon is likely to win an argument with you, bercause every piece of counter-evidence you bring up will be, for him, evidence of the cleverness of the conspiracy to conceal his true identity.

old hum prof, at 11:40 am EST on November 7, 2007

Fundamentally Inconsistent

WOW! Having been a part of the conversation in the U of I Senate, I applaud the findings of the committee, and hope this issue can be discussed and resolved. That said, it is obvious that what is “Fundamentally (and consistently) Inconsistent” is the attitude of people like Unapologetically Tenured. I quote, “Don’t be fooled for a moment: the people are not your colleagues; they are your enemies. And even if you fail to see it that way, they never will.” A clearer message of inclusivity and willingness to debate has never been seen!Go get ‘em commissar!

Kevin, Lecturer at The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, at 11:40 am EST on November 7, 2007

In that case. . .

Mr. Mitchell, I will expect to see a statement from your organization condemning the U of I “institute” because it is absolutely clear that the research conclusions will have been reached long before the first brick is laid. Even a sympathetic reading of the founding documents makes this fact astonishingly clear. Anne Neal should stop lying, and so should you.

Joseph Duemer, Professor at Clarkson University, at 12:00 pm EST on November 7, 2007

Sweden’s “State-Run Economy”

Oops! Anne Neal’s slip is showing; she missed a subtle distinction between Swedish socialism and the genuine article that most on the right conflate to advance their view.

One who didn’t is the noted socialist P.J. O’Rourke, who perspicaciously wrote in his treatise on economics, Eat the Rich: “Sweden made socialism work by not actually giving the Swedes any.”

The Swedish model is actually what most American liberals of the kind Bill O’Reilly label “far left” see as the ideal for our society: namely, a system where productive enterprises remain in private hands, with a functioning stock market. The means of producing the desired egalitarian outcomes is not through state ownership of productive enterprises, but through taxing away extreme wealth and the topmost income increments and using the revenues from those taxes to fund generous social benefit programs that deeply subsidize basic needs like housing, medical care, and child care for working parents. That may be anathema to conservatives, but it is a far cry from a “state-run economy.” It wouldn’t work WITHOUT private enterprise to generate the additional wealth the state taxes away.

MarketStEl, Freelance Writer/Editor/Public Relations Officer at formerly at Widener University, at 12:00 pm EST on November 7, 2007

Talk is Cheap

So, just to make sure I have this right, when the Academy was initially founded, Anne Neal said, “It’s worth underscoring: academic programs are for open-minded inquiry and teaching.”

Later, after the U of I faculty caught on to the one-sided nature of the Academy, Ms. Neal responded that “it goes without saying that the principle of neutrality is central to academic research.”

But what, pray tell, did she say, in her role as an Advisory Board member, when the Academy tried to enter into an “agreement [that] would have restricted funds to research designed to reflect certain points of view"? Apparently, either nothing or not enough.

Of course, to groups like ACTA, phrases such as “open-minded inquiry and teaching” are simply words meant to mollify credulous academic administrators while the culture warriors trade on the prestige of a great university to push their narrow agenda. Therefore, I guess I really don’t care what pretty phrases Ann Neal tossed around at the opening of the insitute. Words are cheap, and disingenuous words even more so.

Unapologetically Tenured, at 12:05 pm EST on November 7, 2007

Fundamedntally Flawed

L.L. is right, really. Just take a random sample at, oh, any English, Political Science or Sociolology department (to name but a few) and you’ll discover what higher ed folks think passes as diversity. It means anyone-but-a-conservative, as the Harvard study pointed out. To prove this, let’s look at all the so-called “diverse” think-tanks at instiytutions of higher ed now and see if any conservative views can be discerned at all.

Kipper, at 12:30 pm EST on November 7, 2007

IHE: just a minute!

” .. should stop lying, and so should you.”

Just a minute. Lying is a serious accusation, except when it is delivered by the inept or simple-minded.

What proof has been offered that there has been a specific case of lying? In case a definition is needed:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie

” .. an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive ..”

The bloviating use of the phrase “lying” is right up there with “Hitler,” “Nazi,” and “academic freedom.” “But as Jon Stewart noted, “let’s be clear — there was only one Hitler.” (Larry, dad-gumit, where are you, to explain perjury?)

Got the evidence of lying? Bring it on. This isn’t the grossly one-sided world of public college liberal arts.

Otherwise — go be unhappy by yourself. Making others unhappy with your unhappiness is just self-centered, annoying, and an authentic money-loser.

BTW: It is A-n-n-e. Drop one full grade for factual sloppiness; it should really be two. But holistic grading ..

L.L., at 2:10 pm EST on November 7, 2007

Free Market Scandinavia

I was very glad to see someone here note that Scandinavian nations are not socialist, but rather are free market welfare states.

The Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World Index, based on objective third-party data, ranks Scandinavian nations more highly on economic freedom than the entire developing world (Finland, Iceland, and Denmark rank very highly, Norway and Sweden somewhat lower). Finland and Iceland regulate business less than any other countries on earth; all Scandinavian countries regulate business less than the U.S. does. Scandinavia also ranks more highly on protection of property rights and rule of law than does the U.S. and the entire developing world.

The entire high tax/welfare issue is a red herring that provokes people on both sides into a senseless ideological battle. Underneath the high taxes and generous welfare state provisions, Scandinavia has an excellent free enterprise system the likes of which do not exist in any nation with GDP per capita below $10,000. If poor nations had Scandinavia’s minimal regulation, free trade, rule of law, and secure property rights, they would grow rapidly (See various studies showing correlations between increased economic freedoms and increased growth rates).

Global poverty is caused by a lack of economic freedom. If every nation on earth had been as free market as Finland for the past fifty years, there would be very little poverty (and international violence would steadily decrease as well). Hopefully this center will come into being so that the institutions needed to alleviate global poverty will become more widely known in academia.

Both sides in this debate have failed to understand the source of Scandinavian success; if they had, they could have come to agreement regarding the crucial value that such a center would add to the academic life of the university and to the betterment of humanity.

Michael Strong, CEO at FLOW, Inc., at 2:15 pm EST on November 7, 2007

It is impossible not to laugh at sudden feigned concern about ideological tests. One thing you can say about academic hypocrisy is that it is completely in your face.

JBM, at 2:45 pm EST on November 7, 2007

Teaching football in the living room

In “Push Comes to Shove", a memoir of the 1960’s student protests at Harvard, Steve Kelman compared campus self-described “revolutionaries” to people trying to learn football in their living rooms. You might break up a lot of furniture, he said, but you won’t learn much football.

Just so, Ben has asked a relevant question. If the capitalistic system is so great, wouldn’t it be wiser to learn to use it in a capitalistic institution? If you believe in free enterprise, and would like to learn or to teach it, wouldn’t you learn or teach it more effectively in a free enterprise? If you want to learn to make a profit, is it better to try to learn it from a profitable or an unprofitable organization? From whom would you rather learn how to accumulate wealth, a college professor or a billionaire?

Jack Olson, at 2:45 pm EST on November 7, 2007

LL’s Unhappiness

LL is the authority on “blovating” around here, as well as on ad hominem attacks, which he complains about when they are directed at him, then blithely engages in himself. LL is a relentless fantasist like his heroes on the right, Neal and Horowitz and the rest of the tribe, who have been lying for so long they have come to believe their own deceits.

If I have this clear, LL says that calling someone a liar is tantamount to calling them Hitler. If you need any evidence that LL is an intellectually dishonest hack, this “argument” would certainly provide it. Especially considering that the relevant quotations are provided in the article we’re discussing.

Is it a lie to say one thing & mean something else? That is clearly what Ms. Neal has done. UT has already documented the mendacity above, so I don’t need to repeat it here.

Oh, BTW, LL, I spelled Ms. Neal’s first name correctly. Points deducted for lying.

Joseph Duemer, Professor, at 2:45 pm EST on November 7, 2007

Fundamentally herring

” .. The entire high tax/welfare issue is a red herring that provokes people on both sides into a senseless ideological battle ..”

IMHO — what is the red herring is how theorists compare the U.S. with other countries which are significantly different in geography, population, racial and SES diversity, economic development history, and 200+ other v’bles.

That’s the red herring.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010829

Lou, at 8:50 pm EST on November 7, 2007

Why did Chancellor agree to this?

Several unanswered question remain: Why did UIUC Chancellor Richard Herman signed such a flawed Agreement on behalf of the campus that so clearly contravenes its educational mission and principles? Secondly, why has the Agreement between the campus and the Academy only been viewed in secrecy and kept from the public. Last I knew, the University of Illinois is still a public institution subject to FOIA. Having a new Agreement is fine and may insure important considerations in the future, but what remains masked is the content and intent in the first Agreement with the university that is probably very revealing about the true objectives of the Academy and those fostering it.

Urbana, IL

Stephen Kaufman, Professor Emeritus, at 10:25 am EST on November 8, 2007

I find it extremely odd that all you useful idiots (I’m taking a leap with that “useful") on the Left have nothing to contribute to this discussion but ad hominem diatribes about Rush Limbaugh, etc.

I can only hope that you are kidding when you identify yourselves as “tenured” and “prof.” Christ! Your performance here is embarassing. Here’s a free clue— you are NOT a mind-reader. Your silly notions of what secret motives and impulses lie behind Anne Neal’s opinions are nothing but made-up, self-serving crap! If you wish to participate in adult discussions, can you all leave the ad hominem attacks behind?

P.S. And no, this post is NOT an ad hominem attack, but a irritated response to bankrupt tactics of the Left these days. (Just to avoid the stupid “look who’s talking about ad hominem...” rejoinder I’m sure is coming.)

gotinhimmel, A strange fact, at 8:10 pm EST on November 8, 2007

Follow the money

Millions for Women’s Studies, millions for Critical Studies of Race, and not! one! cent! for capitalism. Right. You’ll not get an endowment, donation, or inheritance from me, academe. I’m saving it for libraries and museums. And not museums that think elephant dung is undeniable art, and withdrawal of government sponsorship for elephant dung is intolerable censorship.

Ellen Kuhfeld, Dr., at 8:30 pm EST on November 8, 2007

Best laugh in this piece

“The panel report imagined a situation where the American Socialist Party, citing the lack of socialists on campus”

Hahahahaha!

Mike G, at 9:10 pm EST on November 8, 2007

‘Promoting’ Rand at VT?

Mr. Gabriele, I had a moment and read the Virginia Tech article you link. You have really, really misrepresented it. What in the world did you hope to gain by this? Why provide the link when it refutes what you say?

comatus, at 5:20 am EST on November 9, 2007

Reply to gotinhimmel

Yep, real professor (full), real tenure, real advanced degree. Drives you crazy, doesn’t it?

And documenting a lie is not an ad hominem, no matter how uncomfortable it makes the liars & those who defend the liars.

Joseph Duemer, Professor at Clarkson University, at 9:05 am EST on November 9, 2007

It is interesting that accepting Capitalism on campus, and designing specific research to investigate it can put such a bee in the bonnet in so many marxist neo-McCarthy professors. If you have a counter theory, set up your own research institution and prove them wrong. I suppose that you can be forgiven for thinking that already existed, your University. If it is “fundamentally Inconsistent” to accept the that Capitalism has brought more wealth and prosperity to humanity than any other economic system, then the same “fundamentally Inconsistent” flaw may be true to accept that Evolution is the best theory to explain the origins of life on earth.We had better start teaching whatever the religious wackos think, otherwise the biology department is, as another poster put it, “establishes ground rules clearly intended to squelch intellectual diversity.”

or better, “Don’t be fooled for a moment: the people are not your colleagues; they are your enemies. And even if you fail to see it that way, they never will.”

Talk about diversity.

patrick, at 10:20 am EST on November 9, 2007

Reply to Patrick

“Capitalism” is already taught on college campuses across the country in econ departments & biz schools at colleges & universities of every size, shape & kind. There is nothing fundamentally inconsistent with academic values in that, as you say that we “marxist” academics are claiming. You misunderstand the objection. What is fundamentally inconsistent is establishing a research institute in which the conclusions of the research are predetermined rather than the result of, you know, research.

By the way, if this new institute is on the up & up, why all the secrecy & doubletalk from its backers?

Joseph Duemer, at 10:45 am EST on November 9, 2007

Re: Unapoletically (sic) Tedious

Regarding your comment about “last year” a group at UMich forming called “By Any Means Necessary,” to defend UMich’s former affirmative action policies, I have to say as a UMich alumnus that unfortunately, they weren’t formed last year. BAMN goes back at least as far as the 1998-99 school year, as their past activities were the subject of many articles in the Daily when I arrived on campus in August of ‘99.

Reggie Starling, at 11:50 am EST on November 9, 2007

Joseph

I don’t think the creation of this institute is so inconsistent with academic values at all. Rather it is the panel that violets it. Maybe I misunderstand the objective of the institute, and they are just planning on planting a flag in the middle of campus saying, “Capitalism is great.”

I rather thought that it was more in line with doing actual research within in the realm of Capitalism. There isn’t just one vein of capitalistic economic thought. There is Classical liberalism, Conservative liberalism, libertarianism, neoliberalism, ordoliberalism, etc.. I mean Adam Smith took multiple volumes and thousands of pages and many contradictions to explain his thoughts, then add two more centuries of thought. What I do have a problem with, and think is a violation of academic freedom, is a small or even large group of faculty trying to prevent the creation of a research institute because it either violates there political truths; or more likely, violates their petty fiefdom they have created. That is what I read into the panel’s finding that, “Decisions about who receives funds for academic work — whether research or teaching — “lie at the core of the university’s functions” and need to be made by professors, the panel said.

To me that sounds like a great way to protect your own department, and funds. Looking at this with some intellectual honesty, how can the you truly believe in that this panel could possible make an objective decision. Which does the faculty want, academic freedom, or to control the mechanism of academic freedom? Kind of sounds like, research what you want, it just has to be by my rules.

Mr. Orwell, call your office.

At the heart of it, from my experience through my advanced degree, the academy today is just about the most petty environment I have ever had the misfortune to experience. Sitting in Thesis reviews with two professors who use their criticism of the project as a vehicle to advance their long standing personal arguments out on each other, all the while leaving the student in the dustbin. I just see this as a way to control, or protect their kingdom, and either by design or result, control academic thought.

patrick, at 12:30 pm EST on November 9, 2007

I find it odd how many of you academic Lefties here are putting all your eggs in the “Sweden is socialist, and its great!” line of argument.

Do any of you actually know anything about Sweden and its economic system? Does anyone (outside of Sweden) know, or even care to know, anything about the place? I’ll bet if you polled the world 99.999% of people would say “huh? Where?” All I know is that it is a tiny, racially homogeneous, geographically and culturally isolated nation that scarcely participates at all on the world stage. Oh... and some people think it’s socialist, and that we should all slavishly follow its example. Afterall, if it works in Sweden, it HÅS to work everywhere!

If that’s the best argument for socialism, god help us!

holyroller, It’s raining Sweden!, at 1:10 pm EST on November 9, 2007

“At the heart of it, from my experience”

Which are we, “marxist” or “petty"? You are making wildly broad general accusations about all of academia based on your personal experience? That’s the kind of thing Anne Neal & David Horowitz accuse womens studies programs of doing.

From the article: “...the panel found that portions of the agreement would have restricted funds to research designed to reflect certain points of view, and that donors were given control over matters traditionally left to academics.” The panel also noted that other aspects of the proposed organization were fine, but then went on to wonder, as I do, why the agreement was kept secret. (You didn’t address that in your response.) You have over-simplified what is reported above about the panel in order to fit your ideological blueprint, which, apparently, is based on your personal grievances. Mr. Orwell, indeed.

Joseph Duemer, Professor, at 3:05 pm EST on November 9, 2007

touched a nerve J?

First, I didn’t assume that you personally were a marxist, you conceded that you are a marxist. Second, being a marxist and petty is not mutally exclusive.

Funny that you jump to the conclusion that in the observation I describe, that I was somehow harmed, or the victim, and I harbor some ill will due to it. No worry, hold no grievances, just some healthy contempt. I also didn’t accuse you of being petty. I just observed behavior that in most walks of life would be considered petty. So instead of ascribing sinister motives to people’s behavior, like secret plans to do secret research on.. gasp, capitalism. I just observe that there are pretty plainly observed campus politics at play, which probably have more to due with blocking this institute, then blind ideology.

But maybe you disagree that there are campus politics at play, and this has nothing to do with protecting power. However the quote you cite, ” and that donors were given control over matters traditionally left to academics.” Why does this How is this bad? Should NASA stop direction funding to specific research? Do you define secret, not consulting THE FACULTY? Why should someone, or some instite have to vet their research with the establishment before even doing any research, or receiving any funding from them? How does this foster the growth of new ideas?

And with that, I though this could be an intelligent exchange, but instead of meeting my argument you decide to lump my point of view, sorry I guess that is now an “ideological blueprint", with those you disagree. I call this petty, intellectually bankrupt, and also Orwellian.

If that is truly a representation of the Academy today, I don’t know why this institute would care to be affiliated with it.

patrick, at 7:25 pm EST on November 9, 2007

Wow

Um, Patrick, even if I had “conceded” that I was a “marxist” (which I’m not), you still badly misrepresented the statements from the panel that reviewed the agreement for the research institute. And now you’re telling me that it was OK to keep the agreement secret because the founders of the research institute knew in advance that their structure would offend the faculty. In your view, the faculty is persona non grata, written out of the picture. How come you right wing radicals have no problem with the idea that stockbrokers & bankers ought to have a say in the way their institutions are run, but that the faculty of universities ought to content themselves with being proles? Campus politics? Of course these can be nasty & dishonest, but do you think they are any different from the office politics of banks or Burgerkings? If so, you are sadly naive. More importantly, can you demonstrate that in this particular case that such campus politics caused the panel to reach the conclusions it did? Do you have even a single shred of evidence other than your weird personal grievances? You haven’t produced any?

You make broad generalizations about university faculty based on anecdotal evidence without showing that it is relevant to the actual; case we are discussing and then accuse me of not engaging in honest debate? Of “lumping” you with. . . I don’t know what because you don’t specify. Your intellectual dishonesty is stupefying.

Finally, you write: “If that is truly a representation of the Academy today, I don’t know why this institute would care to be affiliated with it.” Oh, but Patrick, my boy, they do want to be “affiliated” with academia. They would like to borrow a bit of our intellectual legitimacy to cover their — and your — ideological blueprint. Otherwise, my dear, there would be no controversy. Anybody can set up a think tank. The backers of this project have plenty of money, so let them do it. Nobody is stopping them. But forgive me if I and my colleagues in the Academy decline to support such bogus “research.”

Joseph Duemer, Professor, at 9:15 pm EST on November 9, 2007

Yes, Alexander Hamilton Center Redux

Let me get this straight: “The panel found” that “other kinds of research agendas. . . unmistakably signal an ideological predisposition or presupposition.”

Now please allow the U of Illinois’ own catalogue to speak:"The African American Studies and Research Program (AASRP) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign was born out of student protest more than thirty years ago. African American students and faculty encountered a hostile environment dominated by racial exclusion, Eurocentric knowledge, and a white supremacist culture.”

Women’s Studies:• “Foster institutional change within and outside the university by integrating work by and about women and gender into existing academic disciplines, providing individuals with the means to integrate feminist theory into their professional work and everyday lives, and supporting social and cultural changes that improve the lives of women and men”

At some point the gross hypocrisy and gumby-like contortions of these weak-kneed, time-servers becomes more humorous than depressing.

Robert Paquette, Founder, Alexander Hamilton Center, at 8:30 pm EST on November 10, 2007

Thanks, Robert. We know where you’re coming from & my fellow “marxists” & I will know who to line up against the wall when the revolution comes. Those programs in African-American studies & Womens Studies had to come into the structure of the university, had to submit their work to peer review & their budgets to approval. You may not like the scholarship or the people involved or their politics (I myself have been critical), but the fact remains that they came into the institutional culture of the university and lived by its rules and standards. The proposed institute at the University of Illinois sought to avoid & evade such institutional standards. Now, you may think that academic culture is corrupt & wrongheaded & hypocritical, but your analogy fails on empirical grounds. As I wrote to Patrick earlier in this thread, there is nothing stopping the partisans of free market capitalist piracy from setting up their own institution. If the academy is so corrupt, perhaps, they by all means ought to avoid its taint. So why is it important to attach the institute to the university? Because universities, despite the hypocritical & spittle-flecked attacks of right wing radicals, the university as an institution retains some degree of intellectual legitimacy in American society. So here’s the deal: If the Capitalist Studies Program wants to set itself up as a university department & play the university game, bring it on, baby! But that is not what is being proposed, obviously, & that is why the supporters of the initiative have had to lie about it. We don’t like liars in the academy, though of course we are far from perfect ourselves, either institutionally or individually. But academic culture has set up standards & habits that tend to weed out dishonesty & error over time. That seems like a pretty decent way to proceed, as opposed to the relentless propaganda of the radical right’s noise machine.

Joseph Duemer, Professor at Cklarkson University, at 8:05 am EST on November 11, 2007

Professor Duemer: 1. I have no idea if you are a “marxist” or not, but if the shoe fits wear it. My postgraduate mentors were both Marxists (at the time), and I treasure the education I received from them. 2. On the question of rules and standards, read Calhoun on the problem of majority factions. Touch a sacred-cow activist program, see how long it would take before the dean or president gets a vote of no confidence from the faculty. The fate of Larry Summers had a ripple effect on every campus. 3. The founders of the AHC, did set up their own program, now called the AHI (see www.theahi.org) because Hamilton’s administration, after reneging on a signed agreement, a)attempted to trademark the name Alexander Hamilton Center b) using language lifted from a charter that was not its own,and c)declaring under oath that they knew of no competing claims on the name. How’s that for a trifecta!

Robert Paquette, at 11:25 am EST on November 11, 2007

“Thanks, Robert. We know where you’re coming from & my fellow “marxists” & I will know who to line up against the wall when the revolution comes.”

“Revolution” fantasies of tenured faculty are just plain funny. Delusions of grandeur and miles-over-the-top rhetoric go hand in glove. So this wall you mention — it presumably rings the quad?

JBM, at 4:15 pm EST on November 11, 2007

On the other hand, an inability to read ironic intent isn’t funny, it just reveals marginal literacy.

Joseph Duemer, at 7:25 pm EST on November 11, 2007

Jobs Related to 'Fundamentally Inconsistent' With University Values

or search for jobs directly.

Constituent Development Coordinator
University of Idaho

Constituent Development Coordinator College of Engineering Open for Recruitment: June 11, 2008 — Open until further notice ... see job

Assistant or Associate Academic Advisor
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Director of Presidential Affairs and Board Relations
National-Louis University

Today, NLU serves more than 12,000 students from five Chicago area campuses, in addition to campuses in three states and ... see job

Vice President for Institutional Advancement
CUNY-LaGuardia Community College

The Vice President for Institutional Advancement is responsible for leading all efforts to advance the college with external ... see job

Administrative Officer (112101)
Northeastern University

Northeastern University, founded in 1898 and located in Boston, is a private research university that is a leader in ... see job

Senior Director of Marketing — University Advancement
University of Idaho

Open for Recruitment: July 10, 2008 — Open until further notice Announcement #: 15830076441 Salary Range: Depending on ... see job

Sr. Director of Development — College of Agriculture, Forestry and Life Sciences
Clemson University

Clemson University is accepting applications for a Sr. Director of Development-CAFLS. see job

Department Chairperson, Engineering — 346801
Miami Dade College

Job Description: The Department Chairperson provides academic leadership to the Engineering Department and serves as an ... see job

Holocaust Awareness Institute Interim Coordinator
University of Denver

Job Summary: This position will provide interim management and program-coordination leadership for ... see job

Director of Annual Giving
Sarah Lawrence College

Sarah Lawrence College, a small co-educational liberal arts college, characterized by a tradition of innovation in education, ... see job