Author Topic: The Politics of Education  (Read 20359 times)

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2586
    • View Profile
Triage Standards Aren’t Applied to a UCLA Medical Education
« Reply #100 on: March 20, 2024, 04:44:36 PM »
« Last Edit: March 21, 2024, 07:34:34 AM by Body-by-Guinness »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70626
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics of Education
« Reply #101 on: March 20, 2024, 06:31:51 PM »
 :cry: :cry: :cry:



Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2586
    • View Profile
More Protected Class Plagiarism
« Reply #104 on: April 11, 2024, 02:03:50 PM »
Couple interesting pieces re the latest plagiarism scandals to emerge in higher ed. For those who don’t know, “protected class” is educrat speak for minorities identified as worthy of extra protections. Every time I’d embark on a performance management effort for an underperforming employee the first question HR would ask is “are they a member of a protected class?”

Perhaps it’s just me, but it seems “protected” is turning into a synonym for underperforming scholar:

https://www.karlstack.com/p/lisa-cooks-new-plagiarism-scandal?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&fbclid=IwAR0l4o_eKH6kZUTQVc9MQ3fDTluc5B1bS6fiT8MjMJ_Kocac-TrE8YUIM4M_aem_ATR_vR4aNGK7i5XdRCcS3k_snAv21r2O3O7N78Kk3ND7HA9OSzAVlSP9vLwkTXG_qbUw32DAE4Nc-VQmPeNpk1q5

https://www.dailywire.com/news/trouble-at-the-fed


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18974
    • View Profile
Columbia President
« Reply #106 on: May 05, 2024, 02:23:18 PM »
Minouche Shafik

was married to .... drum roll...:

Shafik married economist Mohamed El-Erian in 1990 during their time working for the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, respectively.[77][78] In 2002, Shafik married her second husband, scientist Raffael Jovine

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18974
    • View Profile
Qatar the largest foreign donator to US colleges/universities
« Reply #107 on: May 06, 2024, 06:56:27 PM »
Bermuda # 5 at one billion dollars

Now where in the hell does Bermuda get such money?
Clearly it is being funneled/laundered from another foreign source.

https://investigativeeconomics.substack.com/p/foreign-contributions-to-universities

we need to expose where these schools get their money.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2586
    • View Profile
A Diet Coke Fever Dream
« Reply #108 on: May 08, 2024, 10:42:35 AM »
America needs college presidents/administrators willing to take stands like this:

https://hxstem.substack.com/p/from-the-desk-of-president-john-habidacus?r=2k0c5&triedRedirect=true

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18665
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics of Education
« Reply #109 on: May 14, 2024, 08:00:17 AM »
Student surveys at America's elite universities.



"For most people, politics is about fitting in."   - Nate Silver

https://www.natesilver.net/p/for-most-people-politics-is-about

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2586
    • View Profile
Salvaging Universities?
« Reply #110 on: May 14, 2024, 05:48:40 PM »
I see some signs that some circled wagons have opted to leave the enclosure, but it is indeed few and hardly enough to to reverse things:

POSTED ON MAY 14, 2024 BY STEVEN HAYWARD IN ACADEMIC LEFT, HIGHER EDUCATION
CAN OUR UNIVERSITIES BE FIXED?

Last Friday evening I had the occasion to team up in Los Angeles with Dean Pete Peterson of Pepperdine University’s School of Public Policy (where I just finished a very congenial semester filling the large shoes of the late Ted McAllister) to discuss the state of higher education before an audience of about 90 citizens alarmed at the current scene. Our conversation was unscripted and spontaneous, but here are some highlights, in service of setting up some further reflections in due course:

Dean Peterson: Universities have long leaned left, but it seems universities have gotten a lot worse in the last few years. Is this correct? How and why has this happened?

Me: Universities have leaned left for decades—actually for centuries. In one sense universities ought to be “left,” in the sense that universities should be critical institutions, challenging the conventional wisdom, and thus being agents of progress, rightly understood, when they produce new innovations in science and the humanities. Recall that Thomas Aquinas was a dangerous radical at the University of Paris in the 13th century, but when a challenge survives subsequent criticism and the test of time, it deepens and extends our civilization. And thus, you can draw a straight line from Thomas Aquinas to Thomas Jefferson—the “two Tommys,” as I like to say to students—and you can make out important continuities between parts of Tommy Aquinas’s Summa Theologica and the second paragraph of Tommy Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence.

The problem is that today’s universities have gone from being critical institutions to being fully adversarial institutions, with contempt for both Thomas Aquinas and Thomas Jefferson (and everyone else who built our civilization step by step) because the thinkers and statesmen who preceded us are presumed to be obsolete and unenlightened, if not somehow evil and oppressive. The late philosopher Roger Scruton liked to call this the “culture of repudiation,” in which there is no achievement of the West that today’s left doesn’t want to destroy. Thus universities now have large portions of their faculty and curriculum actively and persistently undermining the foundations of our civilization just as termites undermine the foundations and frames of buildings.

Dean Peterson: Can universities be fixed? Is there hope for reform? What should we look or hope for?

Me: It is possible that the current moment, with the shocking anti-Semitism on display at leading universities right now, is an inflection point. By coincidence, we are having this conversation on May 10. May 10 was the day on which Winston Churchill became prime minister in 1940, at one of Europe’s very worst moments. People recall his speeches from that point on, though I believe his greatest speech came two years before, after the Munich agreement. Churchill’s climax invoked the famous line from the Book of Daniel: “Thou art weighed in the balance, and found wanting.”

More and more Americans have come to this point of view about our universities: they have been weighed in the balance, and found wanting, because they have become badly unbalanced. There is considerable survey evidence of the loss of confidence or esteem for our universities, even among Democrats, who run our universities.

There aren’t a lot of Churchills among our university leadership class these days, but I do get the sense that some people in university leadership are starting to understand that the appeasement of the campus left needs to stop. We see a few hopeful signs here and there. First, a few Ivy League universities have actually hired some high-profile conservatives for important positions recently. The few adults still in the room are finally realizing they have a big problem, and where it comes from. Second, we’re seeing more and more states disband the politicized DEI offices in their public universities. Third and most significant is the establishment of new programs and centers for civic education in leading public universities in several states, which are going to be in several cases very substantial entities, deliberately conservative in their outlook and curriculum.

What this represents is the introduction of real intellectual competition on campus, and as fans of competition this is the most hopeful thing happening. One of the causes of the sharp skew in universities has been that the number of conservative faculty, always historically small to begin with, has dwindled precipitously over the last generation, deepening the intellectual bubble of university life. This may be about to reverse itself in many places. And conservatives do not need anything near equal representation on faculties to make a large difference for a very simple reason: one of us is worth twenty of them. It takes a while to explain why this is so, but it is true. A campus counter-revolution is underway.

Much more to come on this topic.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/05/can-our-universities-be-fixed.php

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18974
    • View Profile
No diversity at Columbia
« Reply #111 on: May 16, 2024, 10:35:15 AM »
so where is the DEI

2/3 of professors think NYPD restoring order was bad idea

while

2/3 of Americans think the exact opposite:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/67-percent-in-new-poll-concerned-campus-protests-will-lead-to-violence/ar-BB1m44ti?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Diversity my ass!


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2586
    • View Profile
School Choice Costs Less, Delivers More, Among Other Findings
« Reply #113 on: May 28, 2024, 04:48:10 PM »
Education savings accounts are also considered, with links to source data. Graph heavy so only link below:

https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/fiscal-effects-school-choice

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2586
    • View Profile
Elite Ways to Launder Funds
« Reply #114 on: May 29, 2024, 03:53:35 PM »
Universities receive public funds, ostensibly for research, that are then retasked for other purposes:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/05/how_elite_universities_use_your_money.html

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2586
    • View Profile
Provost of “Progressive” Pandering
« Reply #115 on: June 05, 2024, 03:01:19 PM »
For a couple years I was my institution’s “administrative officer” at a small satellite campus, which basically meant I was dean, provost, registrar, whatever all rolled into one for this small campus. I thank my lucky stars there wasn’t a “provost for climate change” position I have had to represent as I’d have contemplated sepbuku if forced to wear that stupid mantle:

Penn creates climate change vice provost role
COLLEGE FIX STAFF •JUNE 3, 2024
SHARE THIS ARTICLE:  The College Fix on Facebook The College Fix on Twitter The College Fix on Reddit Share on Email

Will lead efforts to confront ‘existential challenge of climate change’

The University of Pennsylvania now employs a vice provost solely focused on climate change.

The “Vice Provost for Climate Science, Policy, and Action” is tasked with “support[ing] Penn’s leadership in addressing the climate crisis,” according to the campus newspaper.

“This would include responsibilities such as implementing the campus-wide Climate and Sustainability Action Plan, leading academic programs in climate science and policy and enhancing education and training focused on climate mitigation and adaptation,” The Daily Pennsylvanian reported.

The Philadelphia Ivy League university has identified fighting climate change as a core part of its “strategic framework.”

Penn’s framework states:

Every person at Penn and all that we do has some nexus to the existential challenge of climate change. We must, in an all-in University effort, do more. From leading energy science and policy across disciplines to designing and caring for the built environment, Penn will seek additional ways to support and recruit the best minds; fuel initiatives that advance understanding and promise solutions; and adopt institutional best practices for the sake of our future and our planet.

Interim President Larry Jameson provided further comments on the new position as well as another new job, a vice provost for the arts.

“We promised to lead on the great challenges of the world, and climate change may just be the greatest challenge we all face,” President Jameson stated in Penn Today. “And at a moment when it is critical that people come together through deeper understanding and empathy for others, the arts are core to creating connection and fostering common humanity.”

“The most tangible goal of this program is to reduce the temperature of the planet and to protect the planet’s inhabitants and ecosystem while we get there,” Senior Vice President for Strategic Initiatives David Asch stated in Penn Today.

The university also covers the issue of climate change in various courses.

Classes offered in the past include “White Nationalism in the age of Climate Change” and “Imagining Environmental Justice,” as previously reported by The College Fix.

Its “Climate Week” in September featured a dance “dedicated to Monarch butterflies,” as The Fix previously reported.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/penn-creates-climate-change-vice-provost-role/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70626
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics of Education
« Reply #116 on: June 05, 2024, 04:05:19 PM »
My alma mater. :oops:

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2586
    • View Profile
Elite They Ain’t
« Reply #117 on: June 11, 2024, 09:35:00 PM »
Is the tide turning in higher ed, particularly at the elite schools?

Rich Students Disproportionally Play the Radical: Should We Fund Elite Universities?

June 11, 2024

By RICHARD K. VEDDER

عباد ديرانية / Wikimedia Commons

Columbia University, April 2024
Also published in Minding the Campus Mon. June 10, 2024

My friend, John Fund, a distinguished journalist and political commentator, has brought to my attention a fine study done by the Washington Monthly, showing that virulent anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian protests have occurred disproportionately at elite colleges where most students come from relatively rich families.

You heard a lot about pro-Palestinian demonstrations, building occupation, and tent encampments at schools like Columbia or Northwestern, but little or no mention of protests at schools where those attending are primarily from working-class families with a high proportion of first-generation students or at historically black colleges and universities.

The Washington Monthly examined this exhaustively and confirmed that the less selective public universities had far less protest activity than the elite and richly endowed private schools. This is in marked contrast to the widespread Vietnam War era protests, which were prominent at state schools, most tragically, at Kent State University, where four people died.

As one who has studied, taught, or guest lectured at schools of all stripes—I estimate on between 300 and 400 American campuses—I sense the zeitgeist of America’s collegiate villages varies enormously, consistent with the Washington Monthly study.

Many members of the campus community at the most elite schools think they are what Glenn Loury, in his spectacular new memoir Late Admissions: Confessions of a Black Conservative, calls masters of the universe—among the chosen persons classified as the best, brightest, smartest. They think they are today’s philosopher kings, destined to lead the nation in the future just as their professors and alumni did and do today.

The crisis in higher education today is that the academy’s perceptions have likely never been more divergent from those of American society as a whole.

The noble wunderkind idealists inhabiting the Harvards and Columbias of the world believe they have almost a divine right to behave as they wish, ignoring not only the rule of law but also accepted boundaries of protest in the democratic polity in which they live. Worse, they lately have displayed a despicable hatred or contempt towards a group of people based on their religion and traditions, also known as racism—evaluating people on group characteristics instead of their own worth as individuals.

But, the excessive disconnect between the real world and college is beginning to have seriously negative consequences.

Universities are utterly dependent on public support. This dependence is somewhat less pronounced for richly endowed schools like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Northwestern, Duke, and Stanford. However, even these institutions face significant challenges, particularly with the potential imposition of larger endowment taxes. The indication that rich alums will be withholding millions, maybe billions, in support hurts the elite schools, as does a decline in applications, making them less selective, less elitist, and less the home of the chosen ones and instead the home of what that great American philosopher Leona Helmsley once memorably called, “the little people.”

I suspect we are in the early, not late, stages of the impact of the abrupt decline in public support for universities. Waning student interest and the very real birth dearth already provide a bleak future for enrollments and governmental subsidies. When progressive icons like the New York Times and the Washington Post start critically editorializing about some of the practices of the self-appointed collegiate establishment, you know higher education is in trouble.

Both market forces—subdued as they are given massive public and private subsidies—and even governmental actions should bring corrective actions that may lead to improvements: lesser control of campus activities by leftist faculty, administrative, and student leaders. Colleges may be saved by crackdowns initiated by alumni and governing boards of private elite institutions as well as politicians and trustees of state universities.

Already, encouraging signs are appearing. MIT says faculty will no longer be asked to sign loyalty oaths to the woke supremacy commitments to support “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Decidedly, non-elitist Yeshiva University reports booming enrollments as abled—and often rich—Jewish students flee what they see as anti-Semitic hotbeds—Harvard and Columbia.

Spineless, unprincipled, and often academically dubious presidents of schools selected in a self-congratulatory affirmation of racial and ethnic inclusiveness are being defrocked from positions of dominance. And, as the public increasingly says no to campus wokeness, once religious and academically traditional schools are flourishing.

Maybe sanity will prevail, and higher education will come through wiser, rededicated to principles of free expression, civil debate, and respect for the rule of both formal and collegiate forms of the rule of law.

 
RICHARD K. VEDDER is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute, Distinguished Emeritus Professor of Economics at Ohio University, and author of Restoring the Promise: Higher Education in America.

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14954

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2586
    • View Profile
Those Who Can’t Govern, Teach
« Reply #118 on: June 19, 2024, 07:55:57 PM »
Failed mayor to teach (another!) college course. In related news, Emperor Nero will teach a course on civic fire prevention:

https://www.thecollegefix.com/ousted-chicago-mayor-lori-lightfoot-to-teach-public-policy-at-u-michigan/

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2586
    • View Profile
Chevron Ruling: A Boon to Higher Ed?
« Reply #119 on: July 09, 2024, 02:03:54 PM »
Will Chevron pull all the bureaucratic interpretations of federal laws out of the hands of educrats and into the hands of colleges?

Supreme Court’s Chevron Ruling Is a Major Victory for American Higher Education

July 9, 2024

By RICHARD K. VEDDER

The Supreme Court’s recent Chevron ruling, while rightly focusing on central issues like presidential immunity, also brought a potential boon for American higher education. This decision, which I believe holds promise for the future, has yet to be fully grasped by the higher education establishment.

Specifically, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court invalidated the doctrine of Chevron deference prevailing since 1984. In the Chevron case, the Court dramatically curtailed the power of courts to rein in the actions of independent agencies and executive departments to overturn federal administrative diktats, which some think led to the creation of the modern administrative state.

The recent Supreme Court decision has had a profound effect on universities. As Jon Fansmith, the chief lobbyist for the American Council of Education, aptly pointed out, “Almost every aspect of running a modern campus is dictated in some way by federal regulations or guidance—whether that’s how you make staffing, compensation, training, or enrollment decisions, all the way down to the level of what you put on your website.”

I contend that the golden age of American higher education came in the generation before the rise in federal higher education activism, which began after obtaining statutory authority with the Higher Education Act of 1965 but most notably after the creation of the U.S. Department of Education in 1978.

America’s role in creating the world’s best universities dates back to before 1965, when both private dollars and state governments helped finance the planet’s best universities. Aside from obtaining resources, these schools benefited from competition and academic diversity—different kinds of schools, some progressive, some conservative, some religious, others militantly agnostic. We did not have stultifying schools teaching a uniform curriculum with little diversity, the model in much of the rest of the world.

But as Fansmith says, the Feds took that away, especially strongly beginning with the Obama Administration in 2009.

The modern federal administrative state has robbed most universities of much of their individuality, with a few schools of the Hillsdale or Grove City College variety that have completely severed ties with the Feds escaping that fate, generally with great success. The modern-day Department of Education’s sins include the lamentable declaration of war against college men and Anglo-Saxon rules of judicial conduct with the 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter that led most colleges into adopting an almost “guilty until proven innocent” attitude regarding allegations of male student sexual misconduct. The jihad towards men has contributed to a significant decline in male enrollment.

A second significant sin came with the Obama era: “gainful employment rules” applied against for-profit colleges, not against mediocre or worse public colleges, and were designed to annihilate a small but often vibrant sector.

But the biggest problem relates to the terrible federal student loan program. In its best days, the program was a disaster, as it is the primary culprit in the tuition fee explosion of modern times. But with the Biden loan forgiveness programs, it has taken on unjust and costly dimensions of truly Titanic proportions. Aside from its policy inappropriateness, the contempt for the rule of law shown by Education Secretary Miguel Cardona in the light of adverse court rulings has been shocking.

The Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision may have great, long-term positive effects on higher education by giving the courts greater ability to block outrageous administrative fatwas that contradict American legal traditions. Yet that outcome is far from assured. Judicial adherence to stare decisis—deferring to Supreme Court decisions—is somewhat spotty.

Interestingly, when the Chevron case was decided in 1984, conservatives were mostly happy since it was seen as curtailing the power of liberal judges. Yet today’s conservatives also love its reversal because it reduces the power of agencies adhering to a predominantly liberal administrative agenda. The political orientation of both judges and powerful bureaucratic apparatchiks changes with time.

To be sure, the fate of America’s universities depends on many things, and not all their ails are federally inflicted. To cite just one example, the rise in debilitating grade inflation roughly coincides with the growth in federal involvement, and while there may be links between those two things, they are not obvious or strong. Still, my tentative assessment is that the Supreme Court’s recent action improved the environment where higher learning occurs in America.

 
RICHARD K. VEDDER is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute, Distinguished Emeritus Professor of Economics at Ohio University, and author of Restoring the Promise: Higher Education in America.

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14986

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2586
    • View Profile
Unions Limit Data Collection Regarding Sexual Abuse in Schools
« Reply #120 on: July 10, 2024, 05:40:32 PM »
This is all sorts of galling. One of the hats I wear involves coordinating protection for minors attending summer programs on campus, while my father was an educator in IL, finishing his time there as a principal where he had his share of jaw dropping teachers union stories.

Here we find all sorts of pressures to limit reporting of sexual abuse by teachers, with the Trump administration attempting to collect complete data (likely one of the reasons his Secretary of Education faced so much resistance) to the Biden admin seeking to walk that effort back, no doubt as a “favor” to the teachers union:

Forbidden Fruit and the Classroom: The Huge American Sex-Abuse Scandal That Educators Scandalously Suppress

By James Varney, RealClearInvestigations
July 10, 2024

Every day millions of parents put their children under the care of public school teachers, administrators, and support staff. Their trust, however, is frequently broken by predators in authority in what appears to be the largest ongoing sexual abuse scandal in our nation’s history.

Given the roughly 50 million students in U.S. K-12 schools each year, the number of students who have been victims of sexual misconduct by school employees is probably in the millions each decade, according to multiple studies. Such numbers would far exceed the high-profile abuse scandals that rocked the Roman Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts of America.

For a variety of reasons, ranging from embarrassment to eagerness to avoid liability, elected or appointed officials, along with unions or lobbying groups representing school employees, have fought to keep the truth hidden from the public.

AP
Betsy DeVos, former Education Secretary: "They’ve papered them over, acted like it’s not an issue.”
AP
“In any given year they have failed to report thousands of these situations, and instead they’ve papered them over, acted like it’s not an issue,” former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos told RealClearInvestigations. Stunned by a 2018 Chicago Tribune investigation that found 523 incident reports of sexual misconduct by employees of the city’s schools during the past decade, DeVos during the Trump administration launched the process of including specific questions about such cases in the Department’s Civil Rights Data Collection, a process it undertakes every two years. Previously, the Office for Civil Rights asked only general questions about sexual misconduct incidents, without a breakdown of alleged perpetrators.

The Biden administration initially sought to remove those questions, saying it wanted to avoid data duplication, but it backtracked after fierce criticism it was doing so as a sop to teachers unions. Consequently, the question will be included on future questionnaires, but, as of today, the Department of Education “has no data,” a spokesperson told RCI. These days, from Portland, Maine, to Portland, Oregon, even a cursory review of local news reporting brings disquieting revelations of teachers accused of or arrested for alleged sexual relations with a student. In just the past month:

In California, multiple students filed a lawsuit against a male music teacher who had taught at three different schools in the San Jose area. The teacher is already serving prison time for previous convictions in sexual misconduct cases with students.
In New Jersey, a female middle school teacher was arrested for an alleged ongoing sexual relationship with a student.
In Texas, a male teacher was arrested for allegedly having a sexual affair with a 12-year-old student.
In Illinois, a female substitute teacher faces charges of “grooming and predatory criminal sexual assault” for an alleged relationship with a sixth-grader.
In Washington, the arrest of a male high school teacher on charges of sexual misconduct with a minor represented a repeat nightmare for a school district that previously had a psychologist convicted on the same charges.
Just last weekend, a 36-year-old New Jersey teacher was arrested on multiple assault charges involving a sexual relationship with a teenage student.
These stories hold a lurid appeal to some. Sensational accounts of seductions of students by teachers, typically by high school female teachers, are tabloid catnip. The topic has provided material for standup comics, Hollywood writers, and pop tunes that didn't begin or end with Van Halen’s 1984 hit “Hot For Teacher.”


Hot for teacher: From the "Little Rascals" to Van Halen, pop culture glosses over the dangerous liaisons of teacher-student relationships.
"Love Business"/Our Gang short (1931)/YouTube
But experts who track the problem don't take the problem lightly. Pointing to research from Hofstra University that found roughly 1 in 10 students in K-12 schools have suffered “some form of sexual misconduct by an educator,” Terri Miller, head of the advocacy group SESAME (Stop Educator Sexual Abuse, Misconduct and Exploitation), said the number of victims is staggering.

“The rate of educator sexual misconduct is 10 times higher in one year’s time than in five decades of abuse by clergy,” Miller said, noting that in 2021 the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reported it had received nearly 4,300 sexual abuse allegations. “Another striking contrast is we are not mandated to send our children to church; we are mandated to send them to school.”

The extent of the problem may shock many Americans. The topic has long been shrouded by a curtain held by various actors in the drama: schools reluctant to go public with embarrassing and possibly criminal activity, unions fighting for members’ privacy and sometimes state laws that protect it, and a government reluctant to ask hard questions that would gather reliable data.

But the cases and tactics often used to cover them up have become common enough to earn an ugly nickname: “passing the trash.”

“DOE does not and never has tracked sexual misconduct committed by adults against students,” said Billie-Jo Grant, a professor at California Poly State University who is one of the nation’s top researchers on the topic.

“DOE has never aggressively worked to stop teachers' unions and administrators from passing the trash,” she told RCI. “DOE does not hold accountable the many enablers who have created a pool of mobile molesters in our schools nationwide. Your questions should include why? Why? Why?”

Chicago Tribune
One headline that galvanized federal action, followed by foot-dragging.
Chicago Tribune
Grant and Miller attended a Department of Education conference on the topic in D.C. in October 2019, and it was out of that meeting that its Office for Civil Rights decided to ask more specific questions in its Civil Rights Data Collection, according to Miller.

SESAME
Terri Miller: “The rate of educator sexual misconduct is 10 times higher in one year’s time than in five decades of abuse by clergy."
SESAME
And while the government may be groping toward more clarity, as a DOE official acknowledged having “no data” the Department would make public, he insisted the matter is viewed with concern.

In 2004, then-Hofstra professor Carol Shakeshaft did a report for the DOE that assessed the data available on the topic. From a handful of regional studies and media reports, Shakeshaft’s report found some broad parameters of the problem.

For example, while stories involving female teachers may be more titillating and gain more media attention, about two-thirds of the predators in schools are male. While no region seems to be immune from the problem, about half of the reported incidents occurred in southern states, Shakeshaft’s report found. Most of the victims are female (56%), and the majority of incidents involve high schools (62%).

The problem is not confined to public schools, although the public school student population dwarfs that of private and parochial schools. Incidents of sexual misconduct at tony schools like New York’s Horace Mann, or at St. George’s in Rhode Island are but two of the most publicized examples of the problem.

Protecting kids in school from inappropriate or criminal sexual activity involving employees and students would seem a surefire winner, but instead DeVos and her team found it was a political football. Union contracts and in many cases state law protect the privacy of employees. What that meant, DeVos explained, is that even if credible allegations of sexual misconduct were leveled against an employee, unless authorities were called in or an arrest made the alleged perpetrator was often free to leave one school and work in another.

The definitions of what constitutes sexual misconduct could be broadly construed, and the proliferation of social media has not only loosened the boundaries of contact between school employees and students, but provided more opportunities for wrongdoers.

Still, for the most severe conduct, the Trump administration finally introduced on the 2020-21 school year questionnaire specific questions regarding “a school staff member and rape or attempted rape.” Answers for the initial year were optional, as is common with new reporting requirements, and the DOE declined to make the results public. But, in any case, those figures would be hopelessly incomplete because of the widespread school closures that were part of the COVID response.

Even with the new questions, Miller wondered how clear the picture provided might be, because for now OCR is asking only about incidents that occurred on school grounds.

“That means incidents that happen in a car, or an apartment, or anywhere off-campus, won’t be included, and that’s where the majority of these attacks happen,” she said.

The same problem had confronted one of DeVos’ top lieutenants, Kimberly Richey, when she served as chief counsel to the school system in Oklahoma. Even in a deeply conservative state, Richey found few supporters when, surprised by how many complaints were reaching her desk, she approached lawmakers in Norman about changes.

“I met with resistance from the very beginning,” she said. “And I had complaints, 95 percent of the time coming from parents, about a school or a teacher, and when I contacted them the teacher would immediately resign, travel five miles to the next district and start working there.”

Janet Barresi/YouTube
Janet Barresi, Oklahoma: School administrators and board members are more vociferous opponents of reform than teachers unions.
Janet Barresi/YouTube
Several people who spoke with RCI said teachers unions’ contracts were a major obstacle to both moving forward with credible allegations of sexual misconduct and blocking future school employment for alleged perpetrators. Neither the American Federation of Teachers nor the National Education Association responded to questions from RCI about this topic.

Teachers aren’t the only obstacles to reform. While Superintendent of Public Education in Oklahoma from 2011-2015, Janet Barresi said, state groups lobbying on behalf of school administrators and board members were much more vociferous opponents than teachers unions of laws that would force schools to disclose information about prior allegations and cases involving school employees.

“If the system would be more open and honest about all this, then parents would feel more relieved and it would get rid of a great deal of rumor and conjecture,” Barresi said.

It is those employee protections that produce the pattern known as “passing the trash,” several experts told RCI. This is particularly relevant in cases where state or local law enforcement agencies are never notified of allegations. A school may launch an investigation after a parent or student files a complaint, but that investigation would cease when the employee resigned, and then state law or bargaining agreements often prohibit officials administrators from relaying such information to any new school where the alleged perpetrator applied or began working.

Miller said SESAME has model legislation states could pass to confront the problem, but thus far the group has found limited success.

The Enough Abuse Campaign, which did not respond to RCI’s questions, notes that age-of-consent laws and the definitions of what constitutes sexual misconduct have created a complicated legal and regulatory map. Still, the campaign seems more optimistic about legislative progress than SESAME, declaring that “over 75 percent of states have now passed legislation specifically outlawing educator sexual misconduct,” in recognition of the power imbalance that exists in a teacher/student relationship.

And there are some signs lawmakers are grasping the enormity of the issue.

On July 1, an Oklahoma law went into effect mandating any verbal or social media contact between school employees and students be done on platforms the school controls, which state Rep. Sherrie Conley called a “long overdue” regulation.

Similarly, in Michigan, state Rep. Brad Paquette, himself a teacher, has proposed legislation appointing a state ombudsman to deal with sexual misconduct complaints.

gophouse.org
Brad Paquette, Michigan teacher and lawmaker: "You see these headlines all over the place and it’s unacceptable."
gophouse.org
“It’s just a beginning but we have to start somewhere,” Paquette told RCI. “I first heard back in 2012 or 2013, when I started teaching, that I had to join the union because I might have an accusation filed against me. But I thought, ‘No, I should be fired if I did something wrong.’”

“I think we need to be engaged aggressively to root out the problem,” he said. “There’s no good reason for us to take a lax approach. You see these headlines all over the place and it’s unacceptable. People need to start asking questions.”

While Richey said she did not recall any credible allegations crossing her desk during a brief stint as an attorney with Virginia schools, Paquette’s “everywhere” assessment seems on the mark.

In Texas, for example, the online site Texas Scorecard started looking at the issue in 2022 after administrators in Prosper, a swanky Dallas suburb, attempted to cover up alleged repeated sexual offenses by a school bus driver. Since then, Texas Scorecard has kept an unofficial tally of such incidents, and the Lone Star State has had more than 100 cases every year since.

The Prosper superintendent is currently under investigation by Texas agencies, in part for the 2022 coverup, as Texas law requires officials to report any credible allegations of child abuse within 48 hours. In May, two Prosper high school coaches were arrested for allegedly covering up another sexual assault that involved students.

Separating student-on-student sexual misconduct is key to understanding how deep the problem may run with school employees, according to Grant and other experts. For example, in the more general questions DOE’s OCR would ask regarding improper incidents that fall under Title IX, troubling trends emerged. For 2015-2016, there were 9,649 incidents of sexual violence, and of that figure 394 cases were categorized as rape or attempted rape. In 2017-2018, those numbers skyrocketed, with overall incidents rising by 43% to 13,799 and the most serious category 74% to 685.

amosguiora.com
Amos Guiora: “It is so goddamn egregious what they have done to protect people who do this."
amosguiora.com
As alarming as that trend may be, there is no way of knowing how many of those cases involved school employees, and Richey suspects that, given how the questionnaire was traditionally perceived, the majority of them are student-on-student.

Nevertheless, Grant pointed to multiple studies that came to similar conclusions to that reached in the 2004 Hofstra report. That study found that 9.6% of the U.S. student body fall victim to educator sexual misconduct.

Looking at California data from 2010-2021, Grant of Cal-Poly found 2,497 “school employees disciplined, reprimanded or arrested for sexually abusing K-12 students.” Between 2012 and 2018, the DOE received 280 complaints of adult-on-student sexual harassment in Chicago Public Schools. A Texas study from 2008 to 2016 found 1,415 Lone Star State educators “sanctioned for sexual misconduct.”

These academic papers and sometimes salacious news accounts of teacher/student relationships do send up flares from time to time. In 2007, the Associated Press declared that “sexual misconduct plagues U.S. schools,” after its investigation “found more than 2,500 cases over five years in which educators were punished for actions from bizarre to sadistic.” In December 2023, Business Insider looked at the issue and concluded “shoddy investigations, quiet resignations, and a culture of secrecy have protected predators, not students.”

Last year, the Defense of Freedom Institute released a report titled “catching the trash” that concluded sexual misconduct by school employees has raged in the school system for decades.

“Various actors – school and district personnel, teacher unions, and the federal department charged with enforcing laws against sexual assault in public schools – bear responsibility for a systemic failure in preventing, and responding to, sexual assaults in public schools,” the report said.

Pointing to the Biden administration’s attempt to remove specific questions about the issue from the OCR questionnaire, report author Paul Zimmerman told RCI the public should not expect much daylight on the topic in the near future.

“The Biden administration has gone dark on this, they’re not interested in pressing this issue as evidenced by trying to discontinue the efforts made on this front by the previous administration,” he said.

These political bumps, and the wreckage the COVID shutdowns unleashed on education in America, means there is no way of tackling the problem’s dimensions, let alone the problem itself. “It takes so long to get these numbers that in the end they’re not that helpful,” he said.

The best way to block the passage of trash is through the SESAME Act, which DOE has cited as “model legislation” for states. To date, only a handful of states have passed the act, most recently Illinois in 2023. It requires the prohibition of non-disclosure agreements in personal or collectively bargained contracts, as well as deep background checks on all applicants.

Only such thorough steps will break what Amos Guiora, a law professor at the University of Utah who has worked with Miller and SESAME, calls “the complicity of silence.” While the parameters of the problem may be hard to find, Guiora said he was stunned when he recently published what he acknowledged is a niche book on a West Virginia teacher exposed years late as a pedophile murderer. The limited book sold out on Amazon and his podcast has now topped 1 million views.

“That tells you that what’s happening is something that is touching a chord,” he said. “It is so goddamn egregious what they have done to protect people who do this. Lawmakers will have to break the institutional complicity that surrounds this or they’ll just be protecting the perpetrators.”

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2024/07/10/forbidden_fruit_and_the_classroom_the_huge_american_sex-abuse_scandal_that_educators_scandalously_hush_up_1042969.html


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2586
    • View Profile
What Higher Ed is In For Should Trump Win
« Reply #122 on: July 23, 2024, 12:39:54 PM »
Tee hee, looks like academic types at the old day job and elsewhere are contemplating the unthinkable:

What if Donald Trump is re-elected as president? As unpleasant as it may be to contemplate, it’s an increasingly likely possibility that would be a disaster for higher education. Trump leads Biden, according to recent polling. And yet the sector’s response, so far, has been to sleepwalk into the election. It’s time for us to wake up.

For well over a year now, a small army of think-tankers, consultants, congressional aides, and campaign staffers have been at work crafting higher-education policies in anticipation of a Trump restoration. These efforts, if enacted into law, would radically change higher education in this country. Even more worrisome, Republican politicians have recently shown their skill at calling attention to campus problems that resonate strongly with the public. A Trump presidency with a Republican legislative majority could remake higher education as we’ve known it.

Given the stakes, it is time to look more closely at what Trump’s re-election could mean, and to be clear-eyed about the weaknesses a second Trump administration would exploit. Put simply, changes in academic leadership style will be necessary if the sector is to defend itself effectively.

The December 5 congressional hearing on antisemitism on college campuses offers a preview of what’s to come. When we pull ourselves away from the partisan melee and the fallout, including the resignation of two Ivy League presidents, we can see the outlines of a thus far one-sided battle. The maladroit responses of the presidents provided the necessary pretext for advancing the Republicans’ attempt to punish parts of the academic enterprise they disdain and to redirect university efforts along the lines they champion. But the right’s interest goes well beyond anything discussed by the three university presidents who were grilled by Republicans on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Consider Christopher Rufo, the conservative activist behind Republican attacks on critical race theory and antiracism programs (and now a board member at New College of Florida). He sees universities as having succumbed to “race and sex narcissism” and as having turned their backs on the “pursuit of truth.” He dismisses the idea that universities can reform themselves: Administrators are too “weak,” he argues, and are thus prone to “emotional or social manipulation” by faculty activists. For Rufo, the way forward is to use state power to bring about what he sees as the necessary changes. Triumphant at the resignation of Claudine Gay as Harvard University’s president, he wasted no time in announcing a “plagiarism hunting” fund aimed at exposing “the rot in the Ivy League.” But that’s just the beginning of what Rufo has in mind.

In a panel discussion last May at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, Rufo laid out his agenda: (1) mobilization of the Department of Justice to investigate elite universities for admissions procedures that violate the recent Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action; (2) penalties for universities where the department finds free expression to be curtailed by social-justice priorities; (3) the closing of certain departments, particularly ethnic and gender studies, where “ideological capture” is, he believes, most widespread; (4) new hiring procedures that emphasize the importance of a “multiplicity of perspectives”; and (5) termination of diversity, equity, and inclusion offices. His ideal for undergraduate education is a “classically liberal” curriculum, focused on great works.

Rufo has also made clear that new accountability mechanisms will be required to achieve these ends. The locus of authority will be the agencies of government, including not only the Departments of Education and Justice (purged of people sympathetic to the social concerns of universities, of course), but also reformed regional accreditors whose criteria for re-accreditation would reflect the new priorities. Universities are highly dependent on the federal government for research and financial-aid funding. The threat of defunding is therefore a powerful instrument in the hands of those like Rufo who have big-stick sanctions in mind. Accreditation has been a recurring target of the right. On the campaign trail last year, Ron DeSantis called accrediting agencies “cartels” and promised an alternative system that would say, “We will not accredit you if you do DEI.” Trump has promised to “fire” accreditors, telling supporters, “Our secret weapon will be the college-accreditation system.”

The current accreditation system is a frequent target of Republican plans, but it is not the only one. Proposals for increasing the tax on university endowments, eliminating diversity statements in hiring and admissions, restricting international collaborations, and reducing regulations on for-profit and online colleges are also circulating in Washington. Plans to reduce the size and cost of our higher-education system are widespread. The Cato Institute’s 2022 higher-education handbook for policymakers, for example, argues that “the federal presence in higher education is ultimately self-defeating, fueling huge price inflation and overconsumption. The solution is to avoid the superficial thinking that all ‘education’ is good and to let people freely decide what education they need and how they will pay for it.”

On January 20, 2025, a newly elected Trump administration would assume the presidency armed with policies produced by a network of think tanks and research centers, including the Heritage Foundation, the Goldwater Institute, and Chris Rufo’s home base, the Manhattan Institute. Heritage has been instrumental in providing agendas for Republican politicians for more than 40 years. Its “Project 2025” brings together a coalition of over 100 conservative groups, including Turning Point USA, the National Association of Scholars, and Hillsdale College, and it has already released a nearly 900-page document, “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” detailing the operations of federal agencies with the goal of coalescing “an army of aligned, vetted, trained, and prepared conservatives to go to work on Day One to deconstruct the Administrative State.” Project 2025 is described as a “plan to unite the conservative movement and the American people against elite rule and woke culture warriors” and as the “last opportunity to save our republic.” The precise details for how exactly to deconstruct higher education are murky, but they will almost certainly parallel those that are already circulating in the public domain.

These proposals are tied together by the now-familiar populist narrative that pits “unaccountable elites” against “ordinary Americans.” As Project 2025 explains, “Today, nearly every top-tier U.S. university president or Wall Street hedge-fund manager has more in common with a socialist, European head of state than with the parents at a high-school football game in Waco, Tex. Many elites’ entire identity, it seems, is wrapped up in their sense of superiority over those people.”
In a manner consistent with this framing, conservatives are determined to point their pitchforks at the most prestigious universities first, perhaps on the assumption that the rest of higher education will fall in line once the giants are humbled. As U.S. Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana, a member of the Republican Study Committee, put it in a recorded call with business leaders, the hearing with the university presidents was just the first prong of attack. “The second step is the investigation, the subpoenas, gathering all of the documents and the records from these universities to prove the point,” Banks reportedly said. “That they’re not just allowing this behavior to occur, they’re fostering it and creating an unsafe environment for Jewish students on their campus because of it.” His third step? “Defund these universities by cracking down on not backing their student loans, taxing their endowments, and forcing the administration to actually conduct civil-rights investigations.” Rufo has spoken of directing the Departments of Justice and Education to “relentlessly degrade the status and prestige” of elite institutions. House investigations of several Ivy League universities are already underway.

As the criticisms of higher education have mounted, the weaknesses of its self-defense playbook have become evident.

In addition to the think-tank populists, Republicans in Congress will also have a say. Judging from the “College Cost Reduction Act,” introduced in January by Rep. Virginia Foxx, the North Carolina Republican who leads the House education committee, the congressional push will be directed toward three goals: capping the maximum loan amounts students can obtain, providing additional aid for low-income students who make consistent progress toward their degrees, and reforming accreditation by prioritizing student achievement and post-college employment measures. The anticipated additions to Pell Grants would be offset by penalizing colleges whose students fail to make timely loan repayments. The bill includes provisions that would incentivize colleges to close programs whose students are encumbered by loans they cannot repay and to expand programs whose students tend to fare well in the labor market in the years after graduation. In other words, the Foxx bill would place a heavy hand on the balance sheets against the arts, humanities, and softer social sciences.

And, of course, Trump will have his own ideas about what should be done. We can predict many of the priorities from those expressed in his last budget proposal to Congress. His administration called for a 7.8-percent cut from the Department of Education budget, with sharp reductions for public-service loan forgiveness. The National Institutes of Health budget was slated for a 7-percent cut; the National Science Foundation faced a 6-percent cut. Trump also attempted to eliminate all funding for the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities, something he repeatedly attempted — and was unable to achieve.

More recently, candidate Trump has offered two concrete, if far-fetched, policy proposals. The first is for an entirely new system of accreditation heavily weighted toward evaluating colleges on the basis of job placement, evidence of student learning, and curricula that focus on “the American tradition and Western civilization.” The second is for a federally funded tuition-free, open-access online university. He has christened this leviathan the “American Academy.” It would be funded primarily by taxes on existing universities’ endowments, with the focus, naturally, on the largest endowments.

Of course, not everything Republicans hope to achieve will be achievable. It will be a heavy lift to bring the regional accreditors into the Republican policy orbit, given that any national-level policy changes would require revision and reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965, an endeavor that would not move quickly (if at all). And if Trump is re-elected, his American Academy seems doomed from the start — not only by its prohibitive cost but by how closely it resembles the late, unlamented Trump University, which closed its doors in 2010 and was forced to pay out $25 million to students it defrauded.

A second Trump administration would begin by distinguishing policy goals that could be enacted through executive orders from those that require congressional or state legislation. On the congressional side, it would not be difficult to find ambitious lawmakers eager to push legislation. Judging from their public statements, J.D. Vance, Tom Cotton, Dan Crenshaw, Elise Stefanik, and Virginia Foxx are already champing at the bit. White House and foundation policy shops will produce and distribute talking points. If history is any guide, these talking points will include cherry-picked data to provide a thin veneer of rationality. Those talking points will then be rehearsed doggedly in committee meetings and floor debates. Democrats would of course take to friendly airwaves to denounce the legislation, and rallies would be held on college campuses in opposition. But, in the end, if Republicans have the votes, some of the new policies would prevail.
Higher education has a playbook for self-defense, as we saw during the first Trump administration. And yet as the criticisms of higher education have mounted, the weaknesses of that playbook have become evident. The weaknesses include university presidents — particularly their reflexive reliance on policies and processes unconnected to deeply held values, their evasiveness in the face of tough questioning, and their failure to understand and respond to the demands of political theater. All of these attributes were on stark display during the December 5 antisemitism hearing. The transcript shows that Claudine Gay referenced Harvard policies and processes nearly 30 times while largely ignoring the results of these policies. She evaded answering pointed questions over a dozen times. Missing were compelling examples supporting her many references to her university’s “robust” disciplinary policies or illustrating how a vibrant culture of open expression actually exists on the Harvard campus. Instead, she relied on terse statements about her “deep commitment to free expression” and the importance of “preserving the security of our community.”

These bloodless responses made for a stark contrast to the emotionally charged language of her inquisitors. The hearing began with a short video showing hate-filled chanting and acts of intimidation. Representatives vividly described antisemitic actions on campus, including Jewish students being pushed, spat upon, and punched. Republicans passionately condemned the “moral rot” at the heart of the academic enterprise and the “poison fruits” of institutional culture. There were also many accusations of or references to murder, barbarism, and mania.

The message was clear: Republicans have learned to capitalize on dramatic events as a springboard to more far-reaching policy changes. Universities have been a punching bag on the right for decades, but rarely have so many cameras and notepads been present to record such a perfect representation of the Republican narrative.

Those who advance to top positions in universities are generally expert managers. Many also have the capacity to charm donors. They are less likely to be practiced politicians or to be deeply immersed in the intellectual life of their institutions. In part this is because of the division of labor between outward-facing presidents and inward-facing provosts and deans. It also results from the development of separate administrative tracks where the high-stakes issues are finance and budgeting, regulatory bodies, conflict abatement, reputation management, and enrollment management — not the research and teaching mission.

It would be a mistake to call most of today’s university presidents academic leaders. They are managers of complex organizations whose product lines range from athletics to zoology. They are subject to pressure from state legislatures, donors, regulatory bodies, professional associations, faculty interest groups, parents, and prospective students. Given the complexity of the role, university boards have over time concluded that outstanding scholars rarely make outstanding university managers. When I examined the careers of university presidents several years ago as part of research for a book (Two Cheers for Higher Education), I found that only about half of the top 50 research universities and a sprinkling of liberal-arts colleges recruited presidents who had excelled as scientists and scholars. The rest hired candidates with modest academic careers, candidates who had worked their way up through the administrative bureaucracy without ever professing, or candidates whose careers had been spent in political life or business.

At the nation’s largest and most-selective universities there is a playbook for how to handle nearly every situation a president encounters, including data breaches, athletics scandals, and student suicides. Because of the many units a president presides over, and the diversity of the constituency for each, such playbooks are necessary. Presidents learn to speak publicly only about the recognitions their faculties and students obtain. Prizes, graduations, and record-breaking fund-raising campaigns deserve speeches. Everything else is not for public consumption. When controversies arise, presidents put together task forces. They consult legal counsel before acting; they defer to counsel when resources or reputations may be at risk. They learn what is expected at ceremonial occasions and how to perform these duties. They are briefed on how to interact with legislators and how to deflect uncomfortable questions. They learn to promise to look into matters without necessarily intending to do so. They have speechwriters to write their speeches, assistants to troubleshoot and mollify, and deans and department chairs to interact with the faculty and students. Most of the time this managerial approach works. But when it comes to combating a well-organized political party determined to degrade academic institutions, managerialism invites disaster. If the presidential playbook isn’t thoroughly revised, higher education will face a diminished future should Trump and Republicans regain power in 2025.
What, then, can be done to avoid this unhappy outcome?

First, universities will need to decide which of the policies that are currently under attack should be preserved or strengthened and which may require reform — or abandonment. Republicans have attacked university endowments, science funding, the teaching of critical race theory, diversity policies, and academic-freedom protections. Some of these commitments will be easy to defend. How can the U.S. compete effectively without robust academic R&D? Congress has so far agreed, but the case must continue to be made effectively.

Other policies will require better defenses than have been offered thus far. Diversity policies are at the top of this list. The idea that the civic mission of universities centers on the racial and gender diversity of faculty and student bodies is relatively new. It became a fixture of liberal thinking only two decades ago when the first diversity statements were required and as DEI offices began to catch on. The decline of Republican support for higher education shares this timeline. Diversity, equity, and inclusion caught on with campus leaders after affirmative action was hamstrung by the courts. On some campuses, it has proved to be a poor substitute because it is forced into the pretense that all diversity matters even when university practices belie the claim. The Israel-Hamas conflict and the December 5 congressional hearings exposed the subterfuge.

As an antidote to the attacks on DEI, presidents can begin to extol again the broader civic mission of universities. That broader vision includes research that provides far-seeing insight into the world we inhabit; studies that help solve a wide range of community problems; the development of new technologies to bring jobs and new wealth to states and regions; lectures and performances that bring cultural enrichment to local communities; and the cultivation of future leaders from among the undergraduate and graduate student bodies.

DEI policies are part of this package, but only part. And because they are controversial, they should be defended with concrete evidence of their effectiveness. Do DEI offices have measurable effects on the sense of belonging or the level of achievement of students from underrepresented groups? Have they helped to retain diverse faculty? If so, how large are these effects? And what costs, if any, have the offices incurred in terms of campus free speech? It is surprising that studies like this are in such short supply.

It is tempting to think that elite institutions should begin to focus again on recruiting distinguished scholars and scientists for leadership roles (as opposed to those who have lesser academic records but lengthier management experience). After all, excellent scholars might be more likely to speak with knowledge and conviction about the intellectual and educational accomplishments of their institutions, having contributed to those accomplishments themselves.

But what is more essential for presidents is the ability to recognize when they are actors in a political arena and to have the presence of mind to meet such moments. If a member of Congress asks for the percentage of conservative faculty members at Harvard, the right answer should come naturally. The right answer is not the one Claudine Gay gave: “I do not have that statistic. We don’t collect that data.” The right answer challenges the premise and is conveyed openly rather than at arm’s length: Academically talented conservatives usually prefer to go into business, legal, or medical careers, and Harvard would welcome qualified conservatives who wish to give up the higher salaries in those fields for the opportunity to research and teach at a world-class university.

Harvard is looking for a new president. One of the criteria should be the capacity to provide the public with straight talk and with concrete examples illustrating why their institutions make a difference and are worthy of public support. In the current environment, and given the stakes, the tight-lipped and evasive answers of today’s academic managers just won’t cut it.

https://archive.is/vxd7p

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70626
    • View Profile
Civic Ignorance
« Reply #123 on: July 24, 2024, 12:10:02 PM »
https://washingtontimes-dc.newsmemory.com/?token=e29fe31f201f4f2330df59ffb6aa46d1_66a0fc92_6d25b5f&selDate=20240724

History test bodes ill for government of the people

Many young voters lack basic knowledge

BY SEAN SALAI THE WASHINGTON TIMES

An academic survey shows that, like a 1960 hit song, college students don’t know much about history … or civics, government or politics.

Far from the “Wonderful World” crooned by Sam Cooke, educators and public policy experts say the results portend an alarming disengagement from the U.S. political system as the November elections loom.

“Many Americans choose to pay not much attention to political life and don’t have a strong understanding of American history,” said Bradley Jackson, vice president of policy for the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. “In the absence of that understanding, civil life will erode and decline, creating more potential for disunity and polarization.”

His nonprofit group, which advocates for the liberal arts, found in its recent survey of 3,026 undergraduates that 60% did not know the length of the terms of U.S. senators (six years) and representatives (two years).

Only 35% knew that Mike Johnson was the speaker of the House, 27% knew that Vice President Kamala Harris was the president of the Senate, and 37% knew that John G. Roberts Jr. was the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

Mr. Bradley, who teaches political science at American University, said the findings echo the results of several other

surveys ACTA has conducted since 2000.

Other higher education insiders interviewed by The Washington Times said the ACTA survey confirms years of research linking poor civics knowledge to disinterest, discontent and distrust among young voters.

Some said the trend has contributed to a rise in low-information voters deciding elections and in historically illiterate politicians gaining power with extremist rhetoric.

“Before we single out America’s youth, I suggest that all federal and state legislators take the history and civics test required for naturalization,” said Brendan Gillis, director of teaching and learning at the American Historical Association. “In order not to embarrass individuals, we can report the results in the aggregate by legislative body.”

Mr. Gillis said the ACTA findings spotlight the necessity of professional development resources for K-12 social studies teachers to cover hot-button topics free from outside political pressure.

Others criticized the ACTA report and its recommendation that all colleges require a course in U.S. history and government. They said K-12 public schools should be the ones to teach political literacy because many voters never attend college.

“College is not the place to learn the basics, and a college course should not be remedial,” said Robert Weissberg, a retired University of Illinois professor who started teaching American politics in the 1960s. “Student ignorance reflects how professional educators have taught some to disdain ‘mere facts.’”

The ACTA survey, conducted by College Pulse from May 10 to June 19, posed 35 multiple-choice questions in an online panel to students from all 50 states.

One question: “Which branch of the government has the power to declare war?”

Only 32% correctly identified the legislative branch, and 48% named the executive branch. Another 5% said the judicial branch could declare war, 3% pegged the Pentagon and 11% were unsure.

Another question asked where presidential impeachment trials take place.

ACTA noted that only 32% correctly answered that the Senate conducts the trials even though the students lived “through two recent presidential impeachment trials” of President Trump.

Some academics challenged the value of the questions.

“The ACTA conclusion that the bullet-point findings from their survey encapsulate ‘core principles and values’ of American democracy and history borders on the absurd,” said Robert Heineman, a political scientist and former department chair at Alfred University in New York. “These are essentially questions of detail.”

Elesha Coffman, a cultural historian at Baylor University, said her lessons do not address the survey questions.

“I would rather help my students grasp large trends — the trajectory of enslavement, emancipation, Jim Crow and civil rights, for example — than make sure they know the numbers of constitutional amendments or which speech was the source of a particular phrase,” Ms. Coffman said. “The how and the why of history matter more than bare facts without context.”

Others said that students weaned on digital media instinctively tune out any information they can find in a quick internet search.

“We adults need to realize that our education system still relies too much on rote memorization, ironically producing kids so bored that they can’t remember squat,” said Woody Holton, a U.S. history professor at the University of South Carolina.

Other key findings in the ACTA survey:

• 31% of undergraduates correctly answered that James Madison was the “father of the Constitution.”

• Just 23% correctly answered that the phrase “Government of the people, by the people, for the people” came from the Gettysburg Address.

• Only 28% correctly identifi ed the 13th Amendment as the government action that outlawed the practice of slavery.

Connor Boyack, creator of the free market Tuttle Twins franchise and author of a U.S. history book for children, said the findings show K-12 education must evolve beyond “rote memorization of random facts” to connect ideas to students’ lives.

“No wonder the kids ‘pump and dump,’ learning information for a test … only to soon forget it and move on with their lives,” said Mr. Boyack, president of the Libertas Institute in Utah. “Results such as these spell doom for our country’s future if there’s not a massive course correction soon.”

Just a handful of the ACTA survey questions went beyond factual topics.

Question 33 asked: “If the United States were invaded by Russia as Ukraine has been, what would you do?”

Forty-three percent said they would “stay and fight,” and 57% said they would “flee the country.”

Donald Critchlow, director of Arizona State University’s Center for American Institutions, said such findings underline the danger of failing to teach young people a “shared culture and history.”

“If our youth don’t know that history, the nation is vulnerable to external enemies and internal chaos,” said Mr. Critchlow, who teaches American history.

Policy experts have cited multiple reasons for the surge of political negativity among young people, such as the idea that the two major political parties do not represent their interests and mounting despair about their financial prospects as college costs rise and wages stagnate.

Conservatives have blamed woke academics for teaching “divisive topics” about race and gender identity that stigmatize straight White males as oppressors.

“Basic knowledge about American history and government does not align with their agenda to topple our constitutional republic and replace it with a communist regime,” said Sheri Few, president of the right-leaning U.S. Parents Involved in Education. “If we are to save our republic, patriotism must return to America’s classrooms.”

On the other side, liberal academics have accused conservatives of minimizing America’s painful legacy of slavery to exclude minorities from the conversation.

“What part of America’s history will be taught, and who will decide that? Across America, organizations like The Heritage Foundation and so-called leaders like [Florida Gov.] Ron DeSantis are whitewashing American history and denying students the full picture of America,” said Omekongo Dibinga, a professor of intercultural communications affiliated with the Antiracist Research and Policy Center at American University.

Historians say polarization has driven up anger toward a political system that few young people understand.

“If we don’t understand government, we can’t govern ourselves,” said Jonathan Zimmerman, a historian of education at the University of Pennsylvania. “Of course, students should have learned all of this material well before they got to college. But they haven’t, so higher education needs to pick up the slack.”

“A society that is built on the concept of democratic self-governance cannot survive without an educated citizenry,” said Wilfred McClay, a U.S. history professor at Hillsdale College, a conservative Christian school in Michigan.