Archives for category: Higher Education
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Dana Milbank: Gaza Protestors Are Helping to Elect Trump, Who Won’t Tolerate Them

By dianeravitch
May 8, 2024 //
9

Dana Milbank wrote recently about the latest foibles of Trump: his endless verbal gaffes; his inability to stay awake at his trial in New York City; his endless lies about everything.

But the main point of his article is that the students protesting against Israel and calling Biden “Genocide Joe” are helping to elect Trump.

Trump will be far harsher towards student protestors than Biden and far closer to Netanyahu. Trump promises to use the National Guard to crack down on student protestors and to ban Muslims from entering the U.S.

He wrote that Trump:

….said he would change the law to reverse “a bias against White” people: “I think there is a definite anti-White feeling in this country and that can’t be allowed.” He walked away from his previous support for a Palestinian state, saying “I’m not sure a two-state solution anymore is going to work.” And he said he wouldn’t hesitate to use the National Guard against pro-Palestinian protesters while also leaving open the possibility of using the broader U.S. military against them.

Those last Trump positions — the restoration of white power, the rejection of a Palestinian homeland, the willingness to mobilize troops against peaceful demonstrators — show how deeply misguided those on the far left are as they protest Biden’s policies on Gaza. Their frustration with the president’s support for Israel is understandable. But in making Biden the enemy, including with chants of “Genocide Joe,” the plans to trash the Democratic National Convention in Chicago and the proliferation of vows of the “uncommitted” never to vote for Biden, they are in effect working to elect Trump. This isn’t principled protest; it’s nihilism.

They are working to help return to office an authoritarian who just last week said the neo-Nazi violence in Charlottesville was “like a peanut compared to the riots and the anti-Israel protests that are happening all over our country.” In recent months, Trump said Israel should be allowed to “finish the job” in Gaza and boasted about cutting off aid to Palestinians. And he has vowed, if elected, to reimpose his travel ban on predominantly Muslim countries and “expand it even further.”

For those student protesters too young to remember, this is the guy who led the anti-Muslim “birther” campaign against President Barack Obama; who claimed thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheered the 9/11 terrorist attacks; who said “Islam hates us” and employed several anti-Muslim bigots in his administration; who wanted to have police surveillance of U.S. mosques; who called for a “complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”; who retweeted anti-Muslim propaganda videos by a white supremacist; and who told figures such as Palestinian American Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Somali American Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) to “go back” to the “totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

So it’s entirely consistent that, in Wisconsin on Wednesday, he said that he’s “restoring the travel ban, suspending refugee admissions and keeping terrorists the hell out of our country.” He went on: “We’ve seen what happened when Europe opened their doors to jihad. Look at Paris, Look at London. They’re no longer recognizable.”
Trump, on Hannity’s show this week, called the demonstrators at Columbia “paid agitators” and “brainwashed.” At his Wisconsin rally, he condemned the “raging lunatics and Hamas sympathizers at Columbia and other colleges.” He called for authorities to “vanquish the radicals,” many of whom “come from foreign countries.”

None of this should be surprising, either, for this is the same guy who called thousands of National Guard troops to Washington and federal police to Oregon to combat racial-justice demonstrators after the George Floyd killing; who held a Bible-wielding photo op in Lafayette Square after authorities cleared a peaceful demonstration with tear gas; who, according to his own former defense secretary, suggested to military leaders that they shoot demonstrators; who calls the free press the “enemy of the American people”; who defended the “very fine people” among the Nazis in Charlottesville and who called those convicted of attacking the Capitol “hostages.”

Yet the pro-Palestinian activists, through their actions, would return the author of this ugliness to the White House. They must have been doing for the last eight years what Trump has been doing in court the last three weeks: napping.

Categories Accountability, Biden, Bigotry, Cruelty, Democracy, Disruption, Elections, Extremism, Freedom of Speech, Higher Education, Trump

Surprise! Columbia Undergraduates Choose an Israeli as President

By dianeravitch
May 4, 2024 //
35

Columbia University emerged as the national epicenter of student (and faculty) protests against Israel in its war against Hamas. William McGurney of the Wall Street Journal reported on a notable contradiction:

Meet the surprising president-elect of the student body of the School of General Studies, one of Columbia University’s four undergraduate colleges. Her name is Maya Platek. She is a proud Israeli who once worked for the Israel Defense Forces spokesperson’s unit.

Anyone watching the goings-on at the university’s Morningside Heights campus these past two weeks might easily mistake Columbia for a wholly owned subsidiary of Hamas Inc. Ms. Platek’s election throws a wrench into the protester narratives. It signals that at least some at Columbia want students to be able to walk the campus without harassment—and life to get back to normal.

“I am always willing to listen,” Ms. Platek says, “but also very good at speaking up when I think something’s wrong.”

She isn’t shy either. Ms. Platek is a member of Students Supporting Israel, a national organization whose mission is “to be a clear and confident pro-Israel voice on college campuses.” It also aims for something Columbia plainly needs: “to reassure students who oppose the demonization of the State of Israel on campus that they are not alone.”

This isn’t Ms. Platek’s first rodeo. In October, she posted a petition onChange.org seeking to remove Joseph Massad, a Columbia professor who teaches modern Arab politics and intellectual history. She directed attention to his Oct. 8 article for an online publication called the Electronic Intifada celebrating the “stunning victory” against Israel the day before.

Mr. Massad is still there, a melancholy fact several congressmen brought up during Columbia President Nemat Shafik’s grilling two weeks ago before the House Education Committee. But Ms. Platek’s petition fleshed out what people mean when they complain that Columbia tolerates antisemitism.

In a speech captured on video a few months back, Ms. Platek spoke about Columbia students and faculty who “manipulate history in order to demonize” Jews. She made clear she isn’t intimidated.

“They choose to advocate for our removal off of this campus over our nationality,’’ Ms. Platek said. “That is discrimination. They choose to regurgitate Nazi Germany’s talking points. They choose to argue that they are righteous to advocate for our death. Wake up!”

In most of America, her objections wouldn’t be controversial. At Columbia they are bracing. They are also a refreshing counterweight to the crowds chanting “Globalize the intifada!” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!”

Categories Extremism, Higher Education

Gary Smith: How to Fix Higher Education!

By dianeravitch
May 3, 2024 //
45

Gary Smith, the Fletcher Jones professor of economics at Pomona College in California, has solved the financial problems of higher education with a Swiftian “modest proposal.” Read it.

Two imminent threats to higher education are bloated bureaucracies and clever chatbots. Herewith, I humbly propose a straightforward way to solve both problems.

I will use Pomona College, where I have taught for decades, as a specific example of how easily my proposal might be implemented. In 1990, Pomona had 1,487 students, 180 tenured and tenure-track professors, and 56 administrators — deans, associate deans, assistant deans and the like, not counting clerical staff, cleaners and so on. As of 2022, the most recent year for which I have data, the number of students had increased 17 percent, to 1,740, while the number of professors had fallen to 175. The number of administrators had increased to 310, an average of 7.93 new administrators per year. Even for a college as rich as Pomona, this insatiable demand for administrators will eventually cause a budget squeeze. Happily, there is a simple solution.

Pomona’s professor-administrator ratio has plummeted from 3.21 to 0.56. A linear extrapolation of this trend gives a professor-administrator ratio of zero within this decade. This trend can be accelerated by not replacing retiring or departing professors and by offering generous incentives for voluntary departures. To maintain its current 9.94 student-faculty ratio, the college need only admit fewer students each year as the size of its faculty withers away. A notable side effect would be a boost in Pomona’s U.S. News & World Report rankings as its admissions rate approaches zero.

And just like that, the college would be rid of two nuisances at once. Administrators could do what administrators do — hold meetings, codify rules, debate policy, give and attend workshops, and organize social events — without having to deal with whiny students and grumpy professors.

The college could continue to be called a college, since the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “college” as “an institution offering instruction usually in a professional, vocational, or technical field.” There would just be a shift in focus from young students looking to delay entering the job market to administrators looking to build their résumés as they move up the administrator ladder.

Colleges do not need traditional students or professors. In fact, these are generally a drain on resources in that student revenue does not cover faculty salaries. The elimination of professors and students would greatly improve most colleges’ financial position.

In general, administrators are paid for by a college or university’s endowment. As of December, Pomona’s endowment was $2.8 billion. The annual payout from its endowment is set at between 4.5 and 5.5 percent of the average value of the endowment over the preceding five years. A 5 percent payout would provide each of 310 administrators an annual allotment of $450,000, which would easily provide generous compensation, a wide variety of benefits, and frequent travel to conferences and workshops worldwide.

There would continue to be some expenses for clerical staff, cleaners and so on, but renting out the now-empty dormitory apartments and selling the now-empty classrooms to private businesses and government agencies would almost certainly not only cover these expenses but also add to the endowment and allow the hiring of additional administrators.

The college might slightly modify its mission statement, which currently begins: “Throughout its history, Pomona College has educated students of exceptional promise.” An updated mission statement might begin: “Pomona College is dedicated to sustaining and advancing the careers of administrators of exceptional promise.”

Obviously, each institution of higher learning would use its own endowment, properties and other assets to determine the equilibrium number of administrators that could be supported.

If all colleges and universities follow my suggestion, there will be a small problem in that college students will no longer have colleges to go to. This is easily resolved by tapping the second existential threat to higher education — ChatGPT and other chatbots. All higher-education courses could be done online via bots with no need for expensive classrooms, dorm rooms and other physical facilities.

Instead of paying college costs currently approaching $100,000 a year, students could earn their degrees conveniently and inexpensively from the comfort of their own homes. Moreover, they would be given access to bots that they can use to take tests and write any essays required by the instructor bots. The students’ test answers would no doubt be perfect, and their essays would be persuasive and error-free, which would allow all students to be given A grades without having to disrupt their lives by attending classes, listening to lectures or reading. Win-win.

College and universities would be places for administrators to advance their careers. Education would be student bots interacting with instructor bots.

Everything will be for the best in this best of all possible worlds.

Categories Budget Cuts, Funding, Higher Education, Humor

Are the Campus Protests Advancing Peace in the Middle East?

By dianeravitch
May 1, 2024 //
72

As I write this, I’m watching the New York Police Department remove protestors from Hamilton Hall at Columbia University. On CNN, a retired federal judge, who was a student at the university in 1968, compares then and now. She says that the students in Hamilton Hall will likely be charged with trespassing, vandalism, maybe disorderly conduct or resisting arrest. As defined by the ACLU, the university has the right to define time, place, and manner of demonstrations and protests. Breaking into a building, smashing windows, and occupying it are not expressions of free speech.

Columbia University has about 36,000 students; possibly 500 were protesting, not all of them students.

Which brings me to the question that is the subject of this post:

“Are the campus protests advancing peace in the Middle East?”

I believe the answer is a resounding “NO!”

I believe that students should be protesting against both Israel and Hamas, for different reasons. Neither wants peace.

Students are right to condemn the Netanyahu government for its relentless bombardment of Gaza, causing tens of thousands of deaths, destroying buildings, schools, universities, homes, hospitals, mosques, and other cultural sites. Students are right to demand an end to the killing and bloodshed.

But students should recognize that Hamas is a terrorist organization that is not worthy of their acclaim. Hamas is dedicated to the eradication of the state of Israel. Both its 1998 charter and its 2017 charter make clear that its purpose is to eliminate the state of Israel:

“20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea…” (2017)

“27. A real state of Palestine is a state that has been liberated. There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital.” (2017)

Students should demand the return of all the Israeli hostages, alive and dead.

Students should call for an early election in Israel to allow Israelis to hold the Netanyahu regime accountable, first, for its failure to protect the Gaza border from invasion; second, for its brutal tactics in Gaza; and third, for Netanyahu’s failed policy of placating Hamas, passing along subsidies to it, expecting that it would abandon terrorism. At the same time, he has tried to cripple the PLO, which is the government of the West Bank Palestinians and was a party to the Oslo accords, in which the PLO and Israel agreed to begin planning for two states. Netanyahu courted Hamas and undermined the PLO to prevent any movement towards a two-state solution.

This disastrous policy came to fruition on October 7. A senior Hamas official pledged to repeat the atrocities of October 7 “again and again” until Israel is destroyed.

Both sides must eventually accept a plan to cease hostilities. Both sides must eventually agree to an exchange of Israeli hostages for Hamas prisoners. Both sides must eventually agree to a two-state solution. Other states—Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the U.S., France, Germany, and the UK— must guarantee the borders and security of the two states, as well as the reconstruction of Gaza.

The only way this war will end is if both parties agree to sit down and negotiate a settlement. Are the pro-Hamas, pro-Palestinian demonstrations making such negotiations more or less likely? My own view is that the protestors’ one-sided embrace of Hamas makes Hamas less willing to negotiate because with every passing day, they win the public opinion war.

Politically, the demonstrations hurt President Biden. Sympathizers of the protesters may choose not to vote. Michigan, with its significant Muslim population, may go to Trump. The irony is that Trump, the beneficiary of the protests, sought a total ban on Muslim immigration after his inauguration, and he is very close to Netanyahu and his far-rightwing coalition.

If I could send one message to all the demonstrators, it would be this: Seek peace, not a Hamas victory. Put pressure on both sides to end this terrible war and to pursue a just and stable peace.

Categories Extremism, Higher Education, International

ACLU: How to Protect Free Speech on Campus

By dianeravitch
April 28, 2024 //
27

The American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement to advise college and university presidents about responding to student protests.

We write in response to the recent protests that have spread across our nation’s university and college campuses, and the disturbing arrests that have followed. We understand that as leaders of your campus communities, it can be extraordinarily difficult to navigate the pressures you face from politicians, donors, and faculty and students alike. You also have legal obligations to combat discrimination and a responsibility to maintain order. But as you fashion responses to the activism of your students (and faculty and staff), it is essential that you not sacrifice principles of academic freedom and free speech that are core to the educational mission of your respected institution…The American Civil Liberties Union released a statement describing how universities should react to demonstrations on campus.

The statement begins:

Schools must not single out particular viewpoints for censorship, discipline, or disproportionate punishment

These protections extend to both students and faculty, and to speech that supports either side of the conflict. Outside the classroom, including on social media, students and professors must be free to express even the most controversial political opinions without fear of discipline or censure. Inside the classroom, speech can be and always has been subject to more restrictive rules to ensure civil dialogue and a robust learning environment. But such rules have no place in a public forum like a campus green. Preserving physical safety on campuses is paramount; but “safety” from ideas or views that one finds offensive is anathema to the very enterprise of the university.

First, university administrators must not single out particular viewpoints — however offensive they may be to some members of the community — for censorship, discipline, or disproportionate punishment. Viewpoint neutrality is essential. Harassment directed at individuals because of their race, ethnicity, or religion is not, of course, permissible. But general calls for a Palestinian state “from the river to the sea,” or defenses of Israel’s assault on Gaza, even if many listeners find these messages deeply offensive, cannot be prohibited or punished by a university that respects free speech principles.

Schools must protect students from discriminatory harassment and violence

Second, both public and private universities are bound by civil rights laws that guarantee all students equal access to education, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. This means that schools can, and indeed must, protect students from discriminatory harassment on the basis of race or national origin, which has been interpreted to include discrimination on the basis of “shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics,” or “citizenship or residency in a country with a dominant religion or distinct religious identity.”

So, while offensive and even racist speech is constitutionally protected, shouting an epithet at a particular student or pinning an offensive sign to their dorm room door can constitute impermissible harassment, not free speech. Antisemitic or anti-Palestinian speech targeted at individuals because of their ethnicity or national origin constitutes invidious discrimination, and cannot be tolerated. Physically intimidating students by blocking their movements or pursuing them aggressively is unprotected conduct, not protected speech. It should go without saying that violence is never an acceptable protest tactic.

Speech that is not targeted at an individual or individuals because of their ethnicity or national origin but merely expresses impassioned views about Israel or Palestine is not discrimination and should be protected. The only exception for such untargeted speech is where it is so severe or pervasive that it denies students equal access to an education — an extremely demanding standard that has almost never been met by pure speech. One can criticize Israel’s actions, even in vituperative terms, without being antisemitic. And by the same token, one can support Israel’s actions in Gaza and condemn Hamas without being anti-Muslim. Administrators must resist the tendency to equate criticism with discrimination. Speech condoning violence can be condemned, to be sure. But it cannot be the basis for punishment, without more.

Schools can announce and enforce reasonable content-neutral protest policies but they must leave ample room for students to express themselves

Third, universities can announce and enforce reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on protest activity to ensure that essential college functions can continue. Such restrictions must be content neutral, meaning that they do not depend on the substance of what is being communicated, but rather where, when, or how it is being communicated. Protests can be limited to certain areas of campus and certain times of the day, for example. These policies must, however, leave ample room for students to speak to and to be heard by other members of the community. And the rules must not only be content neutral on their face; they must also be applied in a content-neutral manner. If a university has routinely tolerated violations of its rules, and suddenly enforces them harshly in a specific context, singling out particular views for punishment, the fact that the policy is formally neutral on its face does not make viewpoint-based enforcement permissible.

Open the link to finish reading the statement.

Categories Academic Freedom, Accountability, Democracy, Disruption, Freedom of Speech, Higher Education

Bill Kristol: Reject the Mob, Every Mob

By dianeravitch
April 25, 2024 //
89

Bill Kristol is a Never Trumper who writes for The Bulwark. He reminds me of my conservative roots. I have always feared mobs. Once mobs form, it’s impossible to know what direction they will take and who is leading them. In the few times in my life that I inadvertently found myself stuck in a mob, I was terrified and got out as quickly as I could. There is something about a mob that is fundamentally in opposition to rationalism and the democratic temperament. Disagree with me if you wish, but please, be civil.

Kristol writes:

The AP reports on this week’s spring breakdown: 

Columbia canceled in-person classes, dozens of protesters were arrested at New York University and Yale, and the gates to Harvard Yard were closed to the public Monday as some of the most prestigious U.S. universities sought to defuse campus tensions over Israel’s war with Hamas.

More than 100 pro-Palestinian demonstrators who had camped out on Columbia’s green were arrested last week, and similar encampments have sprouted up at universities around the country as schools struggle with where to draw the line between allowing free expression while maintaining safe and inclusive campuses.

At New York University, an encampment set up by students swelled to hundreds of protesters throughout the day Monday. The school said it warned the crowd to leave, then called in the police after the scene became disorderly and the university said it learned of reports of “intimidating chants and several antisemitic incidents.” Shortly after 8:30 p.m., officers began making arrests.

Here’s a tweet from Jay Nordlinger that’s stuck with me: “There is scarcely anything in this world more terrifying than a mob. It is, frankly, pretty much at the root of my politics: this anti-mob feeling. Madisonian conservatism (or Madisonian liberalism, if you like) has struck me as right from a young age. Popular passions can kill.”

As we say on Twitter: 💯. Or even 💯💯.

Mobs can kill. They can also destroy the fabric of a civic order. They can disfigure the politics of a liberal, representative democracy. And so a healthy society will deter, will tamp down, will reject as much as possible mob action and mob spirit.

Now it’s of course true that there will always be elements of mob spirit in our politics, in our life. Some of the spirit of the mob runs, one might say, through each human soul.

A sound society suppresses that spirit to some extent. And since it can’t be altogether suppressed, a healthy social order also channels it, so it can be indulged and released harmlessly. A liberal democracy can have lots of sports fans.

But of course being a “fan” is the civilized version of being a fanatic.

Even in a healthy society, resistance to fanaticism is always fragile. And once fanaticism is unleashed, once the mob is empowered, it is hard to restore order and civility and decency.

Which is one reason thoughtful defenders of democracy have always feared demagogues, have sought to thwart their emergence, and have opposed them when they do rise.

Demagogues who can stoke mob spirit are dangerous. The problem with Donald Trump isn’t simply his policies, or his personal character. It’s his willingness, or rather his eagerness, to stoke the spirit of the mob. Trump’s posts on Truth Social condition some among us to the mob spirit as much as the hateful chants at Columbia or Yale condition others. MAGA is an expression of mob spirit. The campus encampments are manifestations of mob spirit.

And mob spirit is always nearer at hand than those with a sunny view of human nature would like. The lynch mobs in the South often consisted of respectable citizens, pillars of their communities. Many Berliners who participated in Kristallnacht went back to their normal office and jobs the next day.

So I’m with Jay on this. It seems simple, but it’s important: Be anti-mob. Because resisting and combating mob spirit is central to our political and social well-being.

And not just when that spirit is on the other side politically. Indeed, it’s more important to resist the mob when it claims to be acting for purposes you agree with.

Yes, it’s true that the consequences of the mob spirit taking over one of our two major political parties are greater than those of the mob spirit erupting on some elite college campuses. But lesser evils are still evil, and they can grow into greater ones. And history also suggests that indulging the mob spirit on one side soon enough empowers it on another. The mob spirit must be resisted across the board.

Resisting the mob isn’t all it takes to establish a sound society or a healthy politics. But it’s a necessary start. 

—William Kristol

Categories Democracy, Discipline, Disruption, Ethics, Extremism, Freedom of Speech, Higher Education

What Universities Should Do About Hate Speech and Behavior

By dianeravitch
April 22, 2024 //
82

I recently visited Wellesley College to attend the lecture of lawyer-scholar Patricia Williams, who spoke about book banning, censorship and critical race theory. She was brilliant. Her lecture will be posted as soon as Wellesley releases the tape. She spoke as part of the annual lecture series that I endowed.

At the end of her lecture, a student asked a question. The student said that she had sent out a notice to all the others in her dorm denouncing genocide. Now she wanted Professor Williams to advise her on how to respond to an older alumna about genocide in a manner that was respectful and would lead to further discussion.

Professor Williams responded, and I paraphrase, “If you really want to have an honest exchange, don’t use the word ‘genocide.’ It’s a conversation stopper. Genocide has a specific legal definition, and it’s not the right word to use if you really want a discussion.”

Later, I had dinner with Professor Williams and Wellesley President Paula Johnson. Dr. Johnson described what happened when Hillary Clinton, the College’s most distinguished alumna, spoke recently on campus. Students disrupted her speech and denounced her as a war criminal. When her car pulled away from the President’s house, students surrounded the car, shouting obscenities and exercising their middle finger.

Frankly, I was appalled. Colleges and universities must protect free speech, but there are limits. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. There must be other limits. The purpose of a college education is to teach critical thinking, to exemplify the value of reasoned debate, to maintain civility when there are strong disagreements, to be open to learning.

This morning, Columbia University announced that it is offering online classes because the campus is unsafe for learning, especially for Jewish students. This is outrageous. Campuses must be safe places for all students and faculty. Civility matters.

Colleges and universities should, in my opinion, establish clear rules about the speech that stifles others from speaking, about speech that diminishes freedom of discussion, about speech that threatens the physical safety of others, about speech that undermines free speech and civility. And most certainly for behavior that makes the campus unsafe for students and faculty.

Pro-Palestinian students should argue their cause without shutting down discussion and threatening Jewish students. Closing down debate, antagonizing those who disagree, creating a climate in which “academic freedom” is used to negate academic freedom is simply wrong.

There must be clear guidelines about the kind of conduct that is not permitted because it destroys the fundamental purpose of higher education, which is the freedom to teach, to learn, and to debate.

We have heard repeatedly since October 7 that expressions and behavior that are anti-Israel are not anti-Semitic. But the widespread harassment of Jewish students, even Jewish faculty, gives the lie to this claim. Such harassment is anti-Semitic.

I deplore the barbarism of October 7. I deplore the brutality of the war in Gaza and the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians. I hope that peace negotiations bring about two states and a just peace.

I deplore the surge of Jew-hatred on American campuses. Jewish students and all other students, as well as Jewish faculty and all faculty, should be able to learn and teach without fearing for their safety.

Colleges and universities must establish rules that promote and protect civility. Students who harass and endanger others cancel the purpose of higher education. They should be warned and if they persist, they should be suspended, and if they continue in their actions, expelled.

Categories Academic Freedom, Accountability, Bigotry, Ethics, Extremism, Fascism, Freedom of Speech, Higher Education

Indiana: New Law Requires Professors to Teach “Diverse” Views or Face Firing

By dianeravitch
March 24, 2024 //
31

Republicans have grown frustrated by their inability to get their views represented on college campuses, so they have grown more assertive in passing laws to ban ideas they don’t like (such as “critical race theory” or gender studies or diversity/equity/inclusion or “divisive concepts).

Indiana is imposing a different approach. Instead of banning what it does not like, the Legislature is requiring professors to teach different points of view.

The New York Times reports:

A new law in Indiana requires professors in public universities to foster a culture of “intellectual diversity” or face disciplinary actions, including termination for even those with tenure, the latest in an effort by Republicans to assert more control over what is taught in classrooms.

The law connects the job status of faculty members, regardless of whether they are tenured, to whether, in the eyes of a university’s board of trustees, they promote “free inquiry” and “free expression.” State Senator Spencer Deery, who sponsored the bill, made clear in a statement that this would entail the inclusion of more conservative viewpoints on campus.

The backlash to the legislation, which Gov. Eric Holcomb, a Republican, signed March 13, has been substantial. Hundreds wrote letters or testified at hearings, and faculty senates atmultiple institutions had urged the legislature to reject the bill, condemning it as government overreach and a blow to academic free speech.

“The whole point of tenure is to protect academic freedom,” said Irene Mulvey, the president of the American Association of University Professors, who described the law as “thought policing.”

Under the Indiana law, which goes into effect in July, university trustees may not grant tenure or a promotion to faculty members who are deemed “unlikely” to promote “intellectual diversity” or to expose students to works from a range of political views. Trustees also may withhold tenure or promotion from those who are found “likely” to bring unrelated political views into the courses they are teaching.

Faculty members who already have tenure would be subject to regular reviews to determine if they are meeting all of these criteria, and if the board concludes they are not, they could be demoted or fired. The law also requires colleges to set up a procedure for students or other employees to file complaints about faculty members considered to be falling short on these requirements.

Boards are not, under the law, allowed to penalize faculty for criticizing the institution or engaging in political activity outside of their teaching duties. The restrictions do not apply to private university faculty members.

Will professors of science be allowed to teach about climate change or evolution without giving equal time to “the other side?”

Will professors of American history be allowed to teach about the horrors of slavery and Jim Crow and institutional racism without introducing the Confederate point of view?

This law is a serious attack on academic freedom.

Categories Academic Freedom, Curriculum, Ethics, Higher Education, Indiana

Daily Yonder: Public Colleges in Rural Areas Are Cutting the Humanities

By dianeravitch
January 19, 2024 //
39

I believe that a liberal arts education is the heart and soul of what it means to be an educated person. No matter what job or career or profession you aim for, you are not educated unless you have studied history, literature, the arts and sciences. These are the studies that prepare you for citizenship and for a full life. Can you understand the world if you know little about history? Can you understand political debates about medicine and health if you never studied science? Are you prepared to understand the breadth and depth of the human spirit if you have never learned about art and music?

I think not. Oddly, it seems to me, cutting the humanities is an elitist path, a decision that students in rural areas don’t need or deserve a full education that tends to their mind, their heart, and their soul.

Sadly, The Daily Yonder reports, public colleges and universities in rural areas are slashing courses and majors in the humanities, favoring instead the courses that prepare students for jobs and careers.

Part of the decision is based on declining enrollments, but the state budget for piublic higher education is being cut even wen the stat’s coffers are overflowing. Governors prefer to cut taxes—income taxes or property taxes—rather than invest in the future of their state.

Elaine C. Povich of Stateline reports:

MORGANTOWN, W.Va. — Taya Sullivan, 20, is a freshman at West Virginia University, double majoring in neuroscience and Spanish. She also has a campus job in a linguistics lab, building on her majors and earning money she needs to continue her studies.

Next semester, both her Spanish major and her job will be gone.

Sullivan has been caught up in the university’s decision to eliminate its foreign language majors. The school is axing 28 majors altogether, ranging from undergraduate languages such as French and Russian to graduate majors in math and higher education. It also is cutting 12% of its professors.

Administrators say they’re responding to a budget shortfall, declining enrollment, flagging student interest in humanities courses, and pressure from parents who want their kids to be prepared for good-paying jobs after graduation.

“Are we going to revert back to ‘normal?’ No, we will have a new normal,” said West Virginia University President Gordon Gee in an interview with Stateline. “We are going to be much more oriented toward listening to the people who pay our bills — parents, students, legislators and others. And they very much want to see universities, particularly land grant institutions like ours, become engines of creativity and economic development.”

Many lesser-known public colleges nationwide have begun cutting back on the humanities, but West Virginia University is the “tip of the spear” for flagship state universities, Gee said.

Similar reductions are only expected to grow across the country, particularly in rural areas where campus budgets are lower, enrollments are more likely to be falling, and where the pressure for career-oriented majors may be greater. But critics argue that such changes in emphasis will sap states of intellectual firepower, leaving them with fewer leaders and citizens who are well-rounded.

In West Virginia, the cuts have prompted student demonstrations, a faculty resolution and objections from some lawmakers. Gee is unmoved.

“The budget [deficit] was only an accelerant; it’s change or die,” he said. “We are the first to jump off the cliff. I could make a living from calls from other university presidents to ask, ‘How are you doing it?’ We are having to change. We can no longer be everything to everyone. We’ve got to make choices.”

Other state universities, especially rural ones, are making similar choices. Missouri Western State University has eliminated dozens of majors and minors including English, history, philosophy, political science, economics, sociology, art, Spanish and French. Eastern Kentucky University shut theater programs and economics. The State University of New York at Potsdam is also cutting degree programs, including in art history, dance, French, Spanish and theater.

More cuts could be coming. The Board of Regents for the University of Kansas system announced in June it is reviewing proposals to eliminate programs at the six state universities. The review is meant “to ensure that programs meet student demand, improve student affordability, support Kansas communities and help meet the state’s workforce needs.” A decision is expected in 2024 on which programs to cut or consolidate, said Matt Keith, spokesperson for the Kansas Board of Regents.

Humanities courses such as languages, history, arts and literature are particularly vulnerable nationwide. Schools are more inclined to emphasize business, science, math and technology studies, which could lead to more high-paying jobs.

Students also appear to be turning away from the humanities: Data from the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics shows that the percentage of bachelor’s degrees conferred by four-year institutions in the humanities dropped from 16.8% of all degrees in the 2010-11 school year to 12.8% in 2020-2021.

State budget reductions and schools’ funding shortfalls also have contributed to cuts, particularly in rural states. State spending on higher education fell in 16 of the 20 most rural states between 2008 and 2018, when adjusted for inflation, according to a Hechinger Report analysis of data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research and policy institute that advocates for left-leaning tax policies.

Higher education funding per student declined by more than 30% in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania during that period. In Kansas, it went down by nearly 23%.

State budget problems accounted for some of the reductions, but in other cases lawmakers preferred to spend available dollars on roads or K-12 education.

Even when state budgets were flush following a huge outlay of federal funds during the Covid-19 pandemic, many states, including West Virginia, opted for tax cuts rather than investments in higher education. In March, West Virginia Republican Governor Jim Justice signed a law immediately reducing the income tax by an average of 21.25%…

WVU English professor Adam Komisaruk, who also directs graduate studies in the English department, says the larger question is what state universities want to be.

“Is our mission as a university simply to respond to market forces and popular prejudice, and to make educational decisions based on supply and demand? Or are we committed to providing a robust and diverse exposure to modes of thought that will allow our students to become knowledgeable, responsible, ethical engaged members of society?

“If we want to run a vocational training program, fine. But you can’t pretend you are a liberal arts full institution committed not only to our land grant mission to serve the people of the state but also committed to modern ideas of liberal education and broad-based knowledge. You can’t have it both ways.”

Rural students can be particularly affected by university cuts, said Andrew Koricich, executive director for the Alliance for Research on Regional Colleges and an associate professor at Appalachian State University in North Carolina. As West Virginia is a mostly rural state, a higher proportion of its students come from rural areas.

“A lot of states are shifting more toward looking at higher education not just as a public good but as a cost-benefit calculation. Then it becomes a value judgment whether rural students deserve the same education as urban institutions and students,” Koricich said.

Categories Accountability, Budget Cuts, Creativity, Curriculum, Democracy, Disruption, Funding, Higher Education, Rural Schools

The Hill: Conservatives See Takedown of Two University Presidents as “Just the Beginning”

By dianeravitch
January 12, 2024 //
7

You might well wonder, as I did, why Republicans in Congress were conducting hearings about anti-Semitism in our nation’s elite private universities. That is normally the job of the Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education. Historically and recently, Republicans have not been known as a party that worries overmuch about anti-Semitism or other forms of bigotry.

As a matter of fact, as this article in The Hill shows, the Republicans’ real concern is to stamp out DEI programs (diversity, equity, and inclusion) in higher education. Two of the three elite university presidents who were grilled by Rep. Elise Stefanik resigned, and she crowed about her victory. The conservative media treated Harvard University President Claudine Gay as an unqualified diversity hire. Liz Magill of the University of Pennsylvania also resigned after the hearing.

From the article:

Republicans say their departures are just the beginning of needed reforms at the schools.

“This is only among the very first steps on a very long road to recovering or returning to higher education its true and original purposes, which is truth-seeking,” said Jay Greene, senior research fellow in the Center for Education Policy at the Heritage Foundation.

Conservatives cheered the departures, which came after the two, as well as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sally Kornbluth, faced questions on campus antisemitism before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Neither Elise Stefanik nor Jay Greene has shown interest in anti-Semitism in the past, to my knowledge. Neither issued statements to denounce the young fascists who marched with tiki torches in Charlottesville and chanted “The Jews will not replace us.” If they reacted to the slaughter of Jews at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, I am not aware of it.

An even bigger joke is for anyone at the Heritage Foundation to celebrate “truth-seeking,” when Heritage oversaw planning for the next term of Donald Trump, who has a well-documented record of telling thousands of lies. Heritage Foundation, clean your own house. Before you lecture others about “truth-seeking,” look in the mirror.

“Two down. One to go,” tweeted committee member Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.). “Accountability is coming.”

“The long overdue forced resignations of former Presidents Claudine Gay and Liz Magill are just the beginning of the tectonic consequences from their historic morally bankrupt testimony to my questions,” Stefanik added in a statement to The Hill, mentioning an official probe into the schools that the panel has announced.

“The investigation will address all aspects of a fundamentally broken and corrupt higher education system — antisemitism on campus, taxpayer funded aid, foreign aid, DEI, accreditation, academic integrity, and governance,” she said, using an acronym for diversity, equity and inclusion programs…

But their biggest target recently has been DEI programs, making the case that they have been more harmful than helpful to students…

Greene said he is hopeful “additional people are going to have to be removed, both leaders of universities and their underlings, because they’re also significant actors in this. It’s not just at the top, but it’s kind of throughout these institutions.”

He also specifically called for the dismantling of DEI efforts on campus and disciplines such as gender studies, another popular GOP target.

Such efforts have been in motion long before the shake-ups at UPenn and Harvard.

In Texas, a law banning diversity programs at public universities took effect in the new year. And last year, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) also signed a bill to defund DEI programs at public universities. …

A tracker by the Chronicle of Higher Education last year found 40 bills had been introduced in states across the country to try to restrict DEI programs, diversity statements and mandatory diversity training at schools.

It’s disgusting to see a feigned concern about anti-Semitism used as a stalking horse to dismantle DEI programs and as a pretext for inserting Big government into the policy making process in private higher education.

As long as Republicans control either House of Congress, we can anticipate the rise of a new McCarthyism, purging the curriculum and professors.

At last, Rep. Stefanik, have you no shame?

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Cruelty, Democracy, Equity, Ethics, Extremism, Gender, Higher Education, Race, Racism, Religion
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »