iPhones Are Not Accredited, So Why Are Colleges?

All of the iconic, popular consumer goods we buy, things like iPhones and iPods and Tesla electric cars, are not “accredited”—no governmental or other agency declares they are fit for public use, yet they are wildly popular expensive purchases by consumers, and watchdog organizations like Consumer Reports give us objective assessments of product quality and safety. Yet with university educational services, the assessments of school quality by news organizations like Forbes, U.S. News or the Wall Street Journal are not considered adequate, so accreditation organizations exist by the dozens, including several major regional accrediting groups evaluating whole institutions.

Two news stories reminded me that I needed to look again at accreditation. The first was that the Mother Superior of the accreditation mafia, Judith Eaton, is going to retire. Judith heads CHEA (Council for Higher Education Accreditation), the umbrella group representing nearly all accreditation organizations. Judith has been an extremely effective spokesperson, and, full disclosure, good friend.

Then I read a routine story about members elected to the Executive Committee of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, one of the nation’s regional accrediting agencies, serving universities in five states (including populous New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey), and some other territories (e.g, D.C., Puerto Rico). Of the seven members of the Executive Committee, six are or have been on the payrolls of schools that are accredited by Middle States (one representative works for NASA).

The college president, administrators or professors from College A serve on the board or an accreditation team this year and pass judgement on the worthiness of College B. Next year (or a few years thereafter), staff from College B will evaluate College A. Are you going to be especially tough in criticizing a school this year if representatives from that school might be evaluating you some day soon? HUGE conflicts of interest abound that would be impermissible in most human endeavors in the U.S.

Yet that is one of the lesser problems with our system of accreditation. Let me list several others. First, there are too many accrediting organizations—acceptable standards of the Middles States group operating in New York may differ somewhat from those of the Higher Education Commission operating in the industrial Midwest.

Second, the system is not very transparent: often the details in reports are not made public to avoid schools from being embarrassed. Related to that, accreditation is much like pass/fail grading, or for that matter, pregnancy—you either are accredited (passing grade) or are not (failing grade). Failing grades are exceedingly rare.

Third, this means little consumer information is disclosed, unlike with college rankings. Harvard has the same basic accreditation as nearby Bridgewater State, but no one thinks those institutions are remotely equal qualitatively.

Fourth, often accreditation has stressed inputs into the process of education rather than outcomes—for example, the number of library books or the college degrees of the faculty instead of whether the students have learned anything or have successful postgraduate careers.

Fifth, accreditation is a barrier to entry to providing higher education services and impedes innovation. For example, historically the accreditation agencies have approved schools, not courses, discouraging companies or institutions providing cheap or free courses to students.

Sixth, the system is rather costly. Beside institutional accreditation, most schools must endure additional accreditation in various academic subjects—the American Bar Association accredits law schools, for example, and the AACSB (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business) approves business schools. Most large schools have full-time administrative staff involved in accreditation approvals.

Seventh, accreditation is a way the federal government has used to increase its mostly unsuccessful regulation of higher education institutions. Individuals cannot receive federal student financial aid unless they attend an “accredited” institution, and, ultimately, the U.S. Department of Education itself “accredits” the accreditation agencies.

CHEA is part of the One DuPont Circle (Washington, D.C.) cabal that thinks it speaks for higher education in America but which in fact, by its constraining of competition, has robbed it of some of its vitality and diversity. It is the decentralized nature of American colleges that increases choice and competition, and accreditation as it works today detracts from it. It needs to be abolished or radically reformed.

SOURCE 





Harsh medicine to fix America’s universities

Summary: I have written hundreds of posts about ways to reform American politics. Time has shown these are inadequate – and that more extreme measures are necessary as the Left remolds America – and the Right serves the 1%, Measures are needed beyond the imagination of Boomer reformers. Now a new generation arises with bigger imaginations. Perhaps they can put their ideas into action. Here is one example, looking at America’s broken universities.

Introduction.

From the birth of the modern conservative movement, dissidents concerned with civic and liberal education have tried almost everything to reshape America’s universities: from refusing to donate to their alma maters (as William F. Buckley prescribed), to funding tenure-track positions, forming independent centers on campuses to host outside speakers, organizing external supplementary seminars to make up for what students do not get in the classroom, and creating new academic departments. Despite 70 years of increasingly sophisticated efforts, conservatives are now begging on many campuses merely to be heard.

America’s universities have been progressivism’s most important asset, its crown jewel. For over half a century, they have served as the left’s R&D headquarters and the intellectual origin or dissemination point for the political and moral transformation of the nation, especially through the sexual revolution and the identity-politics revolution. Universities have trained the new elites who have taken society’s helm and now set its tone through the other institutions thoroughly dominated by the left: the mainstream press, mass entertainment, Fortune 500s, and tech companies.

Universities have also brought to rural and suburban America these moral revolutions, converting generations of young people to their cause. Universities are arguably the most important institution in modern democracy – no other institution has such power to determine the fate of democracy, for good or ill. …

Regrettably, they are no longer animated by their original purpose of serving republican self-government or the freedom of the mind. As such, they must be treated as political entities.

That the freedom of speech is under attack on many campuses should not be surprising, given that the freedom of the mind, of which speech is the expression, is rarely understood as their purpose any longer. Without that purpose, most American universities no longer serve the public good for which they were created and for which they continue to be publicly funded. Their transformation, which in turn has led to the transformation of the nation, has taken place with the unwitting assistance of American taxpayers – and amounts to defrauding the public. If citizens are compelled to pay for others to go to college, it should be to the benefit of the entire nation – forming good citizens and advancing useful sciences, rather than teaching the rising generation that the nation is irredeemably evil.

Taxpayers have funded the research, bankrolled the student loans (including generous forgiveness programs), and allowed the universities and their enormous endowments to operate without paying taxes. These funding sources are the operational life blood of universities, but they can no longer be justified. In fact, it seems likely that the nation would be better off if the vast majority of America’s more than 3,000 colleges and universities closed down.

An executive order signed by President Trump on March 21, 2019, gives administrators in 12 executive-branch agencies that issue research grants broad discretion to withhold funding from universities that suppress “free inquiry” and “undermine learning.” This is a worthwhile half-step to chastening them. But given where things stand, bolder, more aggressive action is needed. If the universities are going to be rebuilt, only external force, rather than pleading or slight policy modifications, will work. Success in this could bring generational change. …

Today, these three {functions of universities} are either corrupted or on their way to corruption in the great majority of America’s universities. In their …open rebellion against these ends, America’s universities too often create students in the opposite vein: ideologues with technical skills, despisers of tradition without insight (not to mention wisdom), or scientists without perspective. These problems are hardly new and have been the centerpiece of the conservative critique of higher education for more than half a century. What is new, however, is the thoroughness of the corruption, the impossibility at this point of changing course through conventional means, and the extent of the pernicious effects of these institutions on the nation as a whole. …

The physical sciences: the next dominoes to fall.

…Should the identity revolution fully impose itself on the sciences – among the last places in universities where the freedom of the mind still excels and is celebrated – they will wither on the branch as have the social sciences and the humanities, with untold losses to our national wealth, power, and prestige. This corrosion will be slow and hidden from the public eye, but likely irreversible once it is visible to all. …We should not assume that science will prosper forever in the absence of the right intellectual conditions. …

{There are alternatives.} The federal government could pay to transfer the laboratories and scientists – or fund the creation of new national laboratories. While this sounds radical, and although there is disagreement among conservatives, it is less radical than tolerating what is already taking place. While it is bad to interrupt scientific research in such a way, it is worse and more dangerous to maintain institutions working to sink the nation while hiding behind the prestige of science. The goal, again, is to make universities serve their fundamental purpose, which at this point can be done only by rebuilding them after they are significantly weakened.

Renewal by fire.

What suicidal nation would continue to publicly fund institutions that intentionally or even semi-consciously undermine the strength and unity of the society that protects them? …

{As} fewer and fewer graduate from colleges, the employment ecosystem and America’s moral horizon would change for the better. Most practical degree programs can return to apprenticeship models. One does not need a four-year college degree to pass a Certified Public Accounting exam. Furthermore, the shortage of working-class labor in America is used to lobby for the importation of immigrants. Few Americans want to hang sheetrock after attending college. While having learned very little in classes, they have, however, often acquired a classist snobbery (and massive debt) that looks down on such labor – even if the wages for it might be higher than for the white-collar jobs to which they aspire.

Reforms like these would be catastrophic for key elements of the existing model of higher education in America. But they could be enormously helpful to forms of higher education that actually serve the nation and fulfill the purpose of the university. …

The purpose of such proposals is not punitive. It is simple sense. Universities that spread poisonous doctrines no longer believe in the purpose of the university. While it is their right to disagree with this purpose, they should not be the beneficiaries of public funds. No society should be expected to subsidize its own corrosion.

Editor’s afterword

Much of our educational system was created to establish class hierarchies, such as the “liberal arts degree.” Students sit in lectures, a format created in the 11th century – 400 years before the printing press, when books were expensive and rare. They listen to material which most will have forgotten soon after they graduate, and which has little or no effect on their either their personal lives or careers. On this they spend two to four of the best, the most high-energy years of their lives. Their first crucial years away from home are spent in a highly regulated environment, when they could be earning money and learning independence.

Tens of billions of dollars are wasted on this system, money that could be more fruitfully used elsewhere. This is a prime example of cultural senescence, a society’s inability to reform its workings to rationally meet its needs.

SOURCE 






Professor who sued his college for violating his religious freedom after it disciplined him for repeatedly misgendering a transgender student has his lawsuit dismissed

An appeal may follow. The ADF often goes all the way to SCOTUS -- with frequent success

A federal judge dismissed a professor's lawsuit against a small, publicly funded university in Ohio that reprimanded him for refusing to address a transgender female student using the student's preferred gender terms.

Nicholas Meriwether's lawsuit alleged that Shawnee State University officials violated his constitutionally protected rights by compelling him to speak in a way that contradicts his Christian beliefs.

Schools officials contended that such language was part of his job responsibilities, not speech protected by the First Amendment, and that the case should be dismissed.

US District Judge Susan Dlott threw out the lawsuit last week, agreeing that the manner in which Meriwether addressed the student, known in the complaint as 'Jane Doe,' wasn't protected under the First Amendment.

'The Court concludes that Meriwether failed to state a claim for violation of his rights under the United States Constitution,' Dlott wrote in her ruling, as cited by Metro Weekly. 'His speech — the manner by which he addressed a transgender student — was not protected under the First Amendment.'

Meriwether, who had taught philosophy at Shawnee State for two decades, had received a written warning for violating the school's nondiscrimination policy and unsuccessfully challenged his reprimand in a grievance process. Meriwether said he treated the student like 'other biologically male students' and continued referring to the student as 'Mr.'

Shawnee State University a small, publicly funded university in Ohio, where Meriwether had taught philosophy or 20 years    +3
Shawnee State University a small, publicly funded university in Ohio, where Meriwether had taught philosophy or 20 years

In November 2019, the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian conservative law firm based in Arizona specializing in cases involving 'religious freedom, sanctity of life, and marriage and family,' filed the federal lawsuit on Meriwether's behalf.

'In January 2018, a male student demanded that Dr. Meriwether address him as a woman because he identified as such and threatened to have Dr. Meriwether fired if he declined,' the lawsuit, the text of which was obtained by NBC News, read.

'To accede to these demands would have required Dr. Meriwether to communicate views regarding gender identity that he does not hold, that he does not wish to communicate, and that would contradict (and force him to violate) his sincerely held Christian beliefs.'

The lawsuit alleged that the university 'punished' Meriwether for 'expressing views that differ from its own orthodoxy and for declining to express its mandated ideological message.'

'Continuing in their role as the self-appointed grammar police, Defendants threaten to punish him again if he continues to express his views,' the lawsuit read.

'Under their policies, all professors must refer to each student - both in and out of class - using whatever pronouns the student claims reflect his gender identity.'

Meriwether argued in his complaint that 'the number of potential gender identities is infinite' and that there are 'over one hundred different options currently available.'

Following last week's ruling, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which interceded on behalf of the transgender student during the proceedings, released a statement addressing the lawsuit's dismissal. 

'We are pleased the Court affirmed that schools can ensure that all students are able to learn and the access educational opportunities available to all students without fear of discrimination,' it stated.  

SOURCE