The University of Chicago is hardly a conservative place. It is simply a place where conservatives are less likely to be harrassed (note that I very explicitly do not say a place where they are not harrassed). That is all you need in the academic racket to be perceived as a conservative institution.

By AtlanticBlog, who also notes an article on how some donors and their families are finding their endowments used for unapproved ends.

Joanne Jacobs runs through the usual lament that the payoff to college education isn't what it used to be. Of course not. You increase the supply of college graduates "in Ambiguous Studies from Pass Through U" and you are bound to decrease the wage differential for a four-year degree. Less-glamorous vo-tech courses that teach specific skills still return about the same premium ($1905/yr, according to the College Board.) My question: To what extent is this because of choices of majors vs. a general glut of college graduates in all fields?

He can thank Michael Moore :

Let's get rid of Bush...there are many democrats running...but it's not about choosing anyone but Bush, it's about choosing anyone but Lieberman.

If Lieberman is getting wind up Moore's skirt, I need to read him more carefully.

The furor over the Minnesota social studies standards has increased, with four members of the drafting commission now issuing minority reports. Education Commissioner Cheri Yecke wonders why they waited until now.

Critics of the social studies standards say the proposal includes too many standards, represents a conservative bias and contains standards that are age-inappropriate.

One criticism is that Presidents Reagan and Eisenhower get multiple mentions but Kennedy and Johnson do not receive any. Another is that controversial events like the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II are omitted.

This week the state teachers union, Education Minnesota, sent a letter to Yecke listing its concerns.

Thirty history professors from the University of Minnesota also have sent a letter voicing opposition, saying that, among other weaknesses, the standards "offer a fundamentally incomplete and unbalanced portrayal'' of world history.

On Friday, a group called Minnesota Against Proposed Social Studies Standards submitted a petition containing 1,470 names to Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

Yecke defended the draft. The proposal does have too many standards, she said, because it always was the intent to whittle them down through the upcoming editing process. Those that are age-inappropriate can be altered or moved, she said.

Again, we note -- it's a first draft that's drawing all the attention. In another article, teachers were voicing concern over students not having "the benefit of in-depth investigations, interdisciplinary approaches and authentic assessments." This is of course rubbish and symbolic of the takeover of our schools by an ideology that will not recognize America's role in moving the democratic experiment forward. And it appears Yecke and Governor Pawlenty will stick by their guns. Said Yecke,

The majority of parents and the public want to see history standards that reflect the greatness of the country. I don't believe in the hate America agenda, and it would be inappropriate to have that agenda in our standards.

Good for her to call out these sycophants of the liberal agenda.

At the bottom of the Letters to the Editor to the Chonicle this week lays this note.

Editor's note: Several letter writers have taken umbrage at the recent story setting forth one former student's criticism of Richard Lewis, former controversial dean of the College of Social Sciences. The University Chronicle editorial board has decided to investigate the claims of editorializing and biased reporting, which it takes seriously. The matter is being referred to University Chronicle Readers' Advocate Joe Palmersheim for analysis under the guidance of adviser Michael Vadnie. An ombudsman analysis, incorporating the facts and the criticism surrounding the story, will appear in University Chronicle prior to Thanksgiving break.
- Editor Eric O'Link

Not that Palmersheim or Vadnie will care what I have to say, but the article that we reported on Tuesday was clearly not ready for publication. Just because you can't get people to comment because of the delicacy of the situation around Lewis' firing is not reason to present a one-sided case. It should have been a flag that there was much more going on here, and the story was still immature for publication.

Oh, and Eric? He's a controversial former dean (in your opinion). He's in no way "formerly controversial". Editors should edit.

This fellow can teach for me any day. High school girls were leaving lip prints on bathroom mirrors at school, so the principal gathered them in with the maintenance worker that was cleaning the mirrors.

To demonstrate how difficult it had been to clean the mirrors, she asked the maintenance man to show the girls how much effort was required.

He took out a long-handled squeegee, dipped it in the toilet, and cleaned the mirror with it. Since then, there have been no lip prints on the mirror.

There are teachers, and then there are educators.

While walking through the student union today I noticed a table to promote the school levy. Isn't it interesting? When the students are behaving like students on campus and in the nearby neighborhood they are treated as pariah, but it's OK to ask them to vote for a property tax levy that they will never pay (if they live on campus -- and even if they live off campus the renters tax refund will give them back the excess.) It's a rather shameless case of playing "OPM" -- Other People's Money. The Minnesota Taxpayers League has been running ads lately highlighting the cry-wolf behavior of the local area government before.

Cities, counties, and school districts ran a scare campaign this spring in an attempt to defeat Gov. Pawlenty’s budget proposals. Time and again, their forecasts of disaster should that budget pass have proven to be false. One city—St Cloud—actually claimed that the cuts in local government aid would result in 100 layoffs; in reality, only one employee was laid off,” said Linda Runbeck, President of the Taxpayers League.

The educator unions have kicked in $5,500 and a school board member has given $6,000 to support the levy, while opponents are working with less than a thousand. I'd suggest they come over here and explain to students how they'll be out the use of their money for more than a year while they wait to get their tax refunds, and how the tax hikes will mean fewer jobs in the St. Cloud area.

Invisible Adjunct makes an excellent connection between the case of tenure denial at Carroll College and the KC Johnson story. IA's point is at the bottom of her post:

I understand why Johnson believes faculty have too much power over the tenure review process, and can appreciate why he would argue that faculty decisions should be accountable to some other body. But what I find almost shockingly naive about the argument that adminstrators and trustees must step forward to require "careful accountings" of the tenure process is the confident assumption that said administrators and trustees are as committed to the institution of tenure as the faculty who are, in Johnson's view, "unwilling or unable to create an intellectually diverse campus." What makes Johnson so sure that administrators and trustees are willing and able to create an intellectually diverse campus?

She's right: They're not, as any reader of this blog will have seen time and again.

I think the issue here is the understanding that faculty have when you hire them. Telling some-one they are non-tenurable (fixed-term, adjunct, visiting, etc.) makes very clear that you are working on a contract that does not provide the option for lifetime employment. You must earn your way, and prove yourself over and again. Most people in the private sector do this as a matter of course, which is largely why they view the tenure system as suspect. But what do we mean when we say that the option is available? At SCSU, the term we use is "probationary": There is a presumption of tenure if one completes "a demonstrated cumulative record of positive performance and professionally competent achievement consistent with the goals of the institution." Do it, and you're in. Don't do it, and you're out. It's simply a decision of what constitutes that cumulative record. I could go on and on about the degradation of the standard, but that's a separate point. Tenure is a presumptive right in that contract for anyone that meets the standard.

At Carroll College, it appears the contract faculty sign grants tenure "based upon the needs of the instructional program of the college and a candidate's potential for contributing to those needs." Now, if the university is cutting the religion or chemistry program that's certainly a reason for denying tenure -- even AAUP recognizes that as legitimate -- but the article says that the programs are growing and the courses taught by the faculty denied tenure are popular. I suspect Carroll's administration is going to have a hard time with this case because they could easily have written the contracts to tell faculty that the positions were "tenurable" without the language on instructional needs. You could offer even a contract that says financial exigency will be grounds for denying tenure. Of course, you then get a poorer pool of applicants -- these are the tradeoffs anyone hiring help faces, in any industry.

Likewise, nowhere in the KC Johnson case did anyone testify that one is supposed to be 'collegial' in order to receive tenure. The testimony he provided to Congress is something I agree with, but Invisible Adjunct misses the point of Johnson's Shadow File created by faculty whose only complaint was over Johnson's politics, something surely extra-contractual. He was lucky that they put the complaints in writing, and he wonders how many others were denied tenure without a similar paper trail. IA can disagree over how big a problem that is, because we'll never really know, will we?

David Beito from the Alabama Scholars Association and the Liberty and Power blog sent out a note on an entry they had about an artist whose exhibit in a university theater was moved for fear of offending the patrons. The artist's work included some nekkid men, as Mom used to say. 'Offensive!' said the university president at the university, who is trying to move it to less visible quarters. Prof. Beito is properly defending the speech rights and academic freedom of the art professor. They also note that the theater is currently showing a production of Arsenic and Old Lace, "a play about serial homicide and poisoning."

Unqualified Offerings and I agree -- it isn't our taste, but that's irrelevant. Jim compares this in a subsequent post to the story about a boy who got bounced out of school for drawing stick figures of a Marine shooting a Taliban fighter. The 14-year-old has a father and a stepfather both in the military and in the Persian Gulf area. Like him, I did draw pictures of jets fighting and bombers bombing WW2 and, because that happens to be my age, the Seven-Day War with Israeli and Arab planes. This was not just at school, but at a Methodist summer camp. Nobody called my mom.

As usual, Eugene Volokh sets the right tone on a campus speech issue. Concerning the Roger Williams University debate he adds,

So the university is trying to stop groups from expressing viewpoints that the university concludes contain "hate" or "create a hostile environment" ... for certain groups -- which presumably means messages that "seriously alarm" groups, "slander" them, or are "sexually, racially, or religiously offensive" (since that's what the University seems to view as "harassment").

Somehow, the university claims that this can coexist with "the right of campus organizations to hold different points of view and to disagree," but obviously there are certain points of view and certain disagreements that the university wants to banish. If you criticize homosexuals -- if you are "anti-Islamic" -- if you express views that the university thinks are "racist" (I wonder exactly what those are) -- you risk defunding, being labeled a harasser (one who creates a "hostile environment"), and, if I read the Student Handbook right, potential discipline and loss of computer access.

This is not, it seems to me, how debate on gay rights, or for that matter on race or on Islam should proceed -- by trying to shut out one set of voices, while supposedly "affirm[ing] the right of campus organizations to hold different points of view and to disagree."

Volokh is more sure that RWU is acting within its rights than I was -- and on this I'd defer to a more knowledgeable legal scholar -- but it is not faithful to the purpose of higher education.

A faculty member posted to the campus discussion listserv about student reactions to Homecoming and the willingness of the administration to punish students for off-campus behavior.

The students didn't understand how SCSU could discipline them for off-campus behavior and, upon learning that under many conditions it could, found this to be unfair, discriminatory, etc.

What became clear in the discussion was that student conceptualizations of their relationships with SCSU were inappropriate. They seemed to consider the student-SCSU relationship as if SCSU were their employer or (entertainment?) service provider. Many strongly argued that SCSU has no legitimate interest in their non-classroom behavior just like they believed that an employer or business has no interest in non-work or non-customer related behaviors.

These problematic student conceptualizations could explain many problems. It seems to me that SCSU needs to surface and correct such misconceptions during the student orientation process. It is not enough to threaten to punish students. They need to understand that SCSU really can, and why.

Indeed, it was clear that students need to better understand their relationship with the university in general. Their inaccurate beliefs were almost perfectly predictable based upon social (working, lower) class.

The faculty member was asked to elaborate further but alas did not. I'm certainly not clear on what the social class reference at the end was about. I also wonder whether there's a distinction to be made between a public and a private university here? I would encourage readers to look at the introduction to our student code of conduct. I have checked the prohibited conduct list and find no direct reference to off-campus actions, but does the intro may give them enough broad latitude to act on off-campus behavior?

SharkBlog has initiated a Crayon Diversity Award, and sure enough another administrative overreaction to an affirmative-action bake sale has won the award going away. One of my commenters previously noted that the issue would go away if only the administration would stop reacting. Well, that misses the point: the bake sale point ends up not being about affirmative action but about free speech. Read the overreaction and find the tell-tale “I’m all for free speech … but ..." sentence. Down that road lies censorship.

Do you ever wonder how many academic watch Fox? (I don't; I take four newspapers and don't bother with TV news.) In a letter to the editor following a dispute between a columnist and an official of the network, John Rosenberg highlights the misperception that universities are all Democratic. The letter states,

In "News for Nincompoops?" John Moody of Fox News ridicules the idea that people who voted for George Bush "come from backward parts of the country," while Al Gore supporters were "urbane, witty sophisticates" [Free for All, Oct. 18]. But a map of the United States showing how congressional districts voted in 2002 clearly indicates that districts that are home to a university almost universally voted Democratic.

But, Rosenberg shows, the districts around Penn State, U. Iowa, Ohio State and U.Va. are all heavily Republican. And Minnesota 6, home of SCSU. Talking to people around town you get the feeling that St. Clouders are from Venus, professors are from Mars.

In a front-page article, the student-run University Chronicle has extensive comments by former student Robbi Hoy about her case against Dean Richard Lewis, recently fired reassigned to special projects communicated via carrier pigeon. Hoy originally was a plaintiff in the anti-Semitism suit. She claims that Lewis withheld a grade for an independent study she took with another of the plaintiffs, Laurinda Stryker. Her grade was eventually issued, and she received $7500 and a letter of apology from the university.

The article is simply a recitation of Hoy's story, but one needs to make a careful reading here, though. A dean cannot "withhold a grade". When I write a grade for a student, it goes on an official form directly to the registrar's office. The dean has no opportunity to review the grade before then. In this particular case, Stryker stopped teaching in the middle of the spring term during which Hoy took the course, because of the stress Stryker experienced during this time. The courses had to be picked up by other faculty. Dean Lewis, as a former member of the same History Dept. that Stryker was in, pitched in to help pick up the stray bits of her workload, which included Hoy's independent study. What Hoy never says is whether Lewis received the work she had prepared for the course. She says

When my independent study was done and I was waiting for my grade, Lewis informed me that I would be getting an incomplete when I had gotten an 'A'.

But who said she had an 'A'? Stryker? If so, it was a very simple matter for Stryker to fill out the grade sheet and send it to the registrar. If she could not come to campus for some reason, she could simply mail or fax a letter authorizing Dean Lewis to sign the gradesheet with the A on her authority. Indeed, a dean submitting a grade for a class without the faculty member's signature would be a very dangerous precedent. Giving an incomplete maintains the faculty member's academic freedom to issue grades to their students as they judge them. The student handbook is quite clear

When a student who is otherwise doing satisfactory work in a course is unable, for reasons beyond her/his control, to complete all course requirements during the term, he/she may be given an "I" for incomplete. The incomplete must be removed by the student within one semester, except an incomplete given spring semester must be removed by the end of the following fall semester.

If the student never gave her work to Lewis to evaluate, and if Stryker was not coming back to teach the following semester (which she did not), he had no choice but to get her to take the course over.

This should get you to wonder, if you're with me, "why did they give this woman a grade and 'shut up' money?" Because this administration does not support its deans, and it always settles lawsuits. As Geoffrey Tabakin, another plaintiff, says in the Chronicle article, "It is not just about one dean or one student, but an administrative problem that is being placed on Lewis." Amen to that. Bet you won't hear that from Stryker or Zmora, however.

UPDATE: Another faculty member reminds me that Stryker did in fact come back to teach in Fall 2001, only to again drop out in the middle of the spring semester. So she could have handled the incomplete for Hoy at that time though by now the case was being litigated. It's unclear to me, however, whether Stryker was expected to return. It appears, based on a look at the course offerings from that term, that Stryker must have had upwards of 150 students that term left in the lurch. If Stryker issued an 'A' to Hoy, I wonder what she did with the others? And I have a note she forwarded to the campus listserv from 5/17/01, so she was not entirely incapacitated.

This time at Northern Illinois (home of the previously unbeaten Huskies.) I'm going to bet ours was worse, though at least you're likely to be spared the Rush jokes.

Arnold Kling argues that universities compete for students increasingly by offering aesthetic values. Following the theme of Virginia Postrel's new book, The Substance of Style -- which is on my nightstand but getting crowded out by The DaVinci Code right now, thanks Dave! -- Kling thinks that maybe those something-studies departments are just an expression of one's own quest for finding something that is like them.

Postrel argues that consumers use aesthetics to express their identity. Her bumper-sticker phrase that describes the identity-driven motive for consumption is, "I like that. I'm like that." This is very evident on college campuses, where there are special buildings for the African-American student union, for Jewish students, and for other segments. Ethnic-group clubs are the most thriving student organizations on campus. One of my academic friends wryly notes that "there is a dean for all three genders, for each ethnic group, and for every intersecting combination." Entire academic departments, such as Black Studies or Women's Studies, have emerged to serve no purpose other than "I like that. I'm like that."

That might sound good, and certainly the multicultis think it swell. But it doesn't bode well for the university to remain in its current form.

Another key to avoiding diseconomies of scope is the ability to let go of poorly-performing professors and uncompetitive departments. The information age rewards dynamic excellence, not stable mediocrity.

The sectors of our economy that are growing most rapidly are characterized by the highest rate of failure. Economic growth is a process of trial-and-error learning. If errors are not corrected and failures are not quickly shut down, then experiments become too costly to conduct. If most new businesses fail, then most new academic departments should fail, also. Without a process for quick failure, institutions have to be somewhat reluctant to create new departments.

Jack Welch of General Electric reportedly decreed that if a division of GE was not in the top three in its market, then that division would be sold. No such ruthlessness exists in academia. Mediocrity and failure are tolerated indefinitely.

I wonder how one measures the top three HURL programs? Hopefully not by GPA.

I hate to play "can you top this?", but with the Elder's story of a speeding ticket I cannot resist. I have back trouble and my church council president is a chiropractor. He has a massage person and after an adjustment and a massage I'm a pretty mellow dude. I was going to meet Jack for some bourbon (and I've had that Macallan, Elder, but Jack and I get this special cask bourbon from a local distributor who has never refused to try to find an odd brand I'll fancy) and I went after a particularly good massage. There's a road that passes by a local high school. 45MPH until you get up to the school, then down to 30, then back to 45. I should know better as my son went to that school, but of course I have this goofy smile from the massage and I have bourbon in the back seat, and I forget to slow down. I went for apologetic and honest ... about the chiropractor and the massage. If he looks in the back seat and sees the plain brown bag, I'm toast. Instead, he gives me a smile and a warning. I've seven months to serve of good behavior.

Surely, there's a bumper sticker for this? "In case of the Rapture, I'm getting an adjustment"?

Loyal reader Burt Dubow sends me a New York Times article on the competition for trophy professors among research institutions. This one exhibits a lot of jealousy over such outsized salaries going to research and not to teaching.

What's good for a university's reputation, however, isn't necessarily good for its students' education. Since the standing of top-rung professors, their bankable asset, depends on what they write, not how they teach, their main loyalty isn't to their students or their institution.

That's rather silly. As Adam Smith wrote, 'It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner but from their regard to their own self-interest.' And that self-interest also drives the good teachers. Some people may feel a calling to teaching, but most are motivated more by their own self-interest: a desire to stay in academia without high achievement in research. (And acting on the call to teach is an act of self-interest, not benevolence.) There isn't anything wrong with teaching-for-profit. Nor is there anything wrong with research-for-profit. Since the latter has more of a tournament feel, (q.v. this working paper as well) it's not surprising that research institutions are engaging in bidding wars for faculty.

There are two excellent comments to the previous entry from David Foster, the blogger who runs Photon Courier, and who celebrated his bloggiversary yesterday. Drop him a hello, and follow his link to this photolog of a "peace rally" in D.C. today. Galling. He also asks why professors are not calling out the hatemongers who commented on the review of Ted Honderich in the Chronicle of Higher Ed wondering if suicide bombing can be defensible.

To answer his question, this lack of backbone from the sensible 2/3 of academia is something Jack and I have batted about this blog before. I think Jack's argument about the decadence of modern liberalism fits. It takes time for the new Spirit to form, and longer for it to imbue in academia to where the decadent can be shown for what they are.

Via PowerLine comes an article by Natan Sharansky on how dangerous it is to support Israel on college campuses. My friends in business schools laugh sometimes at the problems I have working in a College of Social Sciences. But it can happen there, too.

During a frank and friendly conversation with a group of Jewish students at Harvard University, one student admitted to me that she was afraid — afraid to express support for Israel, afraid to take part in pro-Israel organizations, afraid to be identified. The mood on campus had turned so anti-Israel that she was afraid that her open identification could cost her, damaging her grades and her academic future. That her professors, who control her final grades, were likely to view such activism unkindly, and that the risk was too great.

Having grown up in the communist Soviet Union, I am very familiar with this fear to express one's opinions, with the need to hold the "correct opinions" in order to get ahead, with the reality that expressing support for Israel is a blot on one's resume. But to find all these things at Harvard Business School? In a place that was supposed to be open, liberal, professional? At first I thought this must be an individual case, particular to this student. I thought her fears were exaggerated. But my conversations with other students at various universities made it clear that her feelings are widespread, that the situation on campuses in the United States and Canada is more serious than we think. And this is truly frightening.

Sharansky worries for future US policy towards Israel being made by students trained this way. He should be. Hell, even showing a flag causes problems.

Mr_Cranky reports that under 40% of AFSCME workers at the University of Minnesota are striking presently, as their strike vote had only 38% of membership voting for the strike. According to the St. Paul Pioneer Press, the university says less than half of union members stayed out on Wednesday, while the union puts the number closer to two-thirds. The pickets outside the university president's offices were joined by about 100 students, which Mr. Cranky notes is under a quarter of one percent of university enrollment. Question: How many of the 100 were brought by their classes and encouraged to participate? How many were given credit in a course for their picketing and street theater? The over/under is 50, with steam on the over.

Discriminations is carrying a story on how colleges and universities are finding it difficult to manage the requirements of the Michigan decisions. We recall from almost four months ago this article by Peter Kirsanow, and now it appears to be coming true. From today's Chronicle of Higher Education (subscribers only):

Among the college officials on hand here and at similar gatherings held around the nation since June, the chief fear was that the Supreme Court may have opened the door to new legal assaults on race-exclusive scholarship and financial-aid programs, by holding that colleges must treat students as individuals, rather than as members of particular racial groups.

It's no longer clear if employment decisions can be decided by race, nor if one can have separated dorms. The very phrase "affirmative action" is being discouraged, says Arthur Coleman, a former Clinton official in the education department.

[He] urged those present to not even use the term "affirmative action," which typically has referred to efforts to remedy past racial discrimination, and, he said, would be "a red flag" for potential legal challenges if used in admissions policies....

"You are not in the position of being social-justice police," Mr. Coleman warned. "We are not fundamentally talking about affirmative action when we talk about diversity in higher education. Let's get that concept embedded in how we think about these issues."

This is going to break the hearts of our gang here. They are still holding out hope for attaining "critical mass" which, as a commenter on Discriminations suggests, should be followed according to the laws of physics.

That seems to be what the University of Texas at San Antonio is doing, and they're choose to let tuition rise by 20%. But that's still well under the 31% increase at UT-Austin, and the students are asking for some of the money to be put aside for financial aid and/or to give a tuition break to students within 30 credits of graduating ... which would be likely the students on the committee setting the tuition. Maybe the promise of discounts will keep sophomores and juniors from jumping ship? Again, it's an elasticity question, and the more I think of it the less obvious it is that the proposal is self-serving.

Letters to the editors of the University Chronicle today leads with the guy who doesn't want to be blamed for getting his picture constantly in the newspaper, and students arguing over how Homecoming weekend was handled by the university, the police, and the campus paper. Says one:

There were several Twin Cities TV crews around this past weekend and I feel they were disappointed that there were no incidents. From my perspective, I think no incidents was a great thing for our school and community.

It was made better by great weather and a football victory.

After the contentious "10 Reasons" ad about slave reparations, Brown University was pretty upset about ol' David Horowitz, so upset that they couldn't invite him to speak. Two and a half years later, he finally got his chance, and it sounds like all went well. Of course, leftists on campus asked for him to come back and give them equal time. Said Brown's director of institutional diversity,

In a lecture like last night's, "you have one point of view talking to an audience."

Funny, I haven't been invited to equal time for a "respect and responsibility" brainwashing presentation. And that is mandatory. Horowitz was a lecture in a hall presented by College Republicans that you could choose to go to or not.

Part of my problem in family life is that nobody understands my moments of glee around the house. When I read this article (it's the SC Times, so if you're not reading today you're going to have to scour the archives for it) quoting our associate VP for administrative affairs (a.k.a., Budget Lady) saying "Summer session was never intended to be a for-profit endeavor," I broke out into peals of laughter at breakfast. The nine-year-old-know-it-all gave me a disgusted look. (I just finish with one teen, and the little one decides to be precocious. Damn.) Now I know Budget Lady took economics, so let me remind her: support services and utilities are mostly fixed costs, unless you mean to close the buildings, turn off the electricity and lay off all the support staff for the summer. We made $1.4 million. Let's be happy. Also interesting, credit-taking was up 3% in the summer over a year ago, just ahead of a 15% tuition increase starting fall. For extra credit, calculate the elasticity.

UPDATE: Douglas Bass sends a note that our experience with tuition increases is about average.

Students for Academic Freedom and FrontPage magazine are defending College Republicans at Roger Williams University for their publication of a newsletter that responded to a diversity presentation by two liberal gay rights speakers. Here's the link to the issue of the paper: I warn you first that the .pdf file of the newspaper is quite large, and second that it is quite graphic -- there's no way I'd show it to my nine-year-old. Here's the question: As a private university, does the administration have the right to close down this publication? (Were it a public university, I'd say absolutely not. Here I'm not as sure.) As an institution of higher learning, should it? This is, in short, a replay of the SMU story from last month in terms of administrative reaction.

Hmmm...

The Faculty Association is the exclusive representative for all faculty and, as such, should be open to concerns, comments and perspectives of all its members. The underlying issues should be given consideration, discussed and processed. As an organization, we have to be able to look at issues from all perspective. Toward this end, I am willing to meet with faculty to listen to their concerns.

The faculty association has a representative democracy governance structure. As you know, each department elects representatives to Senate. The Executive Committee is made up of elected (from either the university or college) representatives.

This type of structure is fully operational when there is representation from all areas. Or else, indeed, voices are lost.

This letter was mailed to us Tuesday morning by the FA President. Yet Tuesday afternoon, when given the opportunity to extend the franchise to vote on the committee to search for the interim dean, what do they do? Keep the vote to their faculty senate.

Do they care about any voices other than their own? Does the perspective of fair-share members matter? Does it really matter if you're in or you're out? Stand by, as we expose more on this issue.

Thomas Reeves at the NAS Online Forum (permalinks bloggered -- see entry of 10/21) reflects on the Lee Bollinger editorial I discussed earlier. In it he asks how to achieve the vision Bollinger has.

Assuming that a campus seeks academic distinction (and one can by no means take this for granted), what specific steps might be taken by a top administrator anywhere to recreate the productive and valuable atmosphere described by Bollinger? How might a president or chancellor go about creating a free and intellectually sophisticated culture on campus that would produce the sort of first-rate educational experience that almost any ambitious campus might reproduce? Several suggestions come readily to mind for your consideration, each one a potential book in itself.

His answers are to (1) defend academic freedom, (2) defend student speech rights, (3) promote ideological diversity on campus, and (4) maintain high academic standards. On the last he expands:

That means working to eliminate nonsensical courses and majors, seeing that grades are awarded responsibly, and discouraging the use of student evaluations, which too often lure professors into the worst sorts of pandering. (We have recently learned that a professor's physical attractiveness plays a role in the scoring.)

He also discourages hiring adjuncts in favor of full-time faculty (paid for by firing "legions of minor administrators") and encourages fundraising.

We've mentioned our strategic plan before, which now is focused on developing KPIs -- key performance indicators. A key performance indicator on Reeves' standards would be the destruction of civility codes and speech codes, an assessment of the number of conservatives on the campus, the ending of HURL follies and their hyperinflated GPAs, and the increase in university endowment for non-athletic and non-beautification projects. On this score, how does our current administration score?

What a pity that economists can't use phrases like this when they read crap?

"Feminism's Broken English," by Duke's Robyn Wiegman -- a teeming mass of abysmal sentences, yearning to be coherent ...

The writer is simply channeling Leonard Pith-Garnell in Bad Conceptual Theater. We never get to do that stuff in Principles of Economics, though I do toss out the Accountancy Chanty once in a while.

Check out DC's dinner. Heh. I swear I saw these dudes smoking in front of Stewart Hall.

David Bernstein of the Volokh Conspiracy offers a summary article (requires free registration) on campus free speech issues, leading with the rash of affirmative action bake sales that have been shut down.

The purpose of the bake sale was to make a political point, not to engage in discrimination. The bake-sale organizers were engaging in a clever bit of street theater; so clever, in fact, that it led some student groups opposed to the event's message to persuade Peterson to use a foolish interpretation of a nondiscrimination policy to shut it down.

Unfortunately, public universities in California have a history of stifling dissent on racial matters, and of kowtowing to student interest groups that claim to be offended by their fellow students' speech.

We learn in the Redstartribune that the fellow who sued to get the Confederate symbolism off the Georgia state flag is now in St. Cloud and has demanded that an old Georgia state flag there be taken down at the VA hospital. In response, the local administrator at the hospital took down all fifty state flags "rather than leave one of the states unrepresented." Mr. Coleman is applying to enter SCSU.

I use the quotes because it seems to me that academics discussing academic freedom should be preaching to the choir (or having Monkeys and Fraters discuss favorite cocktails -- I'm a Rob Roy.) Yet the continuing issue of the Alabama Scholars and their newsletter continues to make news. Their faculty senate is "discussing" the issue. When the vice president of the university says that "the question is whether organizations can use Campus Mail if they do not claim to be affiliated with the University", it sounds far too much like a loyalty oath, and that's not right. See Liberty and Power for more.

Critical Mass has a letter and comments on how poorly our experiences from the 1970s prepares us for advising our children on where to go for college. RTWT, and then read the ISI guide from Winfried Myers and start arming yourself and your children.

The University Chronicle lead editorial also takes the administration to task for the handling of Dean Lewis' reassignment.

University Chronicle would like to present both sides of this story as it unfolds. Thus far, we have the confident words of a lawyer who promises a lawsuit against SCSU and who points out that the university has not yet refuted his client's claims. On the flip side, we have SCSU's flimsy statement - and not much else.

The administration seems to be making a habit of hiding behind "no comment." We understand that administrators, including President Roy Saigo, are busy. But serious charges against a university - including a lawsuit - should be met with some comment. The university needs to tell its employees and its students where it stands on these charges and how it plans to handle the situation.

There's an adage in journalism that says, "No comment is a comment."

In this case, it's the loudest comment the university could make.

There are two inaccuracies in thier chronology. The university was given an announcement of the reassignment at 5pm Monday (note: our administration has mastered the Bill Clinton press technique of releasing bad news on Friday afternoons or after 5pm). The Times was working from that release, since they were citing the administrator's plan by the numbers in last Tuesday morning's edition. And it's pretty clear that the rumor mill had nailed the story on campus by the previous Saturday. The Chronicle should do more reading at the Scholars.

As I recall, I saw Clarence Thomas first on C-SPAN right after the confirmation hearings. He had a big cigar going (always something that impresses me -- I miss the Rockford Files when Garner could have a heater!) and gave a thoroughly upbeat speech. I think it was an attempt by Claremont to give him a little love at a time he was being eschewed on the chicken dinner circuit. So when I read onInfinite Monkeys that Rush Limbaugh is getting an award, I kind of think it isn't an accident. And so, while I'm also thinking of it, here's Donovan McNabb's line from yesterday's game against the Giants:

9 completions in 23 attempts for 64 yards, no TDs, one INT.

Maybe Claremont can get Rush to help teach the Giants to tackle a freaking punt returner.

Well well. It appears our editors at the city newspaper have begun to connect a few dots on the shenanigans of our administration. In Sunday's paper (link only good Monday, thus I'll extensively quote) the lead editorial was titled "SCSU policy on diversity, age appears inconsistent." No kidding!

St. Cloud State University's seemingly endless struggle to make the campus a more welcoming place experienced some ups and downs in recent weeks.
The most positive development was President Roy Saigo's decision to move forward in creating an action plan to improve diversity. But just a few days later, the administration's decision to remove the dean of the College of Social Sciences spurred threats of a lawsuit for age discrimination.

So what should be made of all this?

Regarding the former, Saigo is right to move ahead. Regarding the latter, data privacy laws and potential court action could well squelch any chance the public has of learning all the facts. Taken together, though, they present a perplexing picture for the community.

We think the president was right to move ahead in killing IRC, for reasons the Times understood.

Consisting of faculty members, students, employees and administrators, the 19-member panel was to review four independent assessments of the university and recommend ways to improve tolerance. The IRC, though, struggled in its mission. The best it could do was issue a preliminary report, which even lacked majority support.

This committee was a golden opportunity for those directly involved at the university to offer solutions. For whatever reasons, that didn't happen despite two deadline extensions.

As we pointed out months ago, the silly voting rules of this committee made it impossible for them to reach any decisions. Moreover, one member of the committee that I spoke to found it contentious, disinclined to conduct any independent fact-finding, and in pursuit of a single agenda. Some members quit the committee in frustration; others simply stopped attending. The Times has been aware of this for awhile, but has ignored that thought now. The Times now calls for Saigo to "craft" a diversity plan from the ashes of IRC, but it seems quite unlikely that the committee has generated anything new. If Saigo wants to adopt parts of the four reports he's already received -- most of which were crap, as regular readers of this blog are no doubt aware -- he's had at least six months to do so.

As to our dean's situation, the Times writes:

University and Minnesota State Colleges and Universities officials provided no details for the move, noting personnel data for public employees is not public under the state's data practices act.

Such responses highlight another disturbing -- and very daunting -- aspect of the university's challenges with diversity. Laws might require silence and secrecy, yet resolving claims of discrimination takes openness.

So what is the public to make of the Lewis reassignment? It's no secret he was named as a defendant in a federal lawsuit that accused the university of anti-Semitism and retaliation. Yet that suit was settled with the university making no admission of wrongdoing.

I am still wondering if the Times is making the link to the discrimination suit themselves or if it's being fed to them. (Our "internal communications" person in the communications office is a former employee of the paper.)

We have some facts to rely on, dear editors at the Times. You would have a hard time knowing it, as the official memo reads thus:

In keeping with provisions 1.02 and 1.03 of the Personnel Plan for MnSCU Administrators, Dr. Richard Lewis has been reassigned to coordinate special projects for Provost Michael Spitzer. Beginning spring semester, Dr. Lewis will return to the faculty to teach in the Department of History.

But a set of minutes of the college meeting with the Provost Spitzer notes some facts.

1. Provost Spitzer took responsibility for the decision; Saigo didn't have the courage to show up, though his underlings (not members of the college) were arrayed in the back. This is called "leadership style".
2. Dick's office "will be relocated from Whitney House to the Alumni House." Well, he's still in Whitney as of last weekend, a week later. He still does not have a phone. I wonder if the vaunted data privacy acts will not permit us to hear what special projects he and Spitzer are coordinating by carrier pigeon.
3. "One faculty member stated there could be good reasons for this action being taken and that there are different perspectives on this." Since I was there to hear that, and she said it right after I asked why he didn't just send a memo (answer: guilt), don't think for a moment that this person will not be identified. Note that this refers to her former affiliation in HURL (not a member of this college). She is now here.

The Times in conclusion says

Overall, in his three-plus years as university president, Saigo has consistently said combatting discrimination is an ongoing challenge. And it's developments like these that make his words ring true.

And the developments are all the result of Saigo's own actions. Stay on this story, SCTimes!!

UPDATE: The University Chronicle (links more permanent, thank you) offers a full rundown.

I'm sorry that I haven't written more today, but I am working on some research, getting some stories for the blog, and of course bemoaning the Red Sox. Burying myself in work is a common relief from pain, and today is a day of dulled pain.

I'm mostly disappointed with analyses that argue the statistics show Grady should have pulled Pedro before pitching to Matsui. To say he was too much a player's coach in Game 7 is to argue that at no other point in the season did Grady's extreme patience with his players win a game, including the three with Oakland or leaving Nomar in the three hole in Game 6. The second word in 'second guess' is 'guess'. You really want me to believe that had Embree given up the rope to Matsui that we would not be screaming that Little pulled his best pitcher from Game 7? And after that, Pedro committed the unpardonable sin of...a flare from Posada into short center that lands between three guys.

Posters on this board call him Gump. People hear the southern accent and automatically subtract 15 IQ points. Many years ago it was called "Stengelese". Seems that guy did pretty well.

One of these years we are going to win. As a fan, I know it. And this team was one of my favorites. If you watched this game against the Phillies, you'd love them too. While it hurts to lose, when you lose the last game on an extra-inning homer you can't feel like you blew it. Balls sometimes find holes and knucklers sometimes hang. We will prevail one day. At least we're not Oakland, 0-9 in games where we could clinch a series.

Meanwhile, Saint Paul and JBcontinue their defamation. This despite my embrace of the Twins. I'm from NH, guys, not Boston. We love the Sox, and we also know Boston is full of crap. Don't lump us together. Send me more Scotch tips to comfort my weekend, friends, or you are dead to me.

A former faculty member writes about the dean's mess:

This can only end one way: a diversity course on Ageism for faculty and staff, but not administration. HURL will offer a course on organizing a "Grey Pride Parade."

A course on ageism for students already exists (HURL 409 -- now proposed to be a three-credit class.)

Professor Rebecca German sends along this ad for a position in the sciences that includes this statement:

"Appointment is anticipated at the ASSISTANT Professor rank. In exceptional circumstances appointment at the ASSOCIATE or FULL Professor level may be considered for candidates who offer extraordinary opportunities to further the University's commitments to mentoring underrepresented students in the sciences."

SCIENCE 10 October 2003, Vol 302, p 326

I do not know if this comes from Prof. German's university or elsewhere (I can't see the ad itself -- I've linked to the issue's index). The message is pretty clear: we'll hire at higher levels for underrepresented groups. We've seen that here before; there used to be a fund that could be used to create new faculty lines that would enhance "diversity". Lines have been authorized for searches that would be suddenly called "failed" because an acceptable "diversity" candidate could not be found. I do not think the practice continues today, but I am not sure.

UPDATE: Critical Mass today posts more, including a link to the ad.

The StarTribune and AP are also broadcasting the story about our dean that was terminated. The spin always comes back to the fact that he was individually named in the anti-Semitism suit that was settled last year. I do not believe that is an accident, nor do I think it's an invention of the reporters at the StarTribune and St. Cloud Times.

The provost stated in our college meeting that discussed our future without Dick -- a meeting that lasted less than fifteen minutes -- that the former dean's office is in a room without a phone. And yet ...

The university said in a statement that Lewis, formerly dean of the College of Social Sciences, will coordinate special projects for Michael Spitzer, provost and vice president for academic affairs

Wouldn't coordination work better with a phone?

I have learned from several sources that Dr. Lewis' belongings were boxed and put outside his office last Friday afternoon. The meeting, held Monday at 1pm, was called at 3pm the previous Friday. I have never seen this done before, particularly in the middle of a semester.

The dean is a former member of the faculty and worked at SCSU since 1976. The disdain for his long service displayed in the shabby handling of his termination is the most shocking aspect of what has happened (so far.)

Given our long history of lawsuits (as noted by a reader at the Times Monday) and the fact that Lewis is represented by a well-known lawyer with expertise in dealing with at-will employment -- Lewis was employed under this contract -- it should be another bumpy ride for the folks in the administration.

I am still developing this story.

UPDATE: The software the St. Cloud Times uses for archiving causes all the URLs to change daily, making linking to their stories nearly impossible. That's relatively new. I'll copy over some parts of the article and post them here later.

Welcome to the blogosphere Douglas Bass of St. Thomas, who authors the blog Belief Seeking Understanding. He will focus on the "Bible, technology and higher education." His post on adult learners contains some interesting items on the increase in lifelong learning, coming predominantly from females;

In 1996, women students of all ages comprised 56% of all college students-in large part due to the high distribution of adult women leaders (46% of all women enrolled in college were 25 or older). While the portion of adult female students is expected to decline to 41% of all women enrolled in college through 2008, female students are project to comprise 57% of the total enrollment so that numbers are expected to increase in all age brackets for women. This trend suggests that many classrooms for traditional students are also likely to become female dominant in the future, based on gender distribution.

EDITED: Misspelled Douglas' name. Sorry!

OK, Alliance members. I'm getting a little perturbed with these petty complaints and active rooting for Yankees. I am wise to your bool cheat. If you want to be members of the coalition of the willing the Red Sox to win, I expect some changes from you two. Kudos to Mitch and James for keeping themselves neutral.

Martinez vs. Clemens. The stars are aligned.

Columbia University President Lee Bollinger writes a thoughtful essay on what the purposes of universities are. (Link for subscribers only.)

Universities remain meaningful because they respond to the deepest of human needs, to the desire to understand and to explain that understanding to others. A spirited curiosity coupled with a caring about others (the essence of what we call humanism) is a simple and unquenchable human drive, certainly as profound an element of human nature as the more often cited interests in property and power, around which we organize the economic and political systems. Moreover, universities at their best have nurtured a distinctive intellectual atmosphere in which one is forced to live in a world of seemingly infinite complexity, while holding onto the natural but quixotic hope that someday it all will be resolved.

Read the whole thing. If I get a free link, I'll put it up. (Some of our readers are generous this way.)

The author of "Coloring the News", a book about diversity programs at newspapers and other news organizations, explains how he's been treated after writing the book.:

My experiences with 'Coloring the News' confirmed that there are sanctions for speaking out too candidly about this subject. Traveling through the intersection of journalism and our nation's racial tensions requires a hard head, if not a helmet. Though some reviewers gave the book's arguments and evidence fair treatment, there were many instances when the unacknowledged ideological leanings of a news organization or professional groups made constructive dialogue all but impossible.

To the American left, fair and balanced only applies to counterweighting critiques of their own positions.

Juan Williams had prepared a package with Bernard Goldberg and me, but it did not reach the air for more than six weeks. The reason? Higher-ups at NPR's "Morning Edition" mandated a rather odd second segment to follow the next day with two pro-diversity figures who are not known for scholarship on the subject. This "balance" seemed to be happening to appease those at NPR who thought giving airtime to us would validate our arguments. This concern seems less apparent when the liberal perspective is voiced without a counter-balancing conservative one.

Looks like a reader at the St. Cloud Times , commenting on the fired dean, has learned the SCSU System of Lawsuit Resolution (known as reductio ad absurdum 'round these parts)

"No reason this case can't be resolved quickly. SCSU has plenty of experience. Most of us know the elements of a settlement by now:
(1) Give the guy his job back -- plus a five or six-figure 'mea culpa' payment. If things really get stickly, it may be necessary to establish a pool of a few hundred thousand to be divvied up by anyone who claims to have been the 'victim' of similar discrimination.
(2)Establish a new Office of Ageism or (preferably) establish a new program of ageism study (requiring all students to take at least one course). Might even be able to get Pfizer to help fund a Viagra Chair position.
(3) Commission two to three studies to tell SCSU how unfair it has been to senior faculty members -- at least one to be conducted by AARP.
And as a sweetener to accomplish an early settlement: Give the plaintiff his choice of four prime seats at the sporting event of his choice the next time the Fighting Sioux are on campus.

I am still reseraching this issue. I'll be back with you on it shortly. There's far more than meets the eye.

From a history professor at St. Cloud State. I am the person who went between this professor and the professor who gave the assignment discussed. I have read the letter-assignment and can verify its contents. In the interest of all concerned, names are not included.

I recently received a letter from a student. I did not recognize the name on the envelope but she indicated that she had been in my Western Civilization class several years ago and that she was writing to fulfill a requirement in a SCSU course. The letter came with an insert from the instructor, a faculty, that this letter was an assignment in his course and that the reader was welcome to respond to the letter by contacting him.

In the letter the student wrote that she just learned, from the required readings in the class, about all the atrocities Christopher Columbus committed against the indigenous people. She protested why she had never been taught of Columbus’ crimes in high school and wondered why Columbus Day was celebrated. I was genuinely puzzled to receive this letter because my Western Civilization class she apparently had with me did not cover the period of European expansion at all. One of my colleagues, who knew the instructor personally, offered to inquire whether there were any criteria given for choosing to whom these letters would be sent and, in addition, whether the student would receive the same grade if she had written that, after taking the course, she had decided Columbus Day was worth celebrating.

The instructor replied to my colleague that the students had been told to write letters to their former high school teachers and that it was not his intent to have a letter addressed to any faculty on campus. He further explained that since students were already familiar with the mainstream version of the Columbus story his objective was to expose students to alternative perspectives on the topic so they could develop a well-rounded viewpoint.

I am not sure whether I am happy to learn that I was not an intended target of this assignment. I do not want to discuss any specific viewpoints expressed in the letter. I simply wonder what we professors have to achieve here by having students write these letters to their former teachers, in which the high school teachers are condemned for willingly distorting historical facts or intentionally withholding truth from students. The instructor may have determined that our students need extra stimulation, such as a letter writing activity, for better learning experience. But what is the wisdom of requiring students to send out these letters to their former teachers criticizing them for having failed to teach a specific, admittedly “alternative,” viewpoint? I am sure that students were free to develop their own opinion on the issue but, after all, they were required in class to read about only one viewpoint whereas they were encouraged to read outside the classroom any sources that provide different perspectives. Students may learn the skill of writing letters of protest from this assignment, but what about the teachers who suddenly receive letters from their former students and find themselves blamed for not having taught in the past in their history courses (how many years ago—it is everyone’s guess) the specific viewpoint that this instructor decided to teach? Are we expecting them to engage in a debate with their former students, or the instructor? Are we trying in any way to enlighten and educate high school teachers? If so, wouldn’t it be a little bit arrogant on our part?

A student who doesn't like pro-life signs seems to have a problem with the First Amendment.

I can only assume that those signs were placed there in order to proudly display that homeowner's beliefs and ideals. Well, thanks, I know I feel better after knowing how or whom you voted for. People place all kinds of crap in their front yards: there's fake deer, fake old ladies' bottoms bending over, plastic flamingos (which, I'm sorry, should just be burned.) Anyway, most of these items tend to lack any sort of really aesthetic or artistic merit. Either way, why do we put this crap in our front yard? My grandma does it, as well as countless millions. Is there some part of us that just yearns for cheap yard ornamentation?

This from a newspaper that has been harassed by its own student government. This is what scares me about the right of re-constitution. Inventing the First Amendment anew each generation is probably beyond people like this.

One of the things we get rewarded for in our contracts is community service. Most people think this is a tradeoff versus teaching and research, but it doesn't need to be. Mark Jaede's column can be seen as an attempt to combine these. I don't agree with him about his particular point. Bernard Lewis points out that Catholicism and Protestantism are part of a single civilization (even if one wishes to point to Northern Ireland) whereas Christianity and Islam are competing civilizations. Nevertheless, I think it's an interesting article and nice to see in our local paper, and written without condescension to the "unwashed public." That last part is all too rare.

People sometimes can't get enough "warm fuzzies". The liberal mind set insists that any good news about diversity show up on page one. So when the Otto Bremer Foundation gives $24,000 (enough to teach a writing course to about 200 students) it might not be news, but if it's for funding the SCSU diversity plan, it makes page one. Some interesting notes on this article:

• It looks like the administration is taking the credit here, though the faculty union has been trying to push for this grant for awhile. The union president sent a campus email today sharing in the credit. Yet the story is quite clear that the Independent Review Committee, with its funky decisionmaking rules, couldn't get their report out and the administration moved right after that point.
• The civility code is still mentioned, even though the faculty union has rejected it. This while the provost continues to hope for a "place where the free exchange of ideas can take place without anyone feeling threatened or harassed."
• While attendance isn't required,

  Faculty members who complete 10 hours of training will receive a certificate, which will be one of many factors administrators will consider during personnel evaluations, Spitzer said.

  That would be what? A "get out of publishing free card"? A "only teach the class I want, when I want free card"???

UPDATE: The AP picked the story up, but the University Chronicle had the sense to treat it as a minor item.

A second St. Cloud Times article appears today discussing how the university intends to use the code of conduct to punish off-campus behavior. Students aren't happy.

I pay the school to get an education. I don't pay them to watch what I do off campus. Once I'm off campus, it's none of their business what I do with my time.

It's worth noting that often the violators aren't students. Of the 111 cited during move-in weekend, 40 were not students; at Mankato last week, less than half of the 45 appear to have been. On the other hand, those convicted in the hockey riots at U of M last year appear to have been students. According to the last article, students at U. Minn. will now be expelled for inciting riots, "previously, students could be disciplined only for on-campus behavior."

This looks promising, according to Infinite Monkey R.B. The first six hosts are all sites worth reading.