ACTA's Must-Reads

« January 2007 | Main | March 2007 »

Missouri debates intellectual diversity

This week, Missouri's House Higher Education Committee will consider an intellectual diversity bill that would require state colleges and universities to report the measures they are taking to ensure that political bias does not translate into intellectual intolerance on their campuses.

The bill is similar to those that came before legislators in Montana last week; there it failed because of concerns that such a requirement would violate the state's constitution, which gives the Montana regents sole responsibility for managing the state university system.

No such stipulation exists in the Missouri constitution, and as the case of Emily Brooker makes clear, this is a state that clearly needs to consider carefully whether it is fulfilling its obligation to students. Brooker, a Christian social work student at Missouri State, sued the university after the school of social work disciplined her for refusing to write a letter to the Missouri General Assembly supporting gay adoption. Missouri State settled out of court last November.

Worth a read as debate heats up: this op-ed by University of Missouri political science professor J. Rochester Martin:

1. If the university stands for the discovery of "truth," then at the very least we must acknowledge the reality - the truth - that an overwhelming percentage of faculty at most universities in the humanities and social sciences (other than economics departments) as well as schools of education and social work are ideologically liberal and politically affiliated with the Democratic party.

All the data as well as anecdotal impressions tell us this. Indeed, Helton and Granger, and even Chancellor George, said as much. UMSL is hardly an exception. Still, these academic units tend to be in denial about this.

While it is true that some academic units lean conservative, for example business schools, these are relatively few in number and, in any event, are not fields of study whose essence is "debating the great ideas."

Roughly half the country is Republican and conservative. I am not saying that universities must engage in bean-counting and assure proper faculty balance and presentation of ideas based on such percentages, only that surely there could stand to be a bit more representation of such viewpoints, especially on the part of departments that so often claim to espouse democratic principles, rail against elitism, and preach about respect for "diversity."

2. Helton and Granger both suggested that "we don't tell businesses to be more liberal, so why should we tell universities to be more conservative?"

The problem with this analogy is that it misrepresents what a university is about as opposed to a business. The #1 mission of the university is the promotion of free inquiry and the free exchange of ideas, that is, universities have a special responsibility to insure a diversity of ideas in a way that businesses do not.

3. A "liberal bias" does exist on campuses and operates in more subtle ways than outright indoctrination. We often hear about "institutional racism."

Well, there is something akin to that in the form of "institutional liberalism."

It consists in the fact that (1) most job candidates in the humanities and social sciences and schools of education and social work tend already to come with a liberal paradigm in their orientation to their discipline based on their training; (2) any job candidate in these areas who presents a conservative point of view in a dissertation talk is more likely to offend the faculty than those presenting a liberal point of view; and (3) the nature of the speakers these units bring to campus tend to expose students to liberal ideas more than conservative ones. This is not blatant, only systemic.

The bias also manifests itself in university climates - through speech codes that, for example, ban "affirmative action bake sales" sponsored by conservative student groups seeking to protest race-based college admissions while permitting "white privilege" conferences sponsored by liberal groups - and in curricula - through non-academic requirements in degree programs that mandate, for example, "social justice dispositions" in schools of education and social work.

One can only imagine the uproar that would occur in UMSL's Senate and elsewhere on campus if the College of Business Administration tried to mandate a "capitalist disposition" requirement in its B.S. programs!

4. I agree it is crazy to waste money on hiring another administrator to serve as an "intellectual diversity" czar, but why do we not raise similar concerns about possible overstaffing in the Office of Multicultural Relations and related "diversity" offices? Could it be too politically incorrect to do so?

I should note that I consider myself a middle-of-the roader, someone liberal enough for the local chapter of the United Nations Association to have named me (on the 50th anniversary of the UN in 1995) "one of 50 St. Louisans who had devoted their lives to global peace and justice," yet conservative enough to have been praised by many conservative groups for my book on education.

The bottom line is that I support diversity (racial, gender, etc.) and consider it an important part of the university, but there is nothing more important than "intellectual diversity" - a diversity of ideas.

Therefore, I am inclined to give HB 213 a fair hearing before dismissing it. The law may or may not be a good idea - again, I share some of the criticisms and concerns expressed in The Current - but in any event, it does not hurt to insure students are exposed to a full range of viewpoints. UMSL strikes me as less guilty of liberal bias than many other campuses, so it would seem we should be less fearful of more scrutiny, as long as proper safeguards are put in place that assure academic freedom.

Martin is right. Intellectual diversity is not a partisan issue -- it's an issue that concerns everyone who cares about the quality of higher education. To support it is to take a profoundly sensible and moderate position.

Posted by acta online at 07:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Intellectual diversity done right

Arizona legislators are confused about how to ensure accountability at state colleges and universities while still respecting faculty members' academic freedom and constitutional rights. Perhaps they should look around them for examples of how to do this sort of thing properly. They would find a strong example in Montana, where the House Education Committee is considering a bill that would require state schools to report on the measures they are taking to guarantee intellectual diversity on their campuses. While detractors predictably say this bill jeopardizes academic freedom, in fact it is designed to do just the opposite, protecting precious institutional autonomy while at the same time balancing that against equally precious principles of accountability and transparency.

ACTA's 2005 report, Intellectual Diversity: Time for Change, is the inspiration behind the bill. And ACTA president Anne Neal has been, consequently, an important figure in the debate about it:

"This bill is unnecessary in light of continuing excellence of each of the institutions in the Montana University System," ASUM President Andrea Helling said. "Come to any of our campuses."

Anne Neal, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, said that the bill was really designed to ask questions that might not get asked otherwise.

"If the Legislature doesn't inquire about academic malpractice, who will? There is no way this one-sided coercive atmosphere can be conducive to a good education," Neal said. "Students are not empowered to think for themselves when orthodoxy subtly restricts the subjects taught, discussed and researched."

The other supporters of the bill included some of Montana's better-known faculty, including MSU-Bozeman associated English professor and published author Paul Trout and UM Law School professor Rob Natelson.

Trout said that some departments are worse than others when it comes to politicizing the classroom.
"Departments in the social sciences and humanities are often lopsided. What's noteworthy is that these departments create the attorneys, the teachers and the other opinion-shapers of the future," Trout said.

"Campuses and departments are increasingly becoming enclaves of group think, which insures that certain ideas are not entertained, certain claims not made, certain questions not asked," he said.

Trout's comments seemed to be embodied in the presence of Natelson. In 2004, Natelson took his own case of alleged political discrimination before the Board of Regents to try to overturn the University's decision not to appoint Natelson to a position he applied for. Natelson said at the time that he was denied the job because of his conservative political beliefs.

"I have taught at the University of Montana for 20 years now. I wish I could say I was happy to be here," Natelson said. "The point I'm trying to make is that you don't want to send students to a university where there aren't a diversity of opinions."

Here's to healthy debate -- and to finding balanced, fair ways to compel colleges and universities to manage their affairs better, while still respecting their right to determine internally just how they do so.

UPDATE 2/24: The proposed Montana bill was defeated Thursday, on the grounds that it might be unconstitutional. The Montana Constitution stipulates that the Board of Regents has sole control over the state university system.

Posted by acta online at 10:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

"Serving notice on misbehaving universities"

ACTA supporter Steve Balog has a letter in today's Washington Times:

Responding to higher-education misbehavior

As a concerned observer of higher education, I commend Asaf Romirowsky for pointing out that the double standards, censorship and other politically correct follies that abound in present-day academia will not end until donors begin to "ask questions about what is being done with their money" ("Scholar activism," Op-Ed, Feb. 14). Readers also might like to know that the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), a Washington-based bipartisan organization dedicated to academic freedom and standards, has come up with a way to serve notice on misbehaving universities.

ACTA supporters — like me — are making donations to ACTA to support its higher-education reform efforts in the name of certain universities. How's that for turning the tables?

As the Yale alum who made the lead gift for this effort put it, "The contributions will register displeasure with, not honor, the university named. The contributor can thereby make it clear that his displeasure cost the university the contribution." Meanwhile, ACTA will use the funds to promote reforms that are urgently needed. ACTA also will send letters to the offending universities informing them of their lost revenues and encouraging them to change their ways.

I encourage those who share Mr. Romirowsky's concerns over the present state of affairs at their alma maters to join me in making an "in the name of" gift to ACTA, which can be contacted at www.goacta.org.

STEVE BALOG
Morristown, N.J.

If you would like to join Steve in supporting ACTA's work "in the name of" a university that needs a lesson on academic freedom and standards, you can donate online here. As you do so, please send an e-mail to info@goacta.org with your name and the college involved. Alternatively, you can contact us the old-fashioned way at ACTA, "Name" Campaign, 1726 M Street, NW, Suite 802, Washington, DC 20036. Please remember to note the relevant institution either on the memo line of your check or on some enclosure.

And, most importantly, thank you from all of us here to Steve and the many concerned trustees and alumni nationwide who make ACTA's work possible!

Posted by cmitchell at 09:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Not such a fine plan

In his latest bestseller, What Got You Here Won't Get You There, executive leadership coach Marshall Goldsmith outlines the twenty bad habits that keep successful people from becoming even more successful. They include turning every interaction into a competition that they must win, not listening, being negative, and making destructive comments. Goldsmith also offers a failsafe method for breaking bad habits that are so ingrained we have trouble catching ourselves committing them: Hire a friend to monitor you and bill you $10 every time you fall off the behavioral wagon.

The Arizona state senate seems to have had a similar inspiration when it comes to faculty behaving badly. Last Thursday a senate committee approved a bill that would prohibit professors at public colleges and universities from doing the following while on the job:

--Endorsing, supporting or opposing any candidate for local, state or national office.

--Endorsing, supporting or opposing any pending legislation, regulation or rule under consideration by local, state or federal agencies.

--Endorsing, supporting or opposing any litigation in any court.

--Advocating "one side of a social, political, or cultural issue that is a matter of partisan controversy."

--Hindering military recruiting on campus or endorsing the activities of those who do.

If the bill passes, the Arizona Board of Regents would have to find a way to implement the law and would also have to establish mandatory annual training for faculty members covering what they can and cannot say. Professors found guilty of violating the requirements would be liable for up to $500 in fines--and would have to pay that out of their own pockets.

The differences between Goldsmith's plan and the Arizona senate's are as important as the similarities, however -- while the one is a self-help plan, adopted voluntarily to cure a personal flaw, the other is a punitive measure imposed by lawmakers to control the speech of public employees. In the first, an individual anxious to improve his relationship with his colleagues devises a speech code for himself and enlists others in enforcing it; in the second, faculty members who are protected by the First Amendment are subjected to a censorious ban that not only violates the principles of academic freedom but also arguably violates their constitutional rights.

ACTA has long argued that colleges and universities need to work harder to ensure that faculty members don't push their politics and beliefs on students in lieu of teaching them. But ACTA has also long argued that colleges and universities must do this is a manner that honors academic freedom and that avoids legislative intervention of the sort envisioned in Arizona.

InsideHigherEd.com has the details about the bill, as well as plenty of comments from readers who see just how overbroad and problematic the bill's language is. And at Phi Beta Cons, David French performs a thought experiment, exploring the possibility that the proposed bill just may be consistent with both the First Amendment and academic freedom as it has been framed by the AAUP. French still thinks the bill is a very bad idea -- but his thinking on the question of whether it is a potentially viable idea is well worth a look. His bottom line is that universities' failure to take their own obligations to teach rather than preach seriously may finally compel legislators to take academic freedom into their own hands:

For many years, university professors have enjoyed a measure of academic freedom that is actually greater in scope than the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Persistent and arrogant abuse of that freedom is going to invariably lead legislatures and universities themselves to begin to roll back professors' expressive autonomy. Sadly, the university establishment seems oblivious to the fact that their own abuses are leading them down the road of regulation, and they seem blissfully unaware that their employers have far more power over their expression than they dare to think.

ACTA has been delivering a similar message for some time. It's a sign of the arrogance French cites that the academic establishment has met such warnings by attacking the messenger rather than addressing the problem. Perhaps the Arizona sitation will be a wakeup call?

Posted by acta online at 10:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Suing the hand that educates you

Former FIRE president and current director of the Alliance Defense Fund's Center for Academic Freedom David French notes the brazenness with which many college and university administrators flout the law when it comes to honoring their obligations to the First Amendment--and observes, too, that in a climate characterized by such brazenness, it is often the student who must hold the school legally accountable:

Samantha Harris has an amusing post in FIRE's blog noting the on-campus reaction at the University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, to the school's "red" rating in FIRE's speech code database. Apparently, in response to questions about the rating, Steve Tallant, the school's interim chancellor and provost said, "They say our policies are unconstitutional. If (the policies) were unconstitutional, they would be in court right now."

Is that a challenge, Dr. Tallant? Are you asking to be sued?

Actually, Dr. Tallant betrays a common attitude among administrators. Despite an avalanche of judicial precedent, they will sit back and maintain unconstitutional policies until a student has the courage to step up and sue their own school. Take Pennsylvania, for example, where two of the state's largest universities--Penn State and Temple--maintained speech codes that were indistinguishable from codes struck down by the Third Circuit. Yet change did not occur until they were both sued by their own students. Penn State changed its policies soon after the suit was filed. Temple changed its policies late last month. In response to still another lawsuit, Georgia Tech was forced to change its speech code and is not permitted to change its speech policies without prior judicial approval.

But that is just a beginning. As FIRE's database makes clear, there are hundreds of universities that continue to maintain unconstitutional policies. But I can promise you this, Dr. Tallant, if protecting the First Amendment means filing a lawsuit at each and every one of the hundreds of schools that are openly and intentionally defying the law, we will do it.

And your turn will come.

French notes that fear keeps more students from going this route, and offers the example of two students who are suing Georgia Tech to show how that fear is well grounded indeed. In exchange for fighting for the free speech rights of all Georgia Tech students, Ruth Malhotra has become the target of physical threats. French reprints the most recent one, in which an anonymous letter-writer promises to rape her on Valentine's Day.

French will doubtless follow through with his threat. Here's hoping Malhotra's stalker does not.

Posted by acta online at 09:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Quote for the day

"I have been to re-education camp, spending four and half years as a university president and dealing with faculty. And, as more than a few university presidents have learned in recent years, when it comes to faculty it is either 'be nice' or 'be gone.'"

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, former president of Texas A&M University

Posted by acta online at 09:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Washington Post calls for reform at Harvard

Today's Washington Post features a magnificent editorial on Harvard's new president, Drew Gilpin Faust. The Post correctly labels the Harvard that Lawrence Summers tried to shake up "an institution that had become fossilized by tradition." Then it calls upon Faust to be more than a conciliatory voice and to push for real reform:

The shortcomings he saw still exist, and we hope Ms. Faust will show the vigor to attack them. Her challenges will include determining the proper balance between the sciences and the humanities, bringing diversity to the political outlook of the faculty, reinvigorating the undergraduate curriculum and promoting interdisciplinary cooperation among departments too concerned about turf.

Ms. Faust's appointment was embraced by those who pointed to her knowledge of the campus, her administrative experience and her academic values. She also -- unlike her predecessor -- is credited with good people skills, which could give her an advantage in bringing about change, if she is so inclined. Will she be? We admire what she's accomplished, as reflected in her comments to a reporter for the New York Times: "I've always done more than I ever thought I would." At the same time, we hope she is already aiming for more than consensus and a restoration of peace.

That is not a misprint: The Washington Post has joined with ACTA in calling for "bringing diversity to the political outlook of the faculty." This is especially welcome news as our president travels to Montana, where a bill to require simple annual reports on universities' efforts in pursuit of intellectual diversity is being considered.

Further, the Post's call to "reinvigorat[e] the undergraduate curriculum" appears to endorse proposals like the one currently being considered at Harvard, which would require students to take courses in American history, math, and science. The plan also makes the right noises--while the devil will be in the details--about restoring a genuine core curriculum, rather than a hodgepodge of loose distribution requirements.

Posted by cmitchell at 01:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Accountability in Ohio

Ohio is looking for ways to improve accountability in higher education, starting at the top: Being considered is a proposal wherein the governor will appoint the chancellor of the Ohio state system, thus making that individual more directly accountable than has previously been the case.

Debate is raging -- and ACTA president Anne Neal has weighed in with her support:

Contrary to the naysayers quoted in the recent Dispatch article "Plan for chancellor unwise, experts say," Gov. Ted Strickland and the General Assembly are on the right course for instituting more accountability in higher education.

Having the chancellor report to the governor is essential if Ohio hopes to have a coherent educational vision for the state.

Although the governor appoints members of the Ohio Board of Regents, terms are staggered and each member of the board serves for nine years. Accordingly, it is often years before any one governor has a majority on the board.

Of course this is by design, theoretically to avoid "politicizing" the board. But in reality, the structure makes it far more difficult for any governor to implement a higher education agenda or make meaningful reforms.

The suggestion that having the chancellor report to the governor nullifies the board could not be further from the truth.

In many states, the governor appoints both the superintendent of public instruction and the state board of education, as well.

The fact that the two bodies work together may explain why primary and secondary reforms are far greater than anything we've seen in higher education thus far.

Anyone who suggests the proposed structure fails to produce significant results should take a look at Colorado.

Under virtually the same structure, the state has put into place a rigorous streamlined core curriculum, better preparation for teachers in primary and secondary schools and increased student access and success. With clear lines of reporting and control, Ohio taxpayers more readily can hold the governor accountable for outcomes in higher education. And given the challenges, isn't this exactly what is needed?

Congratulations to Ohio--and Governor Strickland--for attempting to establish procedurally reasonable mechanisms of accountability for its university system. That's something that ACTA has long recommended all states do.

Posted by acta online at 09:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Help wanted

ACTA is looking for an eminently personable, dynamic, well-organized, highly motivated, and principled individual to fill a Development Officer position. The successful candidate will possess a bachelor's degree or higher, a passionate interest in higher education reform, and the ability to work well as part of a small and dedicated staff. No development experience is required and salary will be commensurate with qualifications. Interested parties should e-mail or fax a resume, cover letter, and contact information for two references to cmitchell-AT-goacta-DOT-org or 202-467-6784.

ACTA is also seeking applicants for the Robert Lewit Fellowship in Education Policy, which is open exclusively to Harvard students. See the description for further details.

Posted by cmitchell at 09:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

William and Mary Update

Yesterday William & Mary's board met, and one item on the agenda was to consider the debacle that has arisen over President Nichol's unilateral decision last fall to remove the cross from the college's historic Wren Chapel. Nichol had yielded to the prerogatives of political correctness while ignoring the ideals of democratic process--without consulting anyone or opening a campuswise discussion on the matter, he determined that the cross had to be removed because keeping it in place could offend members of the campus community.

The board's discussion of the matter yesterday was inconclusive. In a public statement, the board acknowledged that Nichol had made mistakes when he acted on his own to remove the cross (this is something ACTA urged the board to recognize in a recent letter). But he also acted out of devotion to the university, the statement noted, praising his commitment to "inclusion and diversity." As for what to do about the cross itself--no conclusions were reached, and the board will not revisit the issue until the legal aspects of the issue are assessed and a committee appointed by Nichol to look into the role of religion at public universities has issued its report.

What the board was clear about: "William and Mary is and should be a diverse and welcoming place to all students from around the Commonwealth and around the globe. This should be the message that is projected to prospective students and the outside world. One might argue about where the balance should be struck to achieve this imperative, but we are convinced that adding fuel to the current flames of controversy will only singe the reputation of our College."

In other words, while acknowledging that rancorous dispute about the cross isn't doing much to improve the campus climate, the board is tacitly acknowledging the questionable claims of those who have argued that the presence of the cross made them feel unwelcome at the school. Those claims stem from a presumption that one should not have to tolerate expression one does not agree with, and from a related presumption that such expression--however innocuous in itself--is inherently offensive. That's not the message the board should be sending if it is seriously committed to sustaining and nurturing a diverse and inclusive campus culture.

Posted by acta online at 08:04 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

ACTA a trendsetter

Bloomberg.com columnist Andrew Ferguson hazards the hypothesis that the push for intellectual diversity on campus is becoming a hot--and highly important--trend in higher education:

At journalism school I flunked my class in ``Trends: How to Identify Them, How to Invent Them.''

So I'm not qualified to peg what follows as a genuine social or cultural trend. But it's happened in four state legislatures already. And we can always hope.

Most recently it's been percolating in Missouri, where Representative Jane Cunningham introduced a bill that will surely unnerve many of her state's higher education bureaucrats.

Cunningham's bill is aimed straight at the ideological orthodoxy that holds sway on U.S. college campuses. It would require that Missouri's state-funded colleges and universities announce each year what they have done institutionally ``to ensure and promote intellectual diversity and academic freedom.'' A bill similar to Cunningham's has also been introduced in Virginia.

In 2005, the state legislature in Pennsylvania established a special committee to investigate academic freedom and intellectual diversity on its campuses. The committee is requiring Pennsylvania's public colleges and universities to report by November 2008 on what concrete steps they've taken to ensure ``student rights'' with respect to intellectual diversity.

And the South Dakota Board of Regents, responding to a similar move by its state legislature, now requires that an a so- called Academic Freedom Statement be included in all course syllabuses, informing students that only academic performance, and not their political opinions, will serve as a basis for their grades.

Noting that ACTA is responsible for this trend--or, he jokes, "trendlette"--Ferguson goes on to explain the rationale behind the bills, citing studies showing the overwhelmingly left-of-center political affiliations of faculties, the fate of former Harvard president Lawrence Summers, and ACTA's recent study of undergraduates' experience of politicized classrooms.

He concludes with the astute observation that attempts to smear the reasonable measures recommended by ACTA only make defenders of the academic status quo look bad:

... faced with the vast uniformity in the ideological coloration of the faculty, the steps being called for in the state legislatures, and by ACTA, seem reasonable enough.

Among them: letting students know during school orientation that they have means for filing grievances if they've been politically intimidated; including questions about ``academic freedom'' on student course evaluation forms; and keeping a central record of academic freedom complaints.

Mild measures like these fall rather short of ``McCarthyism.'' But predictably enough, it is ``McCarthyism'' -- the off-the-shelf, all-purpose debate-ender -- that ACTA and the legislators are accused of by the defenders of the academic status quo.

Really, these people need to find a new cliche to hurl at their critics. If they do, I'll be happy to declare it a trend.

Ferguson would most likely be the first to admit that he's not holding his breath for that one.

To find out more about ACTA's recommendations for how colleges and universities can work to improve and safeguard intellectual diversity, see Intellectual Diversity: Time for Change.

Posted by acta online at 01:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Crossing the line at William and Mary

In a press release issued yesterday, ACTA details its position on a controversy that has rocked the William and Mary community for months:

WILLIAM AND MARY BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER CROSS ISSUE

Thousands of Alumni Concerned; Board Meets Thursday

WILLIAMSBURG, VA (February 5, 2007)--For months, the College of William and Mary has been engulfed in controversy thanks to its president's sudden decision to remove the historic Wren Chapel's cross. In a new letter, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni is urging the college's Board of Visitors to review the decision at its upcoming meeting.

"Over three thousand William and Mary alumni have expressed their concern over the president's decision," noted ACTA president Anne D. Neal. "That is a huge number from an important constituency. The Board of Visitors ought to take their input seriously and review the cross issue this week."

ACTA wrote the letter after numerous William and Mary alumni requested its input on the controversy. As the letter notes, a petitioned signed by over 3,000 alumni who object to the president's decision can be found at the website savethewrencross.org. The Board of Visitors will meet this Thursday and Friday.

Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) also weighed in on the controversy last week. While declining to "micromanage" college presidents, he remarked, "My basic feeling about it, though, is look, this was built at William and Mary as a chapel. And I think to respect what it has been, the role it has played in the college, and to have the cross there certainly did not offend me."

"Governor Kaine has it precisely right," ACTA's Neal said. "The Board of Visitors--fiduciaries of William and Mary--should revisit President Nichol's decision at their meeting. We hope they will fulfill their responsibility to students, faculty, staff, and alumni."

In urging the Board to intervene, ACTA wrote:

William and Mary has a unique past and a history that has, for centuries, attracted students and visitors from around the world to the Wren Chapel and William and Mary's special educational experience. As fiduciaries, the Visitors have an obligation to preserve and protect William and Mary's identity and reputation, and ensure that its governance is open to alumni concerns.

Colleges that exclude alumni from important discussions, or simply manipulate them, not only break their covenant with alumni, but also deprive themselves of the independent judgment and broader perspectives that alumni have to offer. Shutting out informed voices of concern at the very moment when the College's valued history and identity are threatened is perilous indeed.

ACTA's letter points out that prior to last October, a cross donated in the 1930s was placed on the Wren Chapel altar--and that it could be removed for any event whose sponsors objected to it. But in October, William and Mary president Gene Nichol reversed the policy so that the cross was removed unless specifically requested. This was done with no public consultation; an administrator later labeled it an effort to make the chapel "more welcoming."

Nichol has since replaced the cross on Sundays and appointed a committee to study the issue further, but the thousands of alumni remain unsatisfied, and negative publicity continues.

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni is a bipartisan, national nonprofit dedicated to academic freedom, academic quality, and accountability in higher education. ACTA has a network of trustees and alumni around the country and has issued numerous reports including Intellectual Diversity: Time for Action, The Hollow Core, and Losing America's Memory: Historical Illiteracy in the 21st Century. For further information, contact ACTA at 202-467-6787 or visit www.goacta.org.

More to come as the Board convenes. Meanwhile, read all about the recent campus debate about the cross, between William and Mary religious studies professor David Holmes and author Dinesh D'Souza.

Posted by acta online at 08:57 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Quote of the day

In an article in this week's Chronicle of Higher Education, Harvard University press editor Lindsay Waters reflects on our attitudes toward reading, with particular emphasis on our misguided ideal of speedy reading, our short-sighted assumption that elite academic study has little if anything to do with early reading instruction, our attraction to dangerously uninformed intellectual trends, and the power of Oprah to put her finger on the problems Americans face today:

You can kiss your graduate programs in English lit goodbye if we all don't help get the grade schools in order. I know thinking about preschoolers is not in the job description of most academics, but get over it. We need to think about what's going on in our feeder schools. We need to think about what our fellow humanists, the grade-school and preschool teachers, are doing. We should not be afraid to take the lead from Oprah, who in July asserted her intention to deal with this issue in the "first ever summer reading issue" of her magazine. "I can't imagine where I'd be or who I'd be had reading not been such a fundamental tool in my life," she wrote in asking readers to ponder, and comment on, what they know about reading. Report after report testifies to declining literacy in America. Some of the decline is due to the neglect of our least-advantaged children, but some of it is due to the willful embrace of methods for teaching reading that are inimical to reading in depth.

What happens when we have children speed up learning to read, skipping phonics and diagramming sentences? I believe it's hard to read Milton if you have not learned to take pleasure in baroque sentence structures. When John F. Kennedy became president, much was made of the fact that he was able to read so quickly, and people became intrigued with how he'd learned to speed-read thanks to the Evelyn Wood Reading Dynamics. Thank God he had learned to think slowly by the time of the Cuban missile crisis.

Read the whole thing, as they say -- and read it slowly.

Posted by acta online at 11:00 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

A broken system

Writing for City Journal, Heather MacDonald has some sharp words for how the University of California has responded to Proposition 209, the 1996 bill that outlawed the use of racial and gender preferences in government and education. Noting that unlike most California agencies, the University of California has not taken Prop. 209 seriously, MacDonald argues that "through fiendishly clever compliance with the letter of the law," the UC system has ridden "roughshod over its spirit": "In doing so, university officials have revealed a fatalism about the low academic achievement of blacks and Hispanics that they would decry as rankest bigotry in a 1950s southerner."

She goes on to explain in withering detail the acrobatic procedural maneuvers the UC system has implemented in order to continue to use race as a factor in admissions without being liable for using race as a factor in admissions -- and she also details the human cost of a social experiment that, no matter how cleverly UC tries to spin it, keeps on failing. The article is lengthy, but worth a slow and careful read.

Posted by acta online at 10:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Northern Kentucky rethinks speech

Last spring, Northern Kentucky University made headlines when a professor led students in the destruction of a student group's anti-abortion display. NKU was praised for condemning the professor's acts and for upholding the expressive rights of the students whose display was destroyed. But, as ACTA noted on this blog and in a letter to NKU's Board of Regents, the problems at NKU did not begin and end with one professor's failure to respect the constitutional rights of students whose politics differed from hers: NKU's speech code, which indirectly encouraged the sort of behavior the professor engaged in, was the real issue at hand, and required immediate attention.

Now NKU's student newspaper is reporting that university officials appear to be addressing the problem ACTA pointed out last spring. They have drafted a new policy on free expression, and the policy is now making the evaluative rounds. It has been approved by the Faculty Senate, and the Board of Regents is expected to vote on it by March.

The proposed policy focuses on "protests, rallies and demonstrations, postings and temporary displays," and declares that "Northern Kentucky University affirms and supports the concepts of freedom of thought, conscience, inquiry, speech, and lawful assembly. In keeping with these rights, the University affirms that the substance or the nature of the views expressed is not an appropriate basis for any restriction upon or encouragement of a protest, rally, demonstration, poster, flyer, banner or other forms of speech unless prohibited by law." Such language works to clarify the nature of the wrong that was done last spring, when a faculty member took it upon herself to destroy a display that she found offensive. In that regard, the new policy marks a necessary and important gesture.

It's worth noting, though, that NKU still has a lot of work to do if it wants to bring its policies into line with its obligation to uphold the First Amendment rights of all students. FIRE has given NKU a red light rating for its speech codes--and last fall the student paper ran a piece explaining why.

Posted by acta online at 11:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Accountability in the classroom

One of the most knotty issues in higher education today centers on how to balance the competing prerogatives of professors' academic freedom to teach as they see fit and students' right to learn. Studies documenting the overwhelmingly left-of-center political affiliations of faculties have suggested a corresponding problem with politicized classrooms, but have not proven it. Lawsuits in Missouri, Washington, and New York have laid out the kinds of problems that arise when professors cross the pedagogical line, but don't themselves document the extent of the problem. Studies by ACTA show that students find their educational experiences to be routinely marred by professors who don't keep their politics out of the classroom, and that even course descriptions--which function as both advertisements to attract students to courses and provisional contracts with those students--frequently reveal a tendentiousness that is incompatible with intellectual good faith.

But what happens in classrooms themselves has not been widely or consistently documented. There are good reasons for this, some having to do with academic freedom, and some having to do with administrative complexity. But the end result is that students tend to be left unprotected and without recourse when their professors overstep.

In a pathbreaking move, CUNY is working to change that. Robin Wilson of The Chronicle of Higher Education has the details:

Trustees of the City University of New York have established a new procedure to handle student complaints alleging faculty misconduct in the classroom and in other university-related settings. The procedure, which CUNY's faculty union opposes, covers student complaints about professors' "incompetent or inefficient service, neglect of duty, physical or mental incapacity, and conduct unbecoming a member of the staff."

Students must file complaints within 30 days of an alleged incident. If the complaint cannot be resolved informally, the procedure provides for an investigation by a department chair or other senior faculty member or administrator. If a professor is found guilty of misconduct, a letter can be placed in his or her personnel file, or the university may decide to pursue disciplinary action.

The policy says university officials respect professors' academic freedom and don't want to interfere with that "as it relates to the content or style of teaching activities." But the policy adds: "At the same time, the university recognizes its responsibility to provide students with a procedure for addressing complaints about faculty treatment of students that are not protected by academic freedom and are not covered by other procedures."

Noting that ACTA's work has helped create the conditions that make such a policy possible, Wilson goes on to describe the debate that has surrounded CUNY's new procedure. In a five-hour hearing held Monday, Wilson notes, "students generally testified in support of the new procedure and faculty members testified against it." Faculty worried that such a policy would have a "chilling" effect, and would interfere with professors' ability to hold meaningful classroom discussion. Students countered that they need a procedure for filing complaints against teachers who disrespect students or who don't foster a classroom environment that welcomes opposing views.

The result was a revised policy that stressed the importance of preserving teachers' academic freedom and that outlined examples of the kinds of behaviors that would constitute grounds for complaint.

Debate about the policy continues at InsideHigherEd, where commenters register skepticism about the need for such a policy and about the ways in which it might be misused.

Posted by acta online at 10:11 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack