ACTA's Must-Reads

« May 2009 | Main | July 2009 »

New Texas law protects donor intent

By Shant Boyajian

The New York Times reports that the Texas legislature recently passed a law protecting donor intent for orphan trusts -- trusts that are administered by lawyers or banks after the original donor has died.

The danger recognized by the Texas legislature is not a new one. When none of the original family members are present to oversee compliance with a donor's wishes, trusts and foundations often stray from the donor's original purpose. The onus for such wayward disbursements rests not solely on the trustees, however. While trustees have the fiduciary responsibility to use donors' money in a manner consistent with their original purpose in giving, donors must take great care to specify how they want their money to be used. Better yet, donors could avoid gifts in perpetuity altogether, opting instead to give away their money while they are still living.

ACTA discusses these considerations in The Intelligent Donor's Guide to College Giving. This booklet contains sage advice for any philanthropist or potential donor. As noted in the guide, short-term gifts are preferable because you will have more control over your gift if you can supervise it personally and because you will also be able to see the fruits first-hand. We are currently revising and updating this guide. The new edition, available this fall, will include case studies and additional considerations for donors to note in lieu of the Robertson settlement and the recent dispute between Trinity College and the Davis family over the use of an earmarked donation.

Shant Boyajian is ACTA's Friess Family Fellow and a third-year law student at The Catholic University of America.

Posted by David Azerrad on June 30, 2009 at 05:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The dean's list, part 1

As blog readers know by now, ACTA has just launched a campaign to highlight some of the impressive strides that many institutions have made in advancing intellectual diversity and academic freedom in recent years. One such campus was South Dakota State University. Between 2005 and 2008, the South Dakota Board of Regents enacted a number of reforms pertaining to intellectual diversity, including the requirement that a "Freedom in Learning" statement appear on every course syllabus at all of the system's campuses. The statement adopted by the South Dakota State Administration informed students of their right to be graded solely on academic merits, and also told them that if they "believe that an academic evaluation reflects prejudiced or capricious standards," they may contact the department head or college dean.

ACTA had a part to play in raising awareness of the need to protect the free exchange of ideas. In 2006, ACTA offered expert testimony before the South Dakota legislature as it considered a bill to require South Dakota institutions to report on steps they were taking to advance intellectual diversity. Though the legislation didn't pass, it helped to highlight the important issue and resulted in positive voluntary action by the trustees.

Posted by Sandra E. Czelusniak on June 25, 2009 at 03:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Who protects the public interest?

In today's Inside HigherEd, ACTA president Anne D. Neal offers some pointed comments on how to ensure the reconstituted National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity serves the American taxpayer. Criticizing the old NACIQI for being "more attuned to politics than accountability," Neal writes:

"Going forward, I hope for nominees knowledgeable about higher education -- but not beholden to it. Nominees who will bring independence of mind and a focus on educational quality and public accountability. In short, it's time for disinterested nominees. In the corporate world, conflict of interest is taken seriously. We expect to see independent auditors. Alumni, trustees, and taxpayers should expect no less from higher ed."

Posted by David Azerrad on June 24, 2009 at 11:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The ins and outs of intellectual diversity

In featuring ten exemplary practices to promote intellectual diversity, our latest report, Protecting the Free Exchange of Ideas, showcases the actions of 40 institutions across the country and aims to encourage other colleges and universities to follow suit, in line with their individual missions.

Measures highlighted vary, ranging from climate surveys and institutional statements to strategic plans and administrative support. For example, the faculty senate at Old Dominion University passed a "Resolution Supporting Intellectual Diversity" which affirmed that the university is and must remain "an open marketplace of ideas where free expression is exercised and where diverse views are expressed and debate of those ideas is encouraged." Similarly, the University of Maryland's 2008 strategic plan includes a commitment to maintaining UM "as a bastion of free speech, open debate, academic freedom."

On other campuses, new programs enhance intellectual diversity. For example, we praise the Tocqueville Forum at Georgetown University which "seeks to promote a true diversity of viewpoints about the sources of and prospects for American constitutional democracy," as well as the Program on Constitutionalism and Democracy at the University of Virginia. As it turns out, alumni and donors interested in such programs are not alone. The Higher Education Opportunity Act, signed into law last summer after nearly unanimous bipartisan Congressional support, authorizes funding for "academic programs or centers" devoted to "traditional American history, free institutions or Western civilization."

Posted by David Azerrad on June 23, 2009 at 03:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Writing should matter

By Evan J. O'Brien

The Chronicle of Higher Education posted a piece yesterday, "Academic Bait and Switch," by a pseudonymous Henry Adams, about his experience as a teaching assistant for a first-year composition course at an elite university. In it, he describes the situation commonly faced by first-year students--who often find themselves being taught by graduate students like Adams, who are well-meaning, but also unable to teach the class effectively. Even at schools that require writing (and not all do) such a state of affairs indicates the faculty is not making this immensely important subject a priority. Surely, the students deserve better.

Evan J. O'Brien is ACTA's Robert Lewit Fellow in Education Policy and a recent graduate of Harvard University.

Posted by Noah Mamis on June 19, 2009 at 01:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Peachy keen reforms

The University System of Georgia is praised in ACTA's new report, Protecting the Free Exchange of Ideas, for the exemplary actions it has taken in the past two years to promote intellectual diversity. As the report mentions, the USG Board of Regents commissioned a scientific survey of students, which asked them about the intellectual climate on their campus, and each of the university system's 35 campuses also reviewed its grievance policies. Called out for particular commendation is Fort Valley State University, whose revised policies struck us as some of the best we have seen.

These efforts at ensuring a vibrant intellectual environment on the Peach State's public campuses are notable for several reasons. First and foremost is the survey of the campus climate. As our report notes, such a survey "can provide crucial baseline information for trustees." And this one did: It showed that only 36.1 percent of students strongly agreed that they felt able to discuss important issues freely in class -- not an apocalyptic finding, but not a number as high as it should be at a university, of all places. Second, the university system didn't stop there: The policy review included an honest assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of each campus' grievance procedures and resulted in concrete steps to improve them. Third, the USG deserves credit for responding to substantial public interest in the free exchange of ideas, as seen in an informational hearing called by the state House of Representatives and ACTA's 2008 report card.

As we say in Protecting the Free Exchange of Ideas, all of this "offers a model for institutions across the country." We will talk more about this in November at ACTA's ATHENA Roundtable, where one of our panelists will be Georgia state representative Tom Rice -- who was one of the driving forces behind the informational hearing back in 2007.

Posted by Charles Mitchell on June 19, 2009 at 12:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bridging the gap

"Reaching Across the Aisle: Bridging the Gap Between Governing Boards and Academics." That was the name of ACTA's panel discussion at the recent American Association of University Professors annual meeting. Dedicated to fostering a greater exchange between faculty and trustees, this panel was part of ACTA's larger, long-term effort to educate trustees about what constitutes appropriate governance, to educate faculty about the same thing, to spark productive discussions between these two groups, and to enlist the AAUP as a partner in those efforts.

In recent months, ACTA has been pleased to reach out to faculty and the AAUP in a number of ways. In December, we participated in a colloquy with AAUP board member and Penn State English professor Michael Berube at the National Communication Association's annual convention. In January, at the annual meeting of the National Association of Scholars, we asked AAUP president and University of Illinois English professor Cary Nelson to join us in stomping out speech codes (he accepted our invitation). Most recently, we included an article by AAUP general secretary Gary Rhoades about intellectual diversity in our forthcoming newsletter. These events are complemented by our participation in academic conferences hosted by the Association of American Colleges and Universities, the State University of New York, and others. At every point, we seek to build an ongoing, positive engagement with the higher ed community -- to discuss issues, to hear differing perspectives, to brainstorm solutions, and to build the kinds of dialogues and relationships that can facilitate beneficial reform for everyone in higher ed, from the faculty to the students.

We may not have completely "bridged the gap" just yet, but we have only just begun. And I do believe we have laid a strong foundation. As I noted during the AAUP session, ACTA shares faculty members' interest in demanding excellent governance -- including resisting rogue administrators and trustees who micromanage. That is one of the goals of our state report cards, which grade boards on numerous fronts: presidential selection and review, committee structures, transparency and accessibility, as well as substantive actions. ACTA also shares many faculty members' legitimate concern about administrative bloat and about trustees who lack a sensitive understanding of the special protocols and values that underwrite the unique enterprise of higher education.

That said, we also believe that it is the professoriate's job to reach out to trustees. Faculty should understand that presidents and trustees are engaged in enormously complex, vital, and often urgent fiduciary endeavors. They should also understand that, going forward, trustees must be included among academia's primary stakeholders, alongside faculty and administrators. The bottom line: Shared governance should indeed be "shared." ACTA has made a start towards a broader dialogue and we look forward to continuing on this path.

Posted by Anne D. Neal on June 19, 2009 at 10:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Protecting the free exchange of ideas

Those followers of this blog who also read USA Today will see our latest publication, Protecting the Free Exchange of Ideas, featured in today's issue. The report (which was released today) is also being sent to board members of over 600 institutions of higher education, as well as all 50 state governors and congressional education committees. This marks the launch of the latest campaign in our ongoing effort to promote intellectual diversity and pluralism on our nation's campuses. But whereas our previous report, Intellectual Diversity: Time for Action served to highlight the lack of real action on behalf of intellectual diversity at that time and urge concrete action, this new guide showcases those institutions that have taken positive steps to improve their intellectual climate and calls upon others to follow in their footsteps. Whether it is by eliminating speech codes, establishing new lecture series, or improving student grievance procedures, there are plenty of examples worthy of emulation. Be sure to check it out!

Posted by Sandra E. Czelusniak on June 18, 2009 at 03:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

For history only

Inside Higher Ed has a piece today on an interesting experiment in New England: a bare-bones, two-year college with only one major (one that happens to be dear to ACTA's heart). Take a peek at IHE's account of this innovative attempt to remedy the fact that, as one official of the college put it, "this country...doesn't know history and ignores history."

Posted by Charles Mitchell on June 15, 2009 at 03:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The decline and fall (?) of traditional history

If you step into a Borders or Barnes & Noble and head to the history section, you are likely to find a good selection of books covering war, diplomacy, and the lives of great statesmen. Indeed, the public continues to devour volumes from authors such as David McCullough and the late Stephen Ambrose. On college campuses, however, traditional diplomatic, political, or military history is becoming an endangered species. Patricia Cohen reports in today's New York Times that diplomatic, economic, and intellectual historians comprise significantly lower percentages of faculties than thirty years ago, while social and cultural historians increased significantly--and continue to form a larger and larger share of history departments on many campuses.

To put it in military terms, the assault on traditional history is not usually a frontal one. Rather than announcing their intention to eviscerate traditional subfields, today's universities often redefine them--meaning that a course in "military history" could spend more time examining cultural or social topics rather than studying how diplomacy and war unfold. For example, a course on World War II could focus on battles and strategy, or it could "ascertain how elites and different social strata were affected by the impact of war and occupation," as one course description from Princeton reads. Similarly, as Brown University historian Gordon Wood has written, partisans of the "new political history" often "seek to transcend the usual stuff of politics--elections, parties and the political maneuvering of elite white males in government--and to provide a history that views politics through the lenses of race, gender and popular culture."

The marginalization of traditional military history in university history departments has been noted by a number of authors (see here, here, and here). While it is undeniable that the new perspectives offered by social and cultural history have greatly enhanced our understanding of the past, including the study of war, it does not follow that history focusing on institutional actions and figures needs to be pushed to the sidelines. Public discourse about national security and foreign policy are always enriched by an understanding of the way people in the past have handled--or mishandled--these challenges. With numerous challenges confronting our nation today, it seems that the enlightenment gained from traditional diplomatic and military history is as important as ever. Congress realized this when it authorized funding in the new Higher Education Opportunity Act for traditional American history programs. Would that more of those in power on our campuses did the same.

Posted by Sandra E. Czelusniak on June 11, 2009 at 04:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Right call, wrong reason

This Sunday's New York Times carried a piece by former New York City schools chancellor Harold O. Levy that offers a number of suggestions for improving America's schools and higher education. One of them is to unseal college accreditation reports--a dose of sunlight that is surely a good idea. But let us be clear: Most accreditation reports are far from "rigorous evaluations." Indeed, they are often anything but, failing to measure reliably student achievement while taking the time to measure, for example, how many books are in the campus library and what proportion of faculty members have doctorates. Levy is correct that they can contain hard-to-obtain information, but accreditation reports--without the serious reforms advocated by ACTA--should not be the means by which parents evaluate colleges.

Posted by Noah Mamis on June 10, 2009 at 03:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Change and history -- and Jim Leach!

Just last week, ACTA seconded Justice Souter's concern about growing civic illiteracy -- a concern which has motivated not only ACTA, but also much of the good work done by the National Endowment for the Humanities under Bruce Cole and Carole Watson. As Thomas Jefferson noted in a passage we are fond of quoting: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." That's why we are also pleased to hear that Jim Leach, the former Congressman nominated by the White House to head the NEH, told The Washington Post that "The hallmark of our times is change and acceleration, but we have to provide the history."

To our mind, Mr. Leach's comment is not just a random observation. His years as a dedicated public servant have been informed by a strong grounding in history and culture.

In nominating Leach, the White House has acknowledged the important role those outside the academy can play in advancing excellence in the humanities. We wish him the very best!

Posted by Anne D. Neal on June 04, 2009 at 02:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Diplomas and dropouts

This morning, the American Enterprise Institute released a new report from Frederick Hess, Mark Schneider, Kevin Carey, and Andrew P. Kelley concerning one of the most pressing problems in higher education today--our colleges' and universities' abysmal six-year graduation rates. Diplomas and Dropouts investigates the question of why some institutions graduate so few of their first-year, full-time students (some as low as eight percent in six years), even as other institutions with similar admissions criteria and academic programs have much better graduation rates. But as the authors themselves acknowledge, there are real limitations to the data and it is complicated to figure out just what factors influence graduation rates.

For example, the six-year graduation rates collected by the Department of Education are institutional rather than individual graduation rates, and thus do not differentiate between those students who drop out of school entirely or transfer to another institution. Likewise, the reasons why students leave a particular institution can vary considerably. For example, out of institutions designated "Most Competitive" for admissions, West Point and the Air Force Academy rank in the bottom ten of graduation rates. Yet one can surmise that the reasons for this placement would be very different than for others in the category, as the rigors and challenges of being a cadet are quite different than the typical experience of most students enrolled at, say, the University of Miami.

While it is not entirely clear which specific conditions contribute most to graduation or dropout rates, and even less clear how to improve them, Diplomas and Dropouts is a good starting point for those wishing to improve the quality and efficiency of our higher education system. And even more pertinent than degree attainment are the knowledge and skills imparted while students are enrolled at an institution of higher education. What they are learning, then, seems to be an equally important, if not more important question. ACTA will have a new publication on this very subject soon, so stay tuned!

Posted by Sandra E. Czelusniak on June 03, 2009 at 11:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

An eye-opener

Still groggy this morning? Well, skip your coffee and just read Doug Lederman's story, over at Inside Higher Ed, on Clemson University.

If you follow higher education, you know that for all the criticism of U.S. News & World Report's college rankings, institutions take them terribly seriously. But that knowledge alone will not prepare you for Lederman's piece, which reports on a presentation by former Clemson administrator (and current professor) Catherine Watt. One notable portion:

When President James F. Barker took over the South Carolina institution in 2001, he vowed in his initial interview to move Clemson into the top 20 (a distinction that many research universities covet, but few can achieve, given that most of those already in the top 20 aren't eager to relinquish their spots). Although many people on the campus were skeptical, Clemson has pursued the goal almost single-mindedly, seeking to "affect -- I'm hesitating to use the word 'manipulate,' " Watt said -- "every possible indicator to the greatest extent possible." She added: "It is the thing around which almost everything revolves for the president's office."

The "about" page on Clemson's website seems to support that assertion, noting that "Clemson has set its sights on being one of the nation's top-20 public universities by 2011," a goal it says was "officially adopted by the Board of Trustees in 2001."

Lederman's article gets more interesting from there. Here's one snippet:

In reporting institutional financial information to the magazine, she said, Clemson runs "multiple definitions to figure out where we can move things around to make them look best" in the rankings. Academic expenditures are emphasized and administrative overhead minimized wherever possible, within reason, she said. The university has encouraged as many alumni as possible to send in at least $5 to help bring up their giving rate, and hired a firm to find disconnected alumni.

And to actual gasps from some members of the audience, Watt said that Clemson officials, in filling out the reputational survey form for presidents, "rates all programs other than Clemson below average," to make the university look better. "And I'm confident my president is not the only one who does that," Watt said.

As they say, read the whole thing. If you do, you may be left wondering: Is Clemson's top priority academic excellence, or merely the appearance thereof?

Posted by Charles Mitchell on June 03, 2009 at 08:56 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

"The goal is not to go to college; the goal is to graduate."

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan recently gave a speech at the National Press Club in which he briefly touched upon higher education and made two points worth noting. Secretary Duncan laments the excessive cost of attending college -- "at a time when going to college has never been so critically important, it's never been more expensive" -- and reminds us that for all the talk about improving access and opportunities, simply enrolling more students is not the end: "The goal is not to go to college; the goal is to graduate." With the national six-year graduation rate below 60 percent and some universities' four-year graduation rates in the single digits, trustees should pay attention to Secretary Duncan's call. As we noted in our Georgia report card, acknowledging the problem is the first step toward addressing it.

Posted by David Azerrad on June 02, 2009 at 12:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The return of the core?

Over at Minding the Campus, Charlotte Allen writes about the recent Association of American Colleges & Universities core curriculum report, citing ACTA president Anne Neal's critique of the study. "Is the Core Curriculum Really Coming Back?" Allen asks. The answer is best described as "not quite." As Allen rightly comments, "The AACU survey pays lip service to the idea of a core curriculum but its members seem unable to take the next step of actually implementing one." Hopefully, those institutions reviewing their general education programs will take note--and perhaps use some of ACTA's key publications on the topic as a starting point.

Posted by Sandra E. Czelusniak on June 01, 2009 at 12:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack