As stated before

“The survey shows that nearly 90 percent of the public — across all age groups, party identification, gender, ideology, religion, ethnicity, and state location — have a lot or some confidence in higher education”

As stated before, I find it fascinating that for some reason, the AAUP study has not been made available to the public (only secondhand comments about it have been posted here). Until people can see exactly what questions were asked and the demographic sampling used in the AAUP poll, it is impossible to evaluate its results. It could be a push poll for all we know.

JBM, at 7:10 am EDT on June 9, 2006

Public Opinion

“The survey shows that nearly 90 percent of the public — across all age groups, party identification, gender, ideology, religion, ethnicity, and state location — have a lot or some confidence in higher education”

I think it is important in this context to point out that other studies have noted that the ‘public’ have very little idea of what is going on in higher education. Thus, the suggestion that there is great support for academics is tenuous at best. (see, for example “Declining by Degrees", Hersch, et al.)

Dr. K. C. Hampson, at 8:10 am EDT on June 9, 2006

Bowen’s article on ACTA

I find Mr. Bowen’s writing so obviously slanted that it reminds me of reading editorials in the New York Times. Read: (every other word is suspect)

Kerry Evans, at 8:35 am EDT on June 9, 2006

Ultraconservitism

I admit that I have not read this report, only Mr. Bowen’s article her. Slanted as the story may be, I find the report appalling if it indeed carries the following quotes “such courses betray an unacceptable “political stance.”” “(ACTA) objects to courses that, in one example, stipulate that students “respect cultures and traditions that are not their own”; and it excoriates all courses dealing with “justice,” whether environmental, social, or racial.”

I am dumfounded at this. It hurts me deep in the pit of my stomach. I admit that I am liberal in thought but this is ultraconservitism at its worst.

The academy has been long the place in which traditional thought is challenged and students are not only dished out facts to regurgitate on an exam but also taught to think on their own. Students are not forced to adopt any one proffessors views and in fact are encouraged to think and to counter these views in a logical and educational manor. We are not churning out minions of Ward Churchill’s. Neither, though, should we be churning out groups of zombied unltra conservatives all marching in a neat little row to the beat of the master’s drum. All zombies who can spout facts with the best of them but unable to think for themselves. It reminds me of Pink Floyd’s, “The Wall.”

We in the academy must stand up to this line of thinking. Not only for the future of the academy but for the future of our nation and all mankind.

DS, at 10:40 am EDT on June 9, 2006

Eismeier has got it exactly right, and the trustees of many institutions would do well to fully consider his point in the context of their governance and policies.

The increasing polemics and politicization of the educational process and environment is simply a failing of the governance process. Trustees are either unaware the trend, supportive of it, or have made an affirmative decision that it’s not an issue for their campus or term of service.

If the issue isn’t addressed by effective governance, the cure will be worse than the disease. Congress or state legislators will get involved in the public sector and no doubt produce something ill conceived. In the private sector, alumni, fed up with having tuition and alumni monies put to political purpose, will walk. Perhaps there are enough deep pockets to offset the migration of the many, but I suspect not. It’s a hypothesis one doesn’t want to test.

Mr. Bowen asserts as matter of governance that “faculty professionals alone are qualified to determine curriculum” but I think consumers of educational product, myself included, and those who fund it, have a problem reconciling that position with the process that produces the likes of a Ward Churchill or Susan Rosenberg or other follies of the Kirkland Project.

Those who wish to preserve academic freedom, and I do, would do well to incorporate Neal’s concept of responsibility and Eismeier’s invocation of Shils. Both are necessary elements of the fix if you want ‘buy in’ from a skeptical public.

Hunter BrownHamilton College, ‘76

hb, at 10:40 am EDT on June 9, 2006

Inconvenient fact

ACTA .. “never mention the many religious institutions of higher ed with their blatant and often conservative biases ..”

Inconvenient fact: % of colleges that are publicly-funded, taxpayer-owned — more than 80%.

When the boat is sinking, you repair the big hole, first. Or prepare for swimming.

A.D., at 1:35 pm EDT on June 9, 2006

Of course Ward is not alone. In fact, he is common enough to be a type. The first time I saw his picture on his department’s website I knew exactly who I was looking at — Jack Gladney, the shallow, egotistical professorial archetype from DeLillo’s White Noise. The dark glasses solidify the connection. Wait a minute...are those glasses another form of Churchill’s plagiarism?

roger, at 1:35 pm EDT on June 9, 2006

on being political

I wish I had time to dig up more information on this, but what’s the problem with challenging the orthodoxy and being politically unpopular? If the orthodoxy is right, then it can stand the so-called attacks by liberal professors. Frankly, when I was at an AAUP institution, they weren’t activist enough for me. I take my cue from AIDS Activist group ACT-UP!: Silence = Death. If we support the orthodoxy we are being just as political as if we work against it. To decry one as being political is itself political hogwash. I say let the Cheneys and Bowens of the world slog it out in the classroom, after they earn the credentials and get the job.

bradley, Instructor at Spokane Falls CC, at 2:05 pm EDT on June 9, 2006

Reason for complacency, I guess.

I’ve read the items used on the AAUP survey, and would probably answer most of them the way the majority seems to have done. So the conclusion that there are “no worries” regarding the ideological bias within the professoriate isn’t the lesson I’d take away from the results of that survey. My take would be that traditional Lockean values like liberty, and individual freedom/responsibility remain at the core of their outlook. And I’d say that their natural generosity and decency leads them to extend the same rights they value for themselves to the professoriate. However, I think most of these people would be shocked to find that a sizable minority in academe would not be willing to reciprocate, and do not hold those values as dearly as do the public. Rather, the values this minority holds dear are more closely associated with the Frankfurt School and Western Marxism. AAUP should definitely take heart that Americans continue to have confidence in Academe, but they should not read that as an endorsement for complacency, which is how I interpret Dr. Bowlen’s piece. Moreover, if I were a member of the emancipated public outside academe I might tend to view statement that suggest only racists and village dunces are likely to ever view academe with distrust as just a tad defensive. (OK, we all know “conservative” isn’t really a dirty word like “racist,” right? And not all the uneducated are dunces. I apologize for the hyperbole.)

So even though I’m with the majority on most of the survey questions, because they seem worded rather cannily to appeal to the “inner Locke) I still think the place we’re most likely to find a Ward Churchill or a Bernardine Dohrn is in one of our esteemed colleges or universities. Where else would they go to get that kind of money? So if you don’t think that’s a problem, fine. We’ll agree to disagree. Just sit back in the easy chair and sip a nice cool beverage.

Scott Talkington, at 3:05 pm EDT on June 9, 2006

A Peanut Gallery?

I agree with Unapologetically Tenured. You can’t help but wonder why some readers so eagerly pounce on almost every article as another example of how bad the liberal academy is. Perhaps they have an ax to grind — anonymously, of course.

A neutral observer would be forgiven, I think, for judging them to be a peanut gallery.

Timothy Shortell, Associate Professor at Brooklyn College, CUNY, at 3:05 pm EDT on June 9, 2006

There is an article by Scott Jaschik “Soft Support for Tenure” in today’s (June 9) issue of IHE that discusses this. I have some problems with the AAUP’s report and poll (see my comments on that piece), but Jaschik’s is a reasonable article on the subject. This piece is not.

math prof, at 4:45 pm EDT on June 9, 2006

political spectrum

It seems in our right-skewed national worldview that anyone presenting the Left’s position on a variety of issues over the course of history is viewed as “radical.” This is the point of view of people who are threatened by disagreement. It says more about a desperate need for control than it does about a reasoned debate.

And regarding Ward Churchill — he has associated himself with a group of people that were decimated by the imperial expansion of the United States. He’s angry about it. So what? People should learn that there are viewpoints other than those espoused by Fox News and their ilk — that business-as-usual comes at a price to innocents.

I grew up in a rural, conservative area of the United States and, luckily, I was nevertheless introduced to the phenomena of Freedom of Speech, Statesmanship, and healthy debate. The rise of the right-wing punditry demonizes all of these requirements of a free society. They will not succeed — the only question is how big of a mess they’ll make before they have the reigns of power taken away from them.

Doug Harvey, Adjunct Professor of History, at 8:45 pm EDT on June 9, 2006

More on ACTA report

I can’t believe that anyone familiar with university life today can seriously contend that there isn’t a substantial bias that affects most aspects of academic life.

I spent three years on a committee recommending possible graduation speakers, watched negotiations over hiring, reviewed dozens of program proposals, participated in discussions about anti-harassment codes, observed how faculty are chosen to determine general education requirements and who gets to be influential in strategic planning.

I have witnessed the growth of a whole diversity industry within universities that includes advocacy programs, special centers, funding for conferences, diversity seminars and an ever enlarging staff of administrators devoted to promoting diversity and multiculturalism.

While it is of course true that race, gender, class, sexuality and ethnicity are legitimate subjects of inquiry, could anyone reasonably believe that these subjects are discussed in the classes mentioned in the ACTA report with the same kind of objectivity one discusses chemistry or the history of ancient Greece. Check out the reading list in these courses and see for yourself whether the teachers are seriously presenting anything like an objective view of these topics.

It is my experience that the people who are most vocal about talking about race, gender and sexuality are the least open to the ideas of people who disagree with them. On college campuses it is the least open-minded colleagues who have been given a franchise to define these subjects through the curriculem, through hiring, and through extra-curricular activities.

For those people who are offended by the ACTA report I would ask them to take a look at their own views and see if their objections are because they disagree with ACTA’s claims or simply object to the views of conservatives that ACTA claims are being short-changed.

Jonathan Cohen, Professor of Mathematics at DePaul University, at 8:45 pm EDT on June 9, 2006

unapologetically critical

“Unapologetically Tenured” wrote:

“OK, here’s what I don’t get. I’ve noticed that a lot of the people commenting on this site quite obviously despise the academy and most of the tenured professoriate. So why are they here, and why are they so obsessed with us? I’ve gotta tell you, if the mere thought of tenured professors drove me into a wild-eyed, red-faced, frothing-at-the-mouth rage, I think I’d probably avoid websites with names like ‘Inside Higher Ed’. I’m just saying...”

First, it’s too early in the morning for me to get all frothy about anything. I do check in on “Inside Higher Ed” from time to time. I’ve posted on here a few times. This morning I just wanted to make sure my connection was working before trying to upload a file to my website, and I’d already looked at my favorite sites, so I clicked on this one.

Secondly, I absolutely do *not* “despise the academy and most of the tenured professoriate.” I despise most of the people who are running our universities and I despise a minority of the professoriate.

Seriously, why is it wrong for a mere citizen, with no special status, to be concerned with a major institution that might very well have more influence on the future of our society than any other? I worked at the University of Michigan for a while about twenty years ago and I got a good look at the screwball things going on at that place. I’ve been very concerned with academic issues ever since. I’ve written about them extensively in my web log.

Let me pose a question to the academic lefties here: If you are doing such a great job of cultivating the intelligence and critical thinking skills of our citizens, then why are we now in the middle of a pointless war? There really is an “intelligence failure” here, and it is partly your fault. I see a strong parallel between the b.s. that the Bush administration used to get the war it wanted and the b.s. that administrators at the University of Michigan used to get the court decision they wanted. If students were really learning to recognize b.s. for what it is, there would be trouble at the top. Best not teach them!

Speaking of U of M, they have all kinds of initiatives designed to get students “engaged” in political and social issues. I’m engaged right here. Why, Mr. or Ms. “Unapologetically Tenured,” do you have a problem with this?

larry k, right wing blogger, at 3:45 pm EDT on June 12, 2006

Four Things …

Truthfully, I wish I had a life … but I’m stuck here on the Kailua Kona coast for six weeks this summer with nothing better to do than read, write, contemplate the demiurge, and play a lot of tennis. My only responsibilities are feeding the cat and watching the sun sets.

First, I read RGS’s complaint that this particular article and the subsequent comments constituted a defense of or an apology for Ward Churchill’s behavior and “scholarship.” So, not having a life, I re-read the whole damned thing … and in the 6,000+ words, the only statement even remotely defending Churchill is Doug Harvey’s …

“And regarding Ward Churchill — he has associated himself with a group of people that were decimated by the imperial expansion of the United States. He’s angry about it. So what? People should learn that there are viewpoints other than those espoused by Fox News and their ilk — that business-as-usual comes at a price to innocents.”

All I can say is that RGS must do his reading with a very, very restrictive set of blinders.

Second, I decided to bite the bullet and read the ACTA report … proof beyond a doubt that I really don’t have a life. Man, what a blast. Unless I’m mistaken, it proves nothing more than there are lots of folks in higher ed these days doing a lot of really weird things. By that I mean these folks must be thinking things, formulating ideas, and participating in discussions I would not even have imagined. I’ll have to admit that were I an undergraduate again, I would not be inclined to take many of the courses in the ACTA list … and both of my sons, recent graduates of the University of Michigan, managed to spend a total of eleven years there without taking a single course of that nature. On the other hand, I was not scandalized by what I saw.

I imagine market forces are at play here, and these courses live or die in the basis of enrollment figures (student interest) … and that strikes me as being precisely how a community of scholars should work. Just for the Hell of it, I visited the Swarthmore College web-site to check on their courses in the ACTA list. In the English Literature Department I discovered (1) a remarkably interesting curriculum, (2) a wonderful likeness of the Cherokee scholar Sequoyah, (3) a group photograph of a very normal-looking collection of faculty, none of whom reminded me of Ward Churchill, and (4) the fact that “Legal Fictions in America” is not a required course. In other words, Swarthmore is not dragging its English Literature majors into the classroom, chaining them to the desk, and making them take notes in that apparently mind-altering class. The students choose to do it on their own.

Then I visited the Political Science Department to find the condemned “Public Service, Community Organization, and Social Change. Unfortunately, it was nowhere to be found … perhaps the department is hiding it from public view. What I did find was (1) a very extensive curriculum that seemed to me to be “very mainstream,” a quite standard set of requirements for their majors, (3) a very normal looking faculty (although too many did not have personal web-sites), and (4) too many in my view (100%) with Ph.D.s from top-five political science programs.

I’ve got a tennis match an hour from now, so I can’t conduct this sort of “research” for all of the courses in the ACTA list — the ones that apparently PROVE a multitude of Ward Churchills are dominating the academic scene and corrupting the minds of our children, but I’d wager — and give significant odds — that I’d find pretty much the same thing at Carleton, Williams, Amherst, Michigan, Berkeley … i.e., at all of the schools in their list.

Third, please know that I personally believe that with $5 and the professional or intellectual support of AAUP, one can purchase a high-calorie, over-priced cup of coffee and froth at Starbucks. It frightens me sometimes — and humors me at others — that any decision-making or action-taking in higher education in this country is in anyway affected by AAUP, ACTA, or U.S. News and World Report. My God, how insane is it that an entity whose importance to absolutely everything that is central to our way of life is running this way and that in response to these organizations. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

Fourth (and finally), how is it that all of these ACTA folks — presumably trustees at or alumni of the very exceptional colleges and universities that, according to them, are now inundated with Ward Churchill look-a-likes — have turned out to be such interesting, intellectually concerned, and well balanced citizens themselves. How did they escape the ubiquitous Ward Churchills of academe and become the exceptional individuals they are … ready and eager to help the rest of us see the error of our ways. Perhaps they will favor us with yet another report describing that process.

But, for me, it will have to be later … I’m off to tennis.

RWH, at 6:20 pm EDT on June 14, 2006

Well, That Didn’t Tale Long

I see that the ACTA blog has already posted an entry gloating about the apparent fate of Ward Churchill and favoring readers with the organization’s latest press release on the subject. The press release is rather masterful in its effort to associate the Colorado committee’s narrowly drawn recommendations with ACTA’s activist right-wing agenda.

The latest bit of clumsy verbal jujitsu comes, not surprisingly, from ACTA president Anne Neal, who opines, “What is truly remarkable is the committee’s call for broader reform, which is needed not just at CU but nationwide. The reason: Too many on our faculties are, like Churchill, propagandists first and professors second.”

Of course, the Colorado report said absolutely NOTHING about whether Churchill or any other faculty are “propagandists". The committee’s recommendations are appropriately silent on the ideology of faculty members or their right to adopt whatever pedagogical style they think is best for fostering student learning and engagement.

The Colorado committee makes only the following recommendations, other than those specific to the Churchill case (I am summarizing below, rather than quoting directly):

1. Be more vigilant in checking for and investigating academic misconduct such as plagiarism and data falsification.

2. Make all tenure and promotion cases go through normal channels and procedures.

3. Repair and restore the academic reputation of the Department of Ethnic Studies. (Funny that ACTA never mentioned that one in their press release or on their blog.)

4. Uphold academic freedom.

So there you have it. I may not like the due process implications of the Churchill case, but I have no problem at all with the Colorado committee’s recommendation, which I see, if anything, as a repudiation of the attempt by groups like ACTA to shift the focus from Churchill’s misconduct to his politics.

But the coup de grace is delivered by the ACTA blogger, who, after chiding “those who continue to confuse ACTA’s work with the work of advocating outside regulation of colleges and universities", adds the following chilling words:

“ACTA’s work is in fact devoted to helping colleges and universities ensure that they continue to enjoy—and to deserve—the privileges of academic freedom and self-governance”

And how does one go about “deserving” academic freedom? The blogger doesn’t say, though the answer isn’t hard to infer from ACTA’s various publications and blog entries. To quote a famous traffic sign, “Keep Right".

As for the claim that ACTA is uninterested in outside regulation of the academy, one simply has to wonder why they keep sending out press releases and why their leaders choose to testify before legislative committees and appear on national cable television programs.

At least Churchill, for all his myriad other failings, was up front about his ideological agenda.

Unapologetically Tenured, at 9:30 am EDT on June 15, 2006