Censorship on college campuses, and how it relates to Valpo

[wh]

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...

[Just Sayin]

"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."

[crusadermoe]

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

[VULB#62]

Some reinforcing observations notated below....

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"

[crusadermoe]

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. 

[wh]

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.

[valpotx]

The above clip is absurd and abhorrent.  Shame on those University Presidents and their schools...

[crusadermoe]

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. 

[David81]

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.

[valpopal]

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.

[crusadermoe]

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.

[David81]

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

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.

[KreitzerSTL]

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?

[valpo95]

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)

[DejaVU]

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.

[David81]

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.

[David81]

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?

[vu72]

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/

[valpopal]

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/

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."

[crusadermoe]

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.

[vu72]

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.

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/

[crusadermoe]

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.