Recently, there has been a huge discussion in the media about free speech and censorship on college campuses, brought to the forefront by the current fighting between Palestine and Israel. Schools such as Harvard and UPenn (and many others as a quick google search will reveal) have been embroiled over controversies regarding statements over the conflict and whether or not the university should pick a side or censor student opinions, especially when wealthy donors threaten to pull their donations if they do not get their way. Professors have been accused of pushing their agenda onto others in the classroom (for both sides of the conflict). Additionally, people are calling for administrations and employers to punish students for statements that they have signed/made.
I feel that free speech and a well rounded college environment in terms of beliefs is something that Valpo has done well. While there are always extremists anywhere you go (like the student body president trying to circulate a petition to remove someone from VU), Valpo seemed to blend a variety of groups and people with different opinions and religious beliefs very nicely, and has dodged some of the bullets that other schools have been taking the past few years. Additionally, from what I saw as a student there, the administration was pretty hands-off in imposing their beliefs on others both inside and outside the classroom (a lighter example, the University is not censoring the torch even though the views about the art sale are intensely critical to the administration. From my graduate school experience, there are definitely schools/programs that wouldn't hesitate to pull something like that).
I believe that the University needs to market this openness in terms of ideas in some way. As I have stated before on other posts, Valpo has a reputation for being a religious school, and some people are still put off by this as they think that they will not be welcome if they are not Lutheran/very religious. I am aware that free speech/campus culture is an intrinsically difficult thing to market, but it may be worth trying if it reels in some additional amount of students a year for the enrollment numbers. It is also worth diving into, as there is always a chance that Valpo ends up in the media crosshairs over this issue the same way some of these bigger schools have. Just wanted to get a discussion started on this, as free speech, academic freedom seem to be an urgent and pressing issue for colleges and academia right now.
I have always wondered why thousands of donors and the hundreds of conservative university board members don't fight back more often against the blatant censoring from the left on campuses. As we know some donors kept strings and caveats on their gifts and will start pulling them back. Florida has been a leader and they hired former senator Ben Sasse as U of F president in that very spirit of balance and logic.
The irrational "progressive" logic is about to explode. I had pointed out many times on this board over the years how odd it is for liberals to back Islamic ideology, but then also defend the rights of women and gays from a view that is in DIRECT conflict with that ideology. The word "progressive" is laughable and other viewpoints need to stop conceding that term to these extremists who don't read history.
I am fully in favor of free speech across ALL POINTS of view.
I think this is a topic that has higher salience to those that work in higher ed or have a vested interest in how it's run and how it interacts with the world. My guess is most college students are still looking at the basic things: Cost, majors/opportunities, feel of the college, size/location, some sense of prestige for certain groups.
That's actually colleges are such a hot bed for certain things. Most of them really aren't thinking about those things until they get there and get to try on ideas and behaviors much like they try different majors and organizations.
For example at the end of the day part of the reason I think I picked Valpo over other schools was I went in summer and it was nice and I knew my tour guide and so my tour was rally nice and fun. Since it was on par educationally with the other schools I applied to those things carried the day.
Now this was before the age of the common app and applying to schools all over. So you only applied to schools you were actually interested to and often within the same parameters: size/location etc
Quote from: crusader05 on October 20, 2023, 10:23:29 AM
My guess is most college students are still looking at the basic things: Cost, majors/opportunities, feel of the college, size/location, some sense of prestige for certain groups.
I have probably talked with three to four hundred prospective students and their parents over the last 5 years. My experience is consistent with crusader05's guess...but I would add dorms and having one or more prestigious/visible sports teams.
I don't feel like my assumption excluded any of those things which would be included under cost, majors and opportunity. But the reality is also that Valpo is not a top 25 university and is in fact a university of good standing surrounded by many other universities of good standing, most of whom have either better dorms, sports, location or college atmosphere. My point was that sometimes are marketing ideas focus on highly specific things that are important to us when at the end of the day bread and butter will always be most important to the meal.
BTW, great response by the law firms bagging Harvard and Columbia protesters of their jobs. Student need to be held responsible.
usc4Valpo, I definitely think soft censorship methods like pulling people's job offers is a dangerous road to tread. "Holding people responsible" for their speech is one of the main arguments that the left used to try to censor the speech on college campuses and in general, especially during COVID.
I fully agree with the recruitment discussion, and I think that people's college reasoning does vary greatly from person to person even if some of the general criteria remains the same. Even if the campus culture and speech doesn't actively bring people in, the lack of negative media attention to the University over the issue won't turn people away. I do think that prospective students (or at least some) care about those sorts of things, even if it is lower on the list then say affordability, nice dorms, location, and the social scene. Maybe there is a low effort low time way to communicate Valpo's values and diversity of ideas to prospectives, perhaps just a sentence or two in the recruitment propaganda they show/hand to students during their visits. If they bring in 1000 prospectives and 1% are swayed by this for one reason or another, thats 10 students added to the enrollment for very little work.
I will say this - if there are students protesting supporting racism or terrorism, there is certainly no way I would want them to join my company or firm.
While Gen Z definitely leans left, there must be plenty of folks within that generation who welcome a campus environment that creates space for different points of view and promotes the freedom to grow one's worldview. And frankly, for any relatively open-minded, tolerant young person, it can be a plus not to be at a campus where virtually every statement or activity is filtered through a harshly judgmental political lens, left or right.
I think that VU can capture more of those students, as well as build on some of its traditional constituencies, even if they are smaller in number than half a century ago. And to bolster enrollment, we're talking about attracting a few hundred more of these applicants into each entering class, not thousands.
Quote from: usc4valpo on October 22, 2023, 02:48:12 PM
I will say this - if there are students protesting supporting racism or terrorism, there is certainly no way I would want them to join my company or firm.
You are going to need an extensive and effective weeding out process. According to the current Harvard/Harris poll a majority of Americans in the 18-24 college-age group (51-49) believe the massacre by Hamas, though genocidal, "can be justified by the grievance of Palestinians." The 25-34 age group does not fare much better, 48-52. Is this an indictment of the educational institutions? College educated young people justifying actions they admittedly characterize as genocidal?
[tweet]1716076094799949995[/tweet]
Most companies - and certainly the larger companies - scan social media postings for potential new hires. A CFO who meets with my students said her firm does this and every other firm she knows of does this too. I also know personally of a firm in Chicago who (several years ago) was going to hire two graduates from a major university (not Valpo and not the university that employs me), but rescinded the offer when they found anti-semetic posts from the two students. So, there already is a pretty extensive weeding out process.
Yes, indeed the applicants are being culled. If nothing else it shows poor judgment and a severe lack of maturity.
The Wall Street Journal today featured an article on the mega-donor rebellion that has finally pushed back hard vs. the elite universities. It had percolated during the embarrassing wokeness. But this terrorism straw broke the camel's back. I hope they cut off money. They don't want to restrain speech, but they feel they can only counter blatant biases by getting the attention of woke CEOs. Some Penn donors say they will give nothing until the President and board chair resign.
In the Harvard/Harris poll cited previously, I discovered another disturbing response by college-age Americans. When asked if "the United States should stand with Israel, back Hamas, or not be involved at all," those 18-24 responded with 30% behind Israel, 29% support for Hamas, and 41% for absolutely no involvement. After the poll already established in previous questions how Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to genocide that committed a massacre not just against Israelis, but also slaughtered at least 31 Americans, as well as others from 30-plus countries, and still threatens over 200 innocent hostages, 70% in this college-age cohort either support Hamas or prefer no involvement at all. Something is seriously wrong here.
That's a Harvard poll, not a national collegiate poll. I would presume at Valparaiso that that poll would be more toward Israel.
I certainly believe in free speech; but there is also is responsibility in what is said.
Quote from: usc4valpo on October 25, 2023, 05:24:10 AM
That's a Harvard poll, not a national collegiate poll.
Not true: This was "a national poll conducted online in the United States for Harvard by the Harris Poll Oct. 18 through 19 among registered voters and held a margin of error of +/-2%."
I think Valpo22 analysis seems really wise about the post 9-11 generation.
For me this a big line of demarcation in foreign policy was the Reagan presidency. Boomers and older generations understood the soviet bloc and the evil empire of the USSR. I always felt a sense of chill in watching the precision of USSR and eastern block Olympians. Maybe they were just a lot more determined and focuses on world conquest than we could imagine. So our generation's where you you moments were the Berlin Wall knock down and the "Miracle on Ice" during the last Carter year. If those two events bring you a shoulder shrug from you or a blank stare, then you don't really get the historic evils of communism and the old Soviet Union restoration threat Putin is seeking.
Yes, I think the new post-911 generation is probably numb to venturing overseas for no evident benefit. Unfortunately they are probably numbed to any wise policy debate. There has been a whirlwind of political noise and fatalism from both sides ever since Obama's first year. He said openly that he would fundamentally transform America. Maybe you like that idea or maybe you don't. But the noisy media wars that ensued in 2008 between patriots and globalists has deafened the ears of our post 9-11 generation.
Thank you, Valpo22 and crusadermoe, for your comments explaining a possible reason for the response of "no involvement." I guess I am most concerned that when asked if they "side more with Israel or Hamas," 18-24 year olds were split 52-48%, nearly half specifically "side with Hamas." This despite 62% of the same group agreeing Hamas attacks were "genocidal" and 64% said it was a terrorist act, yet 51% said such attacks were "justified." Consequently, a majority regard as "justified" attacks that most agree were "genocidal" and a "terrorist act." This set of responses on a particular event fresh in mind with its horrible details seems to expose a clear absence of morality.
Some of this I think falls down to wording in the poll.
I think most people would say full stop: Terrorisms etc is not good. BUT I can see how those questions are designed to get the exact emotional reaction we are getting out of it vs pulling out what is most likely much more nuanced views. It seems like a poll based on enflaming social media arguments than anything.
I know many people who feel that 1. what happened in early October to Israeli Citizens is horrible but also 2. The Palestinian people have been treated poorly and unfairly and 3. the way Israel's government manages the situation has enflamed tensions, made things worse and is perhaps partially to blame for dynamics that make terrorisms flourish. I think also , from my own personal perspective that it moved so fast that before a lot of people even had time to absorb the horrors of what happened the bombing had started and the dynamic was that the most horrifying images coming out were what was happening in Gaza.
Quote from: crusader05 on October 25, 2023, 01:10:04 PM
Some of this I think falls down to wording in the poll.
I think most people would say full stop: Terrorisms etc is not good. BUT I can see how those questions are designed to get the exact emotional reaction we are getting out of it vs pulling out what is most likely much more nuanced views. It seems like a poll based on enflaming social media arguments than anything.
I don't buy this at all, and I don't believe there is a "BUT" applicable here. How is it that only the 18-24 age group was manipulated by the wording? More than half of the 18-24 group declare "the Hamas killing," a genocidal act (62% of that same group agree it was "genocidal," 64% admit it was terrorism), was "justified"; however, 90% of older age groups state the terrorist massacre was "not justified." Are younger people not literate enough to understand the question asks about "the Hamas killing"? Since all age groups answered the identically worded questions, this has nothing to do with the language, it has to do with shared senses of values and morality by members of their generations. Perhaps the apparent lack of a moral center by the younger respondents relates to differing backgrounds in experiences and education.
ValpoPal asks, "Are they not literate?..." I say perhaps they are literate in the strict sense,but I doubt that 10% of that generation are truly rational thinkers. They have been taught by our fine modern schools to emphasize how they "feel" rather than how to "think." And worse, our universities teach them the privileged college kids "what" to think rather than "how" to think.
They are also taught to constantly view things through the lens of a theoretical DEI victmology concept. So they reflexively view the Hamas/Palestinians as the "oppressed" and therefore view them as righteous in any action they take. After all, police buildings in Minneapolis were burned down for no rational reason. In July a CNN cameraman rolled footage of the two story flames there. rising two stories high behind a CNN reporter as the reporter talked of "peaceful protests." Is burning a building or denying facts rational? Is defunding your police protection rational? Young idiots will answer a poll saying that global warming is a more urgent and existential threat than China or today's crisis in Ukraine. They seek a 1.5% percent limit over the next 50 years. Dead people won't feel the 1.5%
OK OK, now let me offer some perspective as someone who engages every day with the students that you reference. First, good teaching at the university level should be "how to think" and not "what to think" and I can honestly say that the vast majority (though certainly not all) of faculty teach "how to think". One can always find the case that supports the story you want to tell or support (and our media does a great job of that), but reality is far less in the manner projected. Second, while it is deplorable that some people/groups at some elite universities say that the Hamas attacks are justified...this deplorable behavior is not happening at other universities (OK, I am sure that someone can find the exception). So, while the criticisms towards Penn, Harvard, etc. are justified, criticism of the entire university system is not. As for the students, they are socially and environmentally more conscious - some of which is good and some of which probably needs greater critical thinking. But where is an average 18-22 year old college student's mind focusing? Classes/grades, family, the party this weekend, an existing or potential relationship with a significant other, getting a job/internship, gaming (for some), other activities. Spend a lot of time with them and listen and this is pretty clear. World events are not on their radar unless there is a specific reason for them to be (e.g., a student planning to study in Europe next Spring will be more attentive to geopolitical issues in and around Europe). Thus, if you ask them about the Israeli conflict, they are likely not going to understand the history or recent events and will revert to basic beliefs of compassion for all people.
One more thing. People talk about problems of what is taught in K-12, but they seldom consider the excessive emphasis on American history over World history. When my daughter was in 6th grade, the students in her class debated the Isreali-Palestinean conflict...which really fosters learning. Why did she have this type of educational experience? Because she was going to school in England at that time (can you imagine a middle shool teacher doing this in the US?). It was horrible for her to be exposed to such a broad perspective in 6th and 7th grade and then come back to the narrow American-based focus in US schools. Herein lies the issue...many want to increase US history in K-12 when we really need to increase world history and understanding of current world events.
This awful situation in the Middle East is turning out to be something of a global civics test for American higher ed. So far, the failing grades are disproportionately coming out of the elite schools, with some of the supposed best and brightest students showing (1) an inability to separate the Palestinian people from Hamas; (2) a remarkable knack for sweeping, extreme rhetoric indicating a lack of judgment and self-control; (3) in certain instances, strong anti-Semitic or anti-Islamic biases.
Of course, the lack of more nuanced civic understanding, and the lack of knowledge of how to become better informed, are not limited to the tonier schools. In fact, you know what scares the daylights out of me? How few younger folks regard reading at least one decent newspaper an everyday ritual. On Facebook the other day, one journalism prof at a state university flagship polled his students on where they got the bulk of their daily news. The overwhelming winner was Tik-Tok.
When ignorance and thin understanding prevail (along with, at elite schools, presumably some entitlement), it shouldn't surprise us that students' responses on sensitive issues of the day are sometimes sophomoric and knee jerk.
Quote from: David81 on November 07, 2023, 02:19:42 PM
Of course, the lack of more nuanced civic understanding, and the lack of knowledge of how to become better informed, are not limited to the tonier schools. In fact, you know what scares the daylights out of me? How few younger folks regard reading at least one decent newspaper an everyday ritual. On Facebook the other day, one journalism prof at a state university flagship polled his students on where they got the bulk of their daily news. The overwhelming winner was Tik-Tok.
When ignorance and thin understanding prevail (along with, at elite schools, presumably some entitlement), it shouldn't surprise us that students' responses on sensitive issues of the day are sometimes sophomoric and knee jerk.
The news media have nobody to blame but themselves for abandonment by readers. I can't think of "one decent newspaper as an everyday ritual" that I would feel is reliable for honest journalism. That obviously applies to television and radio news as well. The alternative for me is seeking varieties of open source journalism by individuals with diverse views as well as locating original verified documents available online and testing those reports against one another. When used wisely and with a skeptical approach, primary information available on the Internet often opens the curtain and frequently reveals the manipulating words by wizards in the nation's news media. Unfortunately and understandably, most people—especially "younger folks"—do not have the time or inclination for seeking out multiple sources, perhaps with opposing perspectives, for evaluation; therefore, the detrimental and disproportionate influence of a site like Tik-Tok on college students is regrettable. [PS: I thought it ironic that you cite Facebook as your source for a journalism professor's finding.]
As of this article written on October 26, I don't see Valpo University on the list. Why is that?
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/100-colleges-and-universities-across-the-nation-form-coalition-standing-with-israel-against-hamas-301968953.html
What did you really expect if we are already ashamed of the name "Crusaders" for actions taken 800 years ago.
It's not quite as prevalent as it sounds in calling it "100 universities." There are over a dozen SUNYs (not Sunnis), and nearly all of the schools very small. Not coincidentally, they probably don't rely on enrolling a lot of students who despite Israel.
Notably I see no Lutheran schools of any kind. I didn't see at a glance any major flagships. I didn't see any elite or ivy privates. That should be no surprise. Those schools are reaping what they have sown in teaching that grievance is virtue and protesting signals that virtue. If you really want virtue points you enforce a faculty clause to reflexively seek out minorities and presume their virtue. When you do, you create oppressed people as an industry and that teaching now takes on a life of its own. Hard to feel sorry for them now. Good luck to Cornell, Columbia, and Penn working with their mega-donors. MLK tried to go in the direction that all are equal and need to be viewed as individuals. But the DEI and grievance industry took root, finding its most fertile soil on campus and media.
Quote from: crusadermoe on November 08, 2023, 01:44:28 PM
What did you really expect if we are already ashamed of the name "Crusaders" for actions taken 800 years ago.
It's not quite as prevalent as it sounds in calling it "100 universities." There are over a dozen SUNYs (not Sunnis), and nearly all of the schools very small. Not coincidentally, they probably don't rely on enrolling a lot of students who despite Israel.
Notably I see no Lutheran schools of any kind. I didn't see at a glance any major flagships. I didn't see any elite or ivy privates. That should be no surprise. Those schools are reaping what they have sown in teaching that grievance is virtue and protesting signals that virtue. If you really want virtue points you enforce a faculty clause to reflexively seek out minorities and presume their virtue. When you do, you create oppressed people as an industry and that teaching now takes on a life of its own. Hard to feel sorry for them now. Good luck to Cornell, Columbia, and Penn working with their mega-donors. MLK tried to go in the direction that all are equal and need to be viewed as individuals. But the DEI and grievance industry took root, finding its most fertile soil on campus and media.
You're overlooking COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES, which represents 150 universities in the US and Canada. Included are several Missouri Synod Concordia's and a Lutheran named university in Minnesota. Conspicuous by its absence is...
"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."
Oh, you are right. Kudos to Baylor, Notre Dame for leading as FOUNDERS! Arizona, ASU, and Miami, FL are notable public flagships!
And yes, thank you re the CCCU. The membership has Wheaton and the LCMS Concordias. But Valparaiso is NOT nor are any of the ELCA colleges. Like their pastors and churches, they have chosen the route of DEI envy and social grievance as a cause to exist. Mysteriously, no one is attending their churches anymore.
Coalition Founders (alphabetical order)
Ari Berman, President, Yeshiva University
Terrence Cheng, Chancellor, Connecticut State Colleges and Universities
Michael M. Crow, President, Arizona State University
Rochelle L. Ford, President, Dillard University
Julio Frenk, President, University of Miami
E. Gordon Gee, President, West Virginia University
Shirley Hoogstra, President, Council for Christian Colleges, and Universities
John I. Jenkins, President, University of Notre Dame
Kenneth A. Jessell, President, Florida International University
Alan Kadish, President, Touro University
John B. King, Chancellor, The State University of New York (SUNY)
Ronald D. Liebowitz, President, Brandeis University
Linda Livingstone, President, Baylor University
Michael L. Lomax, President, United Negro College Fund
Félix V. Matos Rodríguez, Chancellor, The City University of New York (CUNY)
Marty Meehan, President, University of Massachusetts
Robert C. Robbins, President, University of Arizona
R. Gerald Turner, President, SMU
Some reinforcing observations notated below....
Quote from: David81 on November 07, 2023, 02:19:42 PM
This awful situation in the Middle East is turning out to be something of a global civics test for American higher ed. So far, the failing grades are disproportionately coming out of the elite schools,
I'm thinking that a ton of America and a ton of America's students have no real clue about the real issues regarding this war. And a good portion of those don't care, because in their narrowly—focused eyes it doesn't slow inflation or address whatever parochial agenda they have.
with some of the supposed best and brightest students showing (1) an inability to separate the Palestinian people from Hamas;
This is the biggest disappointment. Barbaric terrorism is totally reprehensible and is outside any civil boundaries. That is Hamas. That's what they deal in (think, to varying degrees, Al Quaeda, Nazis, ISIS, KKK, Taliban, white supremacists, Khmer Rouge) They are not the Palestinian people. Hamas is a limited radical group of individuals using acts of cruelty to advance a disgusting agenda. While Palestinians comprise Hamas, all Palestinians are not Hamas - far from it.
This not to say that Israel is blameless. Their decades-long, repressive policies regarding the Palestinian people are well documented. And their wartime response to the terror attack in a modern world is hard to stomach - initial Israeli death toll 2 weeks ago ~1400. Current Israeli death toll since that one day attack ~1400. Palestinian civilian death toll since the initial terror attack >10,000. Certainly not proportional, but more concerning, seemingly indiscriminately targeting civilians with the rationale that it is just the cost of war. The enemy is Hamas, not civilians. /color].
(2) a remarkable knack for sweeping, extreme rhetoric indicating a lack of judgment and self-control; (3) in certain instances, strong anti-Semitic or anti-Islamic biases.
This, unfortunately, is the era in which we live. Jumping to conclusions with minimal information, or worse yet, misinformation, as well as ignoring any information (relevant/accurate or not) builds walls to understanding.
Of course, the lack of more nuanced civic understanding, and the lack of knowledge of how to become better informed, are not limited to the tonier schools. In fact, you know what scares the daylights out of me? How few younger folks regard reading at least one decent newspaper an everyday ritual. On Facebook the other day, one journalism prof at a state university flagship polled his students on where they got the bulk of their daily news. The overwhelming winner was Tik-Tok.
When ignorance and thin understanding prevail (along with, at elite schools, presumably some entitlement), it shouldn't surprise us that students' responses on sensitive issues of the day are sometimes sophomoric and knee jerk.
As a former college history instructor and HS history teacher (I left teaching 40+ years ago but never turned my back on what I taught), I so lament with David on how the general US population has been dumbed-down about the essentials of where we came from, how we got here, what made us unique, and what mistakes we've made over time that we should have learned from. Someone a helluva lot smarter than me put it into perspective in 1948. Winston Churchill: "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"
Well said, '62. There are layers of nuance in the whole issue of the British land grant 9148 to the Jews and the historic rationale. We can debate that rationale reasonably and consider the two-state solutions.
But.... SADLY again,...U.S. and European students and their idiotic teachers digest world events into "oppressors and oppressed." In this very difficult Israeli history, those words could be reasonably used at points in their 1948-2023 history. Current universities and their 1960s radical professor types have cheapened those two terms so badly in contrived problems that students fail to see a difference between murder and disagreement.
A shocking new low in advanced education:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=AgkvFtoT4K4&si=l1YqqmcCbvLiwkrs
I see 2 issues here. The absurd assertion that censorship of students calling for the extermination of Jews is conditional. The second is where is the outrage over such behavior? Why aren't universities issuing public announcements condemning such actions against Jews? Those who don't condemn them are complicit with them.
The above clip is absurd and abhorrent. Shame on those University Presidents and their schools...
U.S. Rep Stefanik:
"Until they act on it (their shouts of genocide)?....You mean it's not harassment until they act on Genocide??"
Just wow. Even Joe, Mika, and Willie piled on top of that trio of elitist educators. It depends on the context. :o
A lot of university presidents actually have very little experience in tough leadership situations; they advanced up the ladder as successful professors who then went into academic administration. In scenes like Congressional hearings, they're also not used to facing tough questions in situations they cannot control. The presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn basically fit that profile.
At least they're not as bad as those who commit career-ending, reputation-killing, inexplicably bad lapses of judgment, as the presidents of Michigan State and Penn State universities did in the aftermath of sex abuse crises in their athletics departments.
IMO, some of the best training for a high-profile university presidency is serving in high-profile elected office, so long as we're not talking about patronage-reeking political hacks. They know forums like this and are less likely to have a tin ear when it comes to their own statements.
Quote from: David81 on December 07, 2023, 06:57:20 PM
A lot of university presidents actually have very little experience in tough leadership situations; they advanced up the ladder as successful professors who then went into academic administration. In scenes like Congressional hearings, they're also not used to facing tough questions in situations they cannot control. The presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn basically fit that profile.
They also are not used to speaking with anyone who holds a differing perspective. Despite universities supposedly promoting "diversity" and punishing people for "micro-aggressions" such as misgendering, these three presidents seemed shocked that someone would have an opposing position to theirs, and they somehow could not regard a call for genocide of Jews as even a "micro-aggression." Replace the word "Jews" with that of any of the protected groups favored in higher education and guess what their reaction would have been. The Harvard
Crimson recently reported that only 1% of the university's faculty identify as "conservative." The great sin of most universities is a lack of interest in ideological diversity. In fact, in many cases the hiring process is designed to counter hiring anyone who doesn't follow the established orthodoxy.
It's absolutely frightening how far they have indoctrinated their students. The reality is that the Ivy school grads are always going to have a first shot at great jobs in government and higher education, not because they are wiser or smarter, but because they have a an alumni career network and pedigree.
Congress is now posing a tax on their endowments so that they are accountable to reality. Right now elite Ivies are insulated from reality due to endowment funding and its market growth. State universities at least are accountable for budget help from their legislatures. If people pay capital gains, why not claim some of the tax-sheltered growth of vast wealth. Go get it and do it retroactively to 2008 when the market starting flying upward!
As Valpopal says, there is no allowance for differing opinion. Any past colonizing requires apology and and asks people who weren't living to disadvantage themselves and destroy their own country. Yet this poorly educated cohort somehow (in full reading of history) missed the memo on the holocaust? Such an embarrassment. In the same way as our self-defeating national border actions and refusal to use our own cheap energy, the Chinese are just laughing themselves to death and wondering why this is so easy.
This is not a defense of the presidents of either Penn or Harvard, but it does say something about what kind of advice these folks relied upon in planning their testimony. Both were prepped and advised by the same corporate law firm, WilmerHale (which has a major presence here in Boston). The president of MIT also met with this law firm. Here's the NYT article reporting it: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/08/business/wilmerhale-penn-harvard-mit-antisemitism-hearing.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/08/business/wilmerhale-penn-harvard-mit-antisemitism-hearing.html)
This also relates, at least indirectly, to the wisdom of relying upon consultants essentially to help you make your decisions, as discussed in the thread on VU's bond rating. Granted, this is Congressional testimony, which has a legal angle not present in hiring consultants for more general purposes. But the idea of the presidents getting this prep help and then finding themselves heavily criticized for their testimony does raise questions about their judgment and leadership ability.
In hindsight, Valpo has been wisely silent on this and other controversial issues. I remember a few years ago Mark Heckler caused a little flurry with a BLM-adjacent statement (some saying it was too much, some saying it wasn't enough).
Anything happening on campus? Any protests, rallies, or marches? Or are students busy studying?
Quote from: David81 on December 07, 2023, 06:57:20 PM
A lot of university presidents actually have very little experience in tough leadership situations; they advanced up the ladder as successful professors who then went into academic administration. In scenes like Congressional hearings, they're also not used to facing tough questions in situations they cannot control. The presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn basically fit that profile.
At least they're not as bad as those who commit career-ending, reputation-killing, inexplicably bad lapses of judgment, as the presidents of Michigan State and Penn State universities did in the aftermath of sex abuse crises in their athletics departments.
IMO, some of the best training for a high-profile university presidency is serving in high-profile elected office, so long as we're not talking about patronage-reeking political hacks. They know forums like this and are less likely to have a tin ear when it comes to their own statements.
81, hold on here. Liz Magill, who just resigned, has an undergraduate degree from Yale and a JD from Virginia. She was a law clerk for the fourth circuit court of appeals, and the US Supreme Court. She worked for Sen. Kent Conrad. She then joined the faculty at UVA Law, before becoming Dean of the Stanford Law School, then Provost at UVA, then President at Penn. Someone with that background in law, politics and the highest levels of senior leadership should be able to speak with some clarity.
Maybe lawyers don't make the best witnesses? (wink)
I just talked about that moment from the hearings with a colleague. I think the key issue here is not whether how the Univ presidents responded is correct or not.
For the sake of my argument, let us assume that indeed HArvard, Penn, MIT are bastions of free speech absolutism where everything goes as long as there is no danger to individual safety. It is the double standard that is disgusting here because, unless one lived under a rock for the last few decades, we know that speech is severely restricted in other situations.
I actually am very annoyed with the Congresswoman because she lost a great teaching opportunity for the masses. As soon as the presidents answers with "well it depends on the context" to the question about "genocide against Jews" she should have asked the follow up question: " is calling for genocide of Blacks/Gays etc... prohibited under your anti harassment policy?" THAT would have been a great moment because it would have forced them to confront on the spot their own ideology. AS such they had time to recant, give half assed apology or resign so we don't hear from them again.
Quote from: valpo95 on December 09, 2023, 04:47:09 PM
Quote from: David81 on December 07, 2023, 06:57:20 PM
A lot of university presidents actually have very little experience in tough leadership situations; they advanced up the ladder as successful professors who then went into academic administration. In scenes like Congressional hearings, they're also not used to facing tough questions in situations they cannot control. The presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn basically fit that profile.
At least they're not as bad as those who commit career-ending, reputation-killing, inexplicably bad lapses of judgment, as the presidents of Michigan State and Penn State universities did in the aftermath of sex abuse crises in their athletics departments.
IMO, some of the best training for a high-profile university presidency is serving in high-profile elected office, so long as we're not talking about patronage-reeking political hacks. They know forums like this and are less likely to have a tin ear when it comes to their own statements.
81, hold on here. Liz Magill, who just resigned, has an undergraduate degree from Yale and a JD from Virginia. She was a law clerk for the fourth circuit court of appeals, and the US Supreme Court. She worked for Sen. Kent Conrad. She then joined the faculty at UVA Law, before becoming Dean of the Stanford Law School, then Provost at UVA, then President at Penn. Someone with that background in law, politics and the highest levels of senior leadership should be able to speak with some clarity.
Maybe lawyers don't make the best witnesses? (wink)
valpo95, you provided the proof for my point. About the only experience she has outside of rarified, elite air is working in Senator Conrad's office (unless she was pure policy wonk, in which case that was a sheltered position, too). And when you're a Dean, Provost, or President, you can usually get away with offering imprecise, fertilizer answers to questions, and even being smug or superior about it, because they're typically coming from those who won't be able to call you out for it in such a public fashion.
And yes, lawyers responding as if they're being crossed examined aren't going to come across very well in legislative hearings. Legal training & thinking centers on analytical details, but legal academics who aren't good at summoning the big picture aren't going to come across well in these settings.
When John Sexton was the President of NYU, he was often asked to issue statements on public issues of the day, sign onto public statements about policy matters, etc. Although I know he never had any shortage of opinions on things (he was my Civil Procedure prof in law school, and he certainly never hesitated to opine!), his response was that other than addressing issues pertaining directly to higher education, his job as a university president was to create and preserve the space for other members of the university -- especially faculty talking or writing about matters concerning their expertise -- to engage in meaningful dialogue.
I once wasn't sure I agreed with that position. But now I see it as a very valid choice, both for practical purposes (frankly, the need to get along with, and raise money from, folks with a wide variety of backgrounds and beliefs), as well out of higher principles (the university president serving in a stewardship role for the university and its stakeholders).
Because really now, why the h**l should it make a difference what the president of any university thinks about a given topic, unless (possibly) they happen to be leading scholars on it?
The attached article includes comments from Rep. Erin Houchin, R IN-9th, and somehow she drags Valpo into the discussion because of the Confucius Institute which was closed in 2022. Weird.
https://wibc.com/204906/houchin-to-ivy-league-presidents-on-anti-semitic-protests-apology-is-not-enough/
Quote from: vu72 on December 11, 2023, 08:54:35 AM
The attached article includes comments from Rep. Erin Houchin, R IN-9th, and somehow she drags Valpo into the discussion because of the Confucius Institute which was closed in 2022. Weird.
https://wibc.com/204906/houchin-to-ivy-league-presidents-on-anti-semitic-protests-apology-is-not-enough/ (https://wibc.com/204906/houchin-to-ivy-league-presidents-on-anti-semitic-protests-apology-is-not-enough/)
As poor as President Gay has been with her use of language at times, even to the extent of being accused by some of plagiarism in her PhD dissertation, I still find it difficult to believe she mistakenly cited "the second amendment" in her defense as this news article seems to misreport: "Gay said in her testimony that Harvard's rules on speaking on campus are 'guided by the second amendment' when asked why anti-Semitic protests were allowed to proceed on Harvard's campus."
I am also curious as to what number of white males currently serve as President of either our Ivy League elite large endowment private schools, or high-ranking flagships? I don't have a count, but it seems like every time I turn around the president of a college i see has a woman and/or minority president. I fully applaud the appointments when the candidates are equally qualified.
But I happened to a quick count of our Federal cabinet members (15-18 ish) I counted 4 white males who are not openly gay and those 4 had none of the most powerful jobs. Does this new really "look like "America?" in terms of percentage? I recall this Clinton mantra from Donna Shalala etc. and understood it as a fair point. But has the pendulum swung so far that ratios are nearly a caracature of the idea.
Quote from: crusadermoe on December 11, 2023, 01:02:21 PMam also curious as to what number of white males currently serve as President of either our Ivy League elite large endowment private schools, or high-ranking flagships? I don't have a count, but it seems like every time I turn around the president of a college i see has a woman and/or minority president. I fully applaud the appointments when the candidates are equally qualified.
Not sure these sites will answer your questions by might help.
https://www.aceacps.org/diversity-inclusion-dashboard/
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/governance/executive-leadership/2023/04/14/moving-needle-college-presidency
https://www.aceacps.org/summary-profile-dashboard/
Thanks VU72. The second article quickly nails down the stats. It looks like the percentage of presidents in the main two minority groups are roughly the same percentage of all U.S. citizens. It looks like hat battle is won.
I overreacted when I saw that ONLY TWO of the Ivy League school presidents were MALE.