Academic administration

Addressing the New Majority: Modern Approaches for Nontraditional Students

Tue, 11/14/2017


Denver , Colorado
United States


Sat, 03/10/2018 to Tue, 03/13/2018


901 Massachusetts Avenue NW Marriott Marquis Washington, DC
Washington , District Of Columbia 20001
United States

Student UX (User Experience): A Network for Success

Sun, 04/08/2018 to Tue, 04/10/2018


Luskin Conference Center, UCLA 425 Westwood Plaza
Los Angeles , California 90095
United States

Why universities should not crack down on free speech (essay)

Drexel University has followed Trinity College in Connecticut and others down the dead end of suspending a tenured faculty member -- this time, George Ciccariello-Maher -- for extramural speech. The term they used was “administrative leave” and the rationale was that his presence on the campus “poses a significant public safety risk to the Drexel University community.” The American Association of University Professors notified Drexel’s provost that it regards this as a suspension that did not comply with due process standards. Ciccariello-Maher remains in limbo, being paid but prevented from teaching his courses.

In addition to its negative impact on this professor and his students, the suspension makes things worse for campus debates and for campuses themselves. Here’s a quick scorecard, followed by an analysis of the larger context.

Academic freedom? Drexel managers didn’t defend it. They acted as though it is subject to unilateral administrative limits, which will further encourage internet trolls to call for its restriction.

Safety? Faculty suspension doesn’t increase anyone’s safety, including Ciccariello-Maher’s. Drexel has now made him look like a more legitimate target by putting him in the wrong.

Satisfying the volatile right? This will seem to them like a slap on the wrist, which will egg them on.

Getting closure on the controversy? The suspension of a tenured faculty member made Ciccariello-Maher’s tweets into national news.

Drexel’s leaders were most likely engaging in risk management and brand management. They failed on both counts. If there is an actual danger to some person or group’s physical safety, then officials should call in the police or other investigators. The blanket banning of a professor from the classroom doesn’t increase campus safety.

Similarly, Drexel officials didn’t protect but exposed their brand to Ciccariello-Maher’s tweets by suspending him. It would have been smarter to separate his tweets from their brand by identifying them as “extramural speech.” They could have invoked the AAUP’s guidelines covering such cases, in which a professor expresses an “opinion as a citizen.” The guideline states that such expression “cannot constitute grounds for dismissal unless it clearly demonstrates the faculty member’s unfitness to serve.” That in turn can only be found through a due-process inquiry by academe’s version of a jury of one’s peers, a faculty committee. Drexel would then have said, “Twitter is a medium of ‘extramural speech,’ in which everyone sounds off on all sorts of things. Faculty may use social media to make expert comments or to comment as nonexpert citizens. We ignore our personnel’s tweets even when we think they are wrong, offensive or stupid. The only exceptions are when an utterance violates a law or poses a clear threat. (And here is our list of clearly defined threats.)”

This would have protected the university and the threatened professor by making sure the public knew their professor was very much in the university fold. The university’s failure to do this -- to stick up for one of its own -- brings me to the larger context.

As someone who studies public narratives about universities, I’m concerned that the increasing focus on risk and brand has blinded senior managers to the country’s still-dominant narrative about colleges. When they suspend faculty members at Drexel and Trinity, or when they disavow a faculty member even when he is being threatened with racist violence, as Texas A&M University President Michael K. Young did with Tommy Curry, they confirm a 50-year-old right-wing script that says the campus left is fundamentally opposed to freedom, and yet weak liberal administrators let them run wild. By suspending Ciccariello-Maher, Drexel confirmed this narrative’s assertion that, like all campuses, theirs offers safe haven to a dangerous leftist who merely pretends to be a high-quality scholar.

In its modern form, the narrative owes much to Ronald Reagan while he was running for governor of California in 1966. Reagan realized he couldn’t run against the great builder of public infrastructure, the Democratic incumbent Pat Brown. He also couldn’t take on the black civil rights movement directly. Instead, he attacked both the Great Society and social movements through a soft target of convenience -- the students that University of California, Berkeley, officials failed to control. Reagan developed the story line in which students -- described as drug-taking ingrates -- were wreaking havoc because their liberal minders, Clark Kerr and his administration, were too weak to take command. Reagan turned liberal administrators into the human embodiments of a “leadership gap.”

His terms remain in play today. Reagan claimed that students were just behaving badly, not exercising legitimate freedoms grounded in political reason. Radicals were victimizing normal students who wanted to get an education, just as intolerant leftists supposedly victimize conservative students today. Reagan’s label was “so-called free speech advocates who in truth have no appreciation for freedom.” His cure was that “the ringleaders should be taken by the scruff of the neck and thrown out of the university once and for all.”

The right pushes hardest on this story line when it feels more than normally threatened by civil rights movements. This usually happens when white moderates start rallying around a racial cause they had formerly ignored. That was the case with black civil rights in the 1960s. It was the case in the late 1980s, when the right, seeing the country tire of Reagan’s presidential crusades, which looked less noble during the Iran-Contra hearings, seized on “political correctness” as a blanket repudiation of social justice discourse, especially that which called for funding for HIV research in the context of gay rights and for intersectional racial justice, instanced by black law professor Anita Hill’s attempt to raise the issue of sexual harassment against black Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. The narrative of liberals not curbing their leftists was kept alive during the 1990s by media stars like Rush Limbaugh, who popularized terms like “feminazi” to define leftists and liberals as anti-liberty.

The right clearly feels threatened again today. Black Lives Matter put police killings of black people on the national agenda, DACA activism did the same for young undocumented residents, and college campuses in red states like Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee expressed solidarity with both. In reaction to Donald Trump’s election in November 2016, universities emerged, for a few weeks, as independent keepers of the country’s moral conscience. Many college presidents announced programs to support the civil liberties of DACA students, Muslims and others deliberately targeted by Trump’s campaign. Had universities been able to seize the moral high ground and cast themselves as heroic resistors of a coming tyranny, it would have deprived the right of a major element of their successful post-’60s electoral strategy of relabeling social progress as liberal college snobbery.

Luckily for them, they soon found the radical scapegoats that their traditional narrative needs. There were the black bloc protesters at the Feb. 1 appearance of professional agitator Milo Yiannopoulos at UC Berkeley. A month later came the protest by Middlebury College students of a Charles Murray lecture. The protest induced officials to move Murray to another location, where he was interviewed and live-streamed back to the original auditorium. Afterward, an attack by protesters, including eight masked people, injured the interviewer, a Middlebury faculty member. The butterfly effect of these tiny groups shifted the jet stream back to its normal track: Reagan’s campus narrative again controlled the coverage.

But what allowed small, isolated events to revive this tale of rampant college radicals and its powerful framing effects? Obviously the news media’s magnification effect played a major role. But so did the failure of liberal commentators to reject, completely and categorically, the Reagan narrative.

In fact, many simply channeled Reagan himself. Yale law professor and novelist Stephen L. Carter, writing in Bloomberg, said that Middlebury-style “down shouters will go on behaving deplorably and reminding the rest of us that the true harbinger of an authoritarian future lives not in the White House but in the groves of academe.” Fareed Zakaria asserted on his CNN program in May, “American universities these days seem committed to every kind of diversity, except intellectual diversity. Conservative voices and views, already a besieged minority, are being silenced entirely … There is also an anti-intellectualism on the left, an attitude of self-righteousness that says we are so pure, we’re so morally superior, we cannot bear to hear an idea with which we disagree.” Historian Jill Lepore used her space in The New Yorker to argue, via a cherry-picked series of scattered examples, that today’s controversies are driven by a “tragedy of betrayals” in which, from the 1970s on, “the left’s commitment to free speech began to unravel.”

These false claims echoed and thus confirmed the right-wing narrative that the nation’s campuses were not the solution but the problem. By spring, media common sense was once again that administrators were failing to prevent their coddled, unruly students from making war on American freedoms.

This buried the real story behind today’s student protests (and most strong social media statements by faculty members). They were virtually all conducted in the name of the civil rights of groups who were still subjected to unequal treatment, including black, undocumented, Muslim and transgender people. The protests were fueled by reactions to a U.S. president who promised even more unequal treatment against an ever-larger number of social minorities. The rare incidents of down shouting were conducted by people who felt that their previous effects at local communication had been brushed aside (e.g., the University of Oregon).

Were they thinking less defensively, liberal pundits and administrators might create a positive narrative based on these deep campus aspirations. Universities are zones where full inclusion requires complicated, often divisive negotiations. Universities are places where the creation of knowledge requires that everyone comes to the place of inquiry with equal social standing.

They might be inspired to do this by the real lesson of ’60s campus protest: university officials who do not defend their own people undermine universities politically -- for years at a time. Officials are being cowed into doing this again. This retreat is happening at exactly the moment when Trump’s election made an opening for a new public narrative about the university to replace Reagan’s. Officials should bluntly reject the tales about bad students and professors and accept, even if they cannot affirm, the radical thinking, disruption and occasional down shouting essential to higher learning.

Universities create knowledge through conflict over the biggest issues facing society. And no institution can help society appreciate what it really does by constantly whitewashing itself.

Christopher Newfield teaches literature and American studies at University of California, Santa Barbara, and is the author of The Great Mistake: How We Wrecked Public Universities and How We Can Fix Them, just published by Johns Hopkins University Press.

Editorial Tags: 
Image Source: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 
Is this Career Advice newsletter?: 

Legislators crank up interest in community college completion

The new status quo may be more calls by state lawmakers for better completion rates and work-force outcomes.

The impact of New York's free tuition program on two community colleges

New York's new public tuition scholarship comes with a full-time enrollment requirement, which may help boost the state's community colleges.

College leaders can play a big role in helping more transfer students get to graduation (essay)

21st-Century Community Colleges

When students can transfer smoothly from community colleges to four-year institutions, students, families and taxpayers realize the benefits of incredible cost savings as well as the economic and social returns that come from earning a bachelor’s degree.

But often it is not smooth. Despite high levels of baccalaureate aspiration among community college students, transfer and baccalaureate completion rates remain critically low. Research shows that, among a nationally representative sample of students who enrolled in a two-year institution with the goal of attaining a bachelor’s degree, only 23 percent succeeded within eight years. And outcomes are worse for low-income students and underrepresented minority students (black, Latino and American Indian) -- populations that begin their education in community colleges at disproportionately high rates.

The good news is that we know we can do better. During the 2015-16 academic year, researchers from the Aspen Institute College Excellence Program and the Community College Research Center at Columbia University’s Teachers College visited six high-performing transfer partnerships -- including six two-year and eight four-year schools -- to understand how higher education can better serve undergraduate transfer students. Among these highly successful community college-university transfer partnerships, we found several common threads. Among the most important: presidents dedicated to aligning internal leadership, priorities and resources, as well as external partnerships, to improve transfer outcomes.

Internally, highly effective community college presidents set the tone on their campuses that what counts is not only associate degree completion and transfer, but baccalaureate completion. That means repeatedly speaking about the importance of transfer, often while referencing data about transfer and bachelor’s degree attainment in conversations with faculty members, staff, the cabinet and the board. It also means calling attention to the need for equitable baccalaureate attainment outcomes for all students to assure that low-income and underrepresented minority students are being well served. In the end, the presidential commitment is reflected in resource allocation: Do staff receive release time to build clear program maps? How much funding is dedicated to transfer advising?

At the four-year level, effective presidents have engaged in similar efforts but often must start by raising awareness about the importance of transfer students. Nationally, nearly half of all undergraduates who complete a four-year degree enrolled at a two-year college at some point before graduating. But on individual campuses, many faculty and staff are not aware of the prevalence of transfer students. Recognizing this, presidents (and other senior leaders) at four-year colleges and universities that have achieved strong outcomes often start by presenting data on the significant numbers of college transfer students at their institutions, disaggregated whenever possible, which creates awareness and urgency around the great responsibility they share with community colleges for bachelor’s degree attainment among transfer students.

Highly effective presidents understand that it is not enough to concern themselves with only their institution’s half of the transfer journey; they must understand and take ownership of students’ success across the entire four-year experience. They know that community colleges and universities can best serve transfer students if they jointly own the entire transfer experience through to baccalaureate attainment. Furthermore, they understand that increasing transfer student outcomes on average is inadequate; they can only attain their institutional goals by making sure that transfer student outcomes become equitable across the student population.

In the most successful cases, presidents at both two- and four-year colleges build, maintain and highlight strong relationships with the presidents at partner institutions. Through regularly scheduled meetings between presidents and provosts, announcements regarding the progress of their partnerships, and joint public appearances regarding the importance of college completion, these efforts send a signal to both campuses -- and the surrounding community -- that both institutions are dedicated to working together to achieve student success.

Whenever we present to presidents and senior leaders The Transfer Playbook, a guide that distills what we learned about highly effective transfer practices through our college visits, their next question is always how to get started. Here’s an idea: get leaders from both two- and four-year partners together to discuss data and other information about the transfer student experience in its entirety, beyond each institution’s part of the “two-plus-two” arrangement. Guiding questions for this review might include:

  • How many total credit hours do transfer students accumulate on their journey to the baccalaureate?
  • How long does it take students to complete the bachelor’s degree?
  • What is the transfer rate between the partner institutions, disaggregated by race/ethnicity and Pell status? How do the demographics of the transfer student population compare to the entering cohorts at both institutions?
  • What is the baccalaureate completion rate of transfer students, disaggregated by race/ethnicity and Pell status?
  • How much remaining eligibility do Pell students typically have when they enter the four-year college? How often do they exhaust that eligibility before completing the bachelor’s degree?
  • Are students who complete the associate degree prior to transfer earning bachelor’s degrees at higher levels than those who don’t? Does that vary by major?
  • Through transfer-student focus groups, what do students have to say about their pathway to the baccalaureate and how difficult or seamless it was for them to navigate across both institutions?

A jointly appointed cross-institutional working group can review transfer student data, examine institutional practices and policies, and identify areas where there are strengths, weaknesses and gaps within and between institutions. Reporting to the presidents with recommendations for improving the transfer student experience and strengthening the relationships between institutions allows the colleges to create a joint agenda for improving transfer success.

It’s unsurprising that leaders at many two- and four-year colleges have paid less attention to transfer student bachelor’s degree attainment than graduation rates of students who start at their colleges. After all, federal data reporting requirements and state accountability systems typically do not track baccalaureate success rates for transfer students. But making concerted efforts to improve transfer students’ baccalaureate completion rates is essential if our nation is to deliver the bachelor’s degrees that can fuel our economy. Given the rising number of traditionally underrepresented students in the United States, the majority of whom start at a community college, the talent our nation needs cannot be fully developed without better transfer outcomes. Moreover, given the cost savings associated with successful transfer, improving two- to four-year transfer represents one of the most promising scalable strategies for improving baccalaureate attainment rates nationwide, especially in an era of declining public resources.

It is time when more community colleges and four-year institutions take joint responsibility for the bachelor’s degree attainment of community college transfers. For that to happen, community college and university presidents must lead the way.

Robert Templin is president emeritus of Northern Virginia Community College, senior fellow at the Aspen Institute and professor at North Carolina State University. K. C. Deane is a doctoral student at the University of Michigan's Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education and a fellow at Public Agenda.

Image Source: 
Image Caption: 
A transfer fair at Northern Virginia Community College
Is this diversity newsletter?: 
Is this Career Advice newsletter?: 

Former CUNY official on her book about the Pathways program

Alexandra Logue, the City University of New York’s former chief academic officer, discusses her new book on Pathways, the system’s ambitious and controversial credit transfer program.

Colleges start new academic programs

Research universities partner to increase low-income student graduation

An alliance of 11 public research universities shows that sharing data, ideas and practices can help more low-income students graduate.


Subscribe to RSS - Academic administration
Back to Top