ACTA's Must-Reads
« March 2009 | Main | May 2009 »
Zywicki redux
We wrote recently on the Dartmouth College Board of Trustees' refusal to grant one of its members, Todd Zywicki, a second term. Fellow trustee Peter Robinson has now weighed in with a letter to the student newspaper. It says, in part:
Todd Zywicki asked searching questions. He insisted upon honest analysis. In a body dominated by bankers and businesspeople, he offered the insights of a professional academic. He reminded us again and again of our responsibilities to students, the faculty, alumni and the law. He proved informed, hard-working, dedicated and utterly committed to genuine debate. Mr. Zywicki proved a superb trustee -- superb.
Well put. Trustees should be commended, not canned, for asking questions and getting answers.
Posted by Charles Mitchell on April 29, 2009 at 04:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Requesting nominations
The American Council of Trustees and Alumni seeks nominations for the Philip Merrill Award for Outstanding Contributions to Liberal Arts Education.
The prize is awarded annually to an individual who has made an extraordinary contribution to the advancement of liberal arts education, core curricula, and the teaching of Western civilization and American history.
The Award is named in honor of Philip Merrill, a distinguished public servant, businessman, and philanthropist, who tirelessly supported and affirmed the importance off academic excellence and a common core of learning in a free society.
The nomination form is available here. The deadline for submission is June 1, 2009.
Posted by Noah Mamis on April 29, 2009 at 12:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Hardball at Harvard
Today on Minding the Campus, Harvard Board of Overseers petition candidate Harvey A. Silverglate has an incisive piece on recent developments in his campaign and that of fellow petition candidate Robert L. Freedman. In addition to obviously being of interest to Harvard alumni, his op-ed is one of which all trustees should take note. Indeed, the issue he raises -- preferential access to the alumni base granted exclusively to those who support the status quo -- is one reformers have also confronted at Dartmouth, Hamilton, and elsewhere.
Reflecting on some of the events summarized by Silverglate, Sunday's Boston Globe pronounced, "Perhaps MIT and BU should send election observers to Harvard, just to be sure." Ouch.
Posted by Charles Mitchell on April 27, 2009 at 03:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Core considerations
After participating in a conference to mark the 60th anniversary of the State University of New York, ACTA president Anne D. Neal published an op-ed on the SUNY core curriculum in the Sunday edition of The Buffalo News. Though the piece focuses on SUNY, its main argument as to the importance of the core and the role trustees must play in implementing strong general education requirements applies to any college or university: "Rather than leave it up to 18-year-old freshmen, still inexperienced in the ways of the world, to figure out what they need to know, the adults -- in this case the board of trustees -- exercised their judgment and identified critical areas for students to study."
Posted by David Azerrad on April 27, 2009 at 11:39 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
$28 billion, but no room for the Great Books
According to a story in yesterday's Harvard Crimson, the Harvard administration has deferred a plan to institute a Great Books program as an option in the general education curriculum due to a lack of funds. Nearly a dozen professors, the article reports, had been meeting since the fall of 2007 to structure an ambitious and rigorous option for students focused on foundational texts. According to the story, both students and professors had embraced the program idea -- not otherwise offered at the University -- as what history professor David Armitage called "a radical move for students to deploy their intellectual armory." In pleading poverty (notwithstanding an endowment of $28 billion), Harvard administrators have surely illustrated their sorry indifference to a quality undergraduate education. At the same time, they have given alumni one more reason to pay serious attention to the petition candidacies of Robert Freedman and Harvey Silverglate, who are running for the Board of Overseers in the belief that educational excellence should be Harvard's first priority, not its last.
Posted by Noah Mamis on April 24, 2009 at 01:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Economic literacy in Alaska
ACTA's survey of economics requirements at leading universities across the country was recently mentioned on the CBS affiliate in Fairbanks, Alaska. The University of Alaska Fairbanks turned out to be the only institution to make sure its students graduate with an understanding of the basic principles of economics.
Posted by David Azerrad on April 24, 2009 at 09:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
An editorial we could have written
The Fort Myers News-Press recently published an editorial calling on the Board of Trustees of Florida Gulf Coast University to be more active and more accessible to the public. The editorial clearly and concisely lays out the principles of good governance in higher education. The opening sentence -- "University trustees should not micromanage, but they shouldn't be rubber stamps, either" -- could just have been culled from ACTA's guide The Basics of Responsible Trusteeship.
Posted by David Azerrad on April 23, 2009 at 02:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Wall Street Journal spotlights donor intent
ACTA president Anne D. Neal and ACTA Leadership Society member Diana Davis Spencer are featured in an excellent story on the front page of today's Wall Street Journal. As Anne points out there, the recent settlement of the Robertson family's donor-intent lawsuit against Princeton University has proven a wake-up call to many donors to colleges and universities. And as we pointed out at the time of the settlement, that's not all:
Especially in these challenging times, alumni support can be the lifeblood of higher education. That's why our colleges and universities -- starting with those in charge, the trustees -- must take proactive steps to make sure they are living up to their obligations to donors. This is a key part of ensuring a quality education.
The tale related by Diana Spencer and others in the Journal story is just one more reason why these proactive steps by boards are sorely needed.
Posted by Charles Mitchell on April 23, 2009 at 09:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Finding the source of administrative bloat
According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, a recent study by our friends at the Center for College Affordability and Productivity has shown that non-instructional "support staff" at universities (which include loan counselors and budget analysts) have doubled over the past twenty years, outpacing enrollment. Meanwhile, instructional staff only grew by about 50 percent. CCAP's new report joins several other studies which show similar results concerning the rapid growth of non-teaching employment in higher education--which the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education's Patrick Callan describes as "simply not a trend that's supportable." In a bull market, such hiring might not have seemed problematic, but now, with endowments falling and families tightening their belts, universities need to take a close look at their priorities if they are going to cut costs and improve their operations. CCAP has done yeoman's work in researching and exposing the administrative glut and inefficiencies that contribute to ballooning college costs. This report ought to get a wide hearing.
ACTA has also noted with concern universities' troubling propensity to increase administrative spending at a significantly higher rate than instructional, a phenomenon on display both in Georgia and in Missouri. At the same time, we have praised institutions, like the University of Missouri System, that have attempted to take address this problem.
Posted by Sandra E. Czelusniak on April 21, 2009 at 09:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A privilege -- not a right
Another university, another controversial speaker, and another confused debate about the invitation. The difference this time is an insightful op-ed penned by a professor at Clark University, where the administration first rescinded and then reinstated the invitation for Norman Finkelstein to address students. In her piece published in The Boston Globe, professor Deborah Dwork correctly explains the nature of campus speaking invitations:
An invitation is an honor. While it does not imply endorsement of the ideas presented, it certainly suggests recognition of expertise and stature. Of all the people who could have been invited, the speaker is the chosen one; the outcome of a deliberate selection process. Speakers, for their part, recognize this. They add such presentations to their curriculum vitae and thus build their professional reputations.
Dwork's concluding call for universities to "adopt a robust invitation process" echoes ACTA's recent call for "rigorous policies on guest speakers."
Posted by David Azerrad on April 20, 2009 at 03:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
MLA, ACTA and common ground
Are the Modern Language Association's head and ACTA on the same page? Well, you decide. A recent address at the MLA by president Gerald Graff suggests there is indeed some common ground. (At the MLA website, click on "Listen to the 2008 Presidential Address" on the left sidebar.) There, over a period of 45 minutes, Graff covers many different topics, including student engagement and the role of professors. He also acknowledges--unlike many colleagues--that political advocacy in the classroom and the lack of openness to opposing viewpoints are real problems.
As Graff sees it, being sheltered from "qualified criticism" of pet biases and assumptions is detrimental to faculty intellectual development--and makes it "unprofessional and unethical" for professors to "appoint themselves the political consciences of their students." These concerns sound mighty close to observations ACTA has made in our report Intellectual Diversity: Time for Action and elsewhere. We thank our friend Mark Bauerlein for bringing this speech to our attention, and we commend it to yours.
Posted by Sandra E. Czelusniak on April 20, 2009 at 09:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
As Harvard goes, so goes higher education?
Seven years and two presidents ago, Harvard began to craft a new curriculum. After many false starts, it will go into effect this fall -- even as its own architects admit it looks a lot like the flawed program it was designed to replace. One could simply toss this aside as a missed opportunity for one university, but do so would be a mistake: Last month, Bucknell University faculty approved a new curriculum, and, amazingly, it looks a lot like Harvard's botched effort.
This is yet another reason that Harvard's ongoing Board of Overseers election is of acute importance -- and Harvard alums who think higher education could do better should look closely at the two petition candidates, Robert Freedman and Harvey Silverglate. Harvard needs to get it right because its choices affect not just its own students, but also those at institutions that, for better or worse, look to Harvard for leadership.
Posted by Anne D. Neal on April 17, 2009 at 02:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A battle won
This weekend, the Richmond Times-Dispatch published an editorial highlighting the controversial tenure and promotion guidelines recently proposed at Virginia Tech's College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences. It concluded on a wishful note by "hoping wiser heads at Tech make necessary changes." The wiser heads must have listened, because the university announced yesterday that it would rescind the proposed policy.
The CLAHS is, however, only one of Virginia tech's nine colleges. The provost's tenure guidelines, which have been on the books for some time now and contain similar policies, remain. Let us hope the wiser heads will not stop there and will look at all Virginia Tech policies that raise serious First Amendment and academic freedom issues.
Posted by David Azerrad on April 15, 2009 at 01:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Virginia Tech update
This evening, ACTA issued the following statement regarding Virginia Tech:
The Virginia Tech administration has withdrawn a proposed policy in one of its colleges that raised First Amendment and academic freedom concerns. This is a tacit admission by the administration that these concerns, raised by many observers, are serious. But the administration has not solved the problem: There are many similar policies already on the books, as outlined by ACTA in our communications with the Board of Visitors. These developments make it more urgent than ever that a comprehensive review be performed.
Posted by Charles Mitchell on April 14, 2009 at 06:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Fired for doing his job
If our colleges and universities are going to do their jobs, they need trustees who will in turn do their jobs. Unfortunately, April has not been a good month on that front. First, Virginia Tech's board reversed itself on whether it was going to do its job. Now, Dartmouth has announced that reform-minded trustee Todd J. Zywicki, a law professor at George Mason University, will not be permitted to serve another term.
As Zywicki outlines in a statement on his website, he has not hesitated to speak out on the key issues facing Dartmouth, and higher education in general. In at least one instance, he has done so in a harsh manner, and he has apologized for it. What is unique about Zywicki is not that he is human, and has therefore on occasion erred; it is that (unlike so many other trustees) he has been willing to raise problems openly and to seek solutions. It is a terrible shame that his reward for that -- that is, for doing his job -- is to be denied a second term.
Posted by Anne D. Neal on April 14, 2009 at 05:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
"Ward Churchill's win is scholarship's loss"
Salon.com has posted a thought-provoking piece by Gary Kamiya, which parallels in many ways ACTA's position on the seemingly endless Ward Churchill controversy. The piece lays out in layman's terms the breadth of Churchill's academic misconduct, making it clear that whatever political controversy Churchill may have engendered, his deliberate invention of facts and distortion of sources were unacceptable. After reading the litany of fraud Churchill committed and got away with, it is scary to think of future academics who may think that starting controversy is now an adequate substitute for legitimate research.
Posted by Noah Mamis on April 10, 2009 at 03:54 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
"ROTC should be fully and unequivocally welcomed back to Harvard"
Forty years after Harvard caved to student protests and expelled ROTC from campus, two seniors who are about to be commissioned second lieutenants in the Marine Corps have issued a strong call for ROTC's return in The Wall Street Journal. There, Joseph Kristol and Daniel West outline the obstacles the administration has set up for students who wish to participate in the program at MIT and lament the decline in the consequent enrollment. There are only 29 ROTC cadets at Harvard today -- and they are spread out over four services and four years.
Last fall, ACTA sent a letter to Harvard and six other major universities, calling for the return of ROTC. Harvard did not even bother replying.
There is some good news. The two petition candidates in this year's Harvard Board of Overseers election, Robert L. Freedman and Harvey A. Silverglate, both unambiguously support the return of ROTC and promise to work toward that goal should they be elected. Harvard alums, take note: Ballots are in the mail.
Posted by David Azerrad on April 10, 2009 at 12:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Setting the record straight
A day after ACTA put out a press release commending the Virginia Tech Board of Visitors for agreeing to undertake a comprehensive review of the university's tenure and diversity policies, as we requested in an earlier letter, representatives of the university wrote to us to object. The rector, who heads the board, denied that he had agreed to undertake a comprehensive review, saying, "The only statement I made was that any change in policy would have to be approved by the Virginia Tech Board of Visitors." The administration, via the University Relations department, explained that board members "would have nothing to review until it is presented to them for review." Since Inside Higher Ed published a short piece today on the disagreement over what was said during a telephone conversation between the rector and me, I believe this summary of our good-faith efforts to communicate productively with the board is in order.
After the National Association of Scholars brought to light Virginia Tech's controversial tenure policies and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education wrote to the president, we wrote a letter to the board on March 27th, calling upon it to undertake a "full and immediate review -- at the board level -- of all policies relating to tenure, promotion, and diversity." We drew attention to both the proposed tenure and promotion guidelines of the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences and to several other related policies implemented by the university in recent years.
On April 1st, I followed up on the letter with a call to the rector. I left him a message and he called me back shortly thereafter. We spoke for several minutes and it was all very cordial. I repeated our concern that any review extend not only to the policy that had just been voted on by faculty, but also those already on the books. I asked if I were correct in understanding that the board would perform such a review. I also asked him whether the president and provost were aware the board intended to undertake the review. I took notes during the call.
Immediately after our conversation, I sent the following email to colleagues, in which I summarized what I asked the rector and reported our conversation:
Mr. Lawson says he does not know what the vote is but that no matter what the board will be reviewing all the policies as we have asked them to do and the President and the Provost are aware that the Board will be doing so. He says nothing can be changed before the Board approval. They understand our concerns in the letter and will look at them carefully. Best group of trustees he says and he has been there for seven years. He assures they will look at the policies in terms of legal matters and fairness and that they will review all policies as we request.
The following afternoon, on April 2nd, we faxed and mailed him a letter recounting the conversation. In the letter, we praised the board for deciding to undertake a "comprehensive review" and specified, once again, that the proposed CLAHS policies are "just one part of a web of policies that raise First Amendment and academic freedom concerns."
On the afternoon of April 6th, we sent the press release praising the board, whose language parallels that of the follow-up letter to the rector, to the media. A few hours later, we received a call from University Relations saying the rector disputed our account. The following morning, we received an email from University Relations demanding we retract our press release, as well as a four-sentence letter from the rector indicating he had said only that changes in policy would have to be approved by the board. For the reasons outlined here, we declined the administration's request.
ACTA's message has been consistent from the start: The board must review all policies. We made this clear in every communication with the board. The rector had four days between the time we faxed him our follow-up letter and the time we issued our press release to attempt to correct any perceived misunderstanding -- yet he did not.
All that said, it is important not to miss the forest for the trees. The board and the administration are both now saying that it is not the board's job to be asking questions and looking at things proactively. As I wrote in response to the Inside Higher Ed piece today:
Only in higher education would a governing board object to being publicly praised for promising to do its job. And only in higher education would an administrator insist, as one of Virginia Tech's did in an email to ACTA, that board members only examine what is "presented to them for review." This kind of rubberstamp governance would never be tolerated in the corporate world. Why should we accept it in higher ed, where taxpayer dollars and academic integrity are at issue? Virginia Tech administrators -- and the board itself -- seem to have forgotten that board members are the ultimate fiduciaries and are appointed to serve in the public interest. The university's tenure and diversity policies, as noted by ACTA, FIRE, NAS, and the student newspaper, raise serious First Amendment and academic freedom issues and warrant a careful review. Rather than look the other way, the board must undertake such a review.
Posted by Anne D. Neal on April 08, 2009 at 07:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
How to beat a recession--higher ed-style
It is often said that recessions are proof that human beings fail to learn the lessons of history--even recent history--and thus keep repeating the same mistakes again and again. This is no less true for higher education, as Patrick Callan and Robert Atwell relate in Inside Higher Ed. Universities' response to economic slowdowns typically has been to raise tuition even higher, rather than make appropriate cutbacks and innovations in programs and expenditures. But in this current recession, some are finding creative ways to weather the economic storm while maintaining a commitment to affordability and access. For example, the states of Maryland, Michigan, and Missouri are shielding public universities from funding cuts in exchange for tuition freezes, while policymakers in Texas, Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee are trying to come up with funding models that will incentivize universities actually to retain and graduate students, rather than just enroll them.
Of course, one point worth adding here is the critical role that trustees must take in spearheading these efforts. As ACTA pointed out in our Georgia and Missouri public higher education report cards, trustees are in a unique position to improve quality and cost-effectiveness. That involves, as Callan and Atwell suggest, reviewing and/or closing redundant or unproductive programs, keeping a closer eye on spending, and finding ways to improve retention and graduation rates. Only with active leadership from the board can our universities address ballooning costs and bureaucratic inefficiency in a way that will not only get them through the economic downturn, but also make them stronger institutions in the future.
Posted by Sandra E. Czelusniak on April 07, 2009 at 02:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Time to look at tenure policies
The head of Virginia Tech's Board of Visitors has agreed to undertake the comprehensive review of the university's tenure and diversity policies that ACTA called for in a letter sent to board members. In a conversation with ACTA president Anne Neal, John R. Lawson II acknowledged ACTA's concerns about the controversial tenure policies -- those of the provost's office already on the books as well as those being considered by the College of Liberal Arts and Human Science. He promised that the board would review all the policies and examine the First Amendment and academic freedom issues they raise.
Virginia Tech's policies, as well as the Churchill saga at the University of Colorado, underscore the need for boards across the country to make sure that faculty hiring is based on merit -- demonstrated excellence in teaching and research -- rather than non-academic standards.
Posted by David Azerrad on April 06, 2009 at 04:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Lessons for trustees
Today, ACTA president Anne D. Neal penned a piece on what lessons trustees can learn in light of the just-decided Ward Churchill trial. It begins:
A jury in Colorado has determined that Ward Churchill was wrongly fired. This comes after three major review bodies within the university, over a two-year period, found Churchill had committed serious and repeated acts of plagiarism, falsification, and fabrication. It is sad that the taxpayers in Colorado, not to mention parents and students who pay dearly for a University of Colorado education, are left holding the bag for an academic fraud. But it would be equally sad if trustees concluded from the verdict that they should remain hands-off when it comes to academic standards and accountability.
Posted by Charles Mitchell on April 03, 2009 at 06:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Where are the adults?
As Inside Higher Ed and many other publications are reporting, a jury decided last night that former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill was wrongfully terminated. ACTA has long been on record supporting Churchill's First Amendment right to say even foolish and deplorable things, as well as the CU Board of Regents' decision to fire him for proven academic dishonesty. Not surprisingly, we agree with this morning's Denver Post editorial: "Over two years, several panels found [Churchill] had falsified work, plagiarized and fabricated information. If that's not enough to fire a professor, then we have big problems."
Quite right: We do have big problems in higher ed. Recent news, including the Churchill decision, begs the question: Where are the adults on our campuses? Where were the adults when Churchill was hired, promoted to department chairman, and awarded a $96,000 salary -- in spite of complaints about his scholarship as early as 1996? Where are they today, when students are being sent a message that plagiarism is okay so long as one cries academic freedom?
At a time when academic standards are on the decline, cheating among students is at an all-time high, and families' budgets are stretched thin, adults -- including trustees and administrators -- need to ensure excellence, intellectual honesty, and a thoughtful mix of ideas on our campuses. We need better ways of holding tenured faculty accountable, as ACTA argued in Academe. We need a greater focus on academic honesty. And we need better policies on campus speakers and events, as we have noted in The New Republic and The Philadelphia Inquirer. Alas, this verdict, lending support to the incorrect idea that academic freedom means "anything goes," only discourages the adults from stepping in -- and just when they are most needed.
Posted by Charles Mitchell on April 03, 2009 at 01:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Warm winds of change in Connecticut
This editorial from the Litchfield County (Connecticut) Register Citizen paints a dreary but all-too-familiar picture about the college preparedness of many students at our nation's universities. The Citizen is primarily concerned with the Connecticut State University System, less than half of whose entering freshmen complete a four-year degree within six years. While this is consistent with national trends, the CSU Board of Trustees is trying to break this pattern.
The board voted on March 12th to raise admissions standards for its four universities. Now, applicants will have to have high school coursework for four years in math (instead of three), three years of science with two laboratory courses (instead of two years of science with one year of laboratory), three years (instead of two or three) of Social Studies plus U.S. History, and second-year competency in a world language. These changes, which are slated to go into effect as early as 2015, undoubtedly will have a positive effect, as a better-prepared student body will be less likely to need remediation or take more than four years to complete a bachelor's degree. They also send the message to elementary and secondary schools that academic laxity is not an option at a time when an educated workforce has become more important than ever. May other boards follow this example.
Posted by Sandra E. Czelusniak on April 02, 2009 at 05:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Happy April Fools' Day
Anyone who cares about higher education should make it a point to attend post-structuralist literary theorist Arnaud de Rayon's interactive workshop on "bi-contemporality in the homogenous field of the post-reconstructed deconstructionist world" today at Yale.
Or so the Yale Daily News' April Fools' Day edition would have you believe. The problem is that the joke doesn't work, since such meaningless and pompous postmodern verbiage has long since become an integral part of many academic disciplines. It's already been more than a decade since the following excerpt from an academic book took first prize in Philosophy and Literature's Bad Writing Contest:
The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.
With prose like this now available year round, who needs April Fools' Day?
Posted by David Azerrad on April 01, 2009 at 06:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The aftermath at Boston College
As we mentioned, William Ayers was to speak at Boston College on Monday, but the college's administration suddenly canceled the event. While it is too late to do anything about that, it's not too late for the BC Board of Trustees to make it less likely that another high-profile, embarrassing incident like this will occur in the future. That is why ACTA wrote the trustees a letter today. It said, in part:
While Mr. Ayers' past behavior and involvement deserve our most profound condemnation, to disinvite him on the grounds of "safety" is tantamount to a heckler's veto -- and a violation of academic freedom. We hope you will agree that this situation calls for constructive involvement by you and your fellow trustees, who are guarantors of academic freedom at BC....We encourage the Board of Trustees to exercise its fiduciary responsibility by ensuring the college has a comprehensive speaker policy that protects academic freedom as well as ensuring that students have access to a wide variety of views -- so they can make up their own minds.
This, if we may say, is good advice for any board. If we can help yours, please call us.
Posted by Charles Mitchell on April 01, 2009 at 04:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack