I remember how it was -- JR
Tenure Controversy in Georgia
By RICHARD K. VEDDER
Public policy decisions are often confounded by having to face hard trade-offs and by the law of unintended consequences. This is illustrated now in Georgia. The University System of Georgia, a governing board over the 28 public colleges and universities in that state, has approved new regulations regarding post tenure review of faculty that has concerned faculty, the national American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and even the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) up in arms. What’s all the brouhaha about?
First, what are the arguments for and against academic tenure? On the pro side, tenure greatly increases the ability and willingness of faculty to speak up on consequential issues—it is a tool supporting free expression—the very fundamental first principle of higher education in the post-Enlightenment era. Also, for the faculty, it is a valuable fringe benefit—providing job security in a society where jobs are constantly being both created and destroyed.
But tenure imposes costs—sometimes substantial ones. It creates huge fixed costs on colleges, making it difficult for them to reallocate resources to alternative uses as academic demand shifts. In an era of falling enrollments, it can contribute to the financial demise of institutions. Also, some professors get lazy and do little work after getting tenure, becoming less effective.
Tenured professors now teach less than half the classroom instruction of American college students. Expensive faculty (tenured teachers) have been replaced by cheaper adjuncts, graduate students, etc. Enrollments are falling. Faculty bargaining power has declined. At many schools a surging administrative bureaucracy is running things, and faculty are increasingly viewed as an annoyance rather than an important partner in “shared governance.”
Adding to professorial woes: the “birth dearth.” Many current freshmen were born in 2003—when the number of babies was less than it was 43 years earlier, in 1960, during the Golden Age of American higher education. Foreign students are immigrating less, partly because of the pandemic and tougher government restrictions, partly because of surging competition from improved universities in other countries. And the value proposition of attending college seems to have eroded—too many students end up heavily indebted and underemployed. Going to college is riskier than it used to be the case. Finally, the political atmosphere regarding support of colleges has cooled considerably, especially in relatively conservative states like Georgia. Polls show public support of colleges has waned considerably, I think because the woke progressivism at many universities does not sit well with the public.
Today (October 14), the full Board of Regents in Georgia is expected to approve a new post-tenure review policy. The AAUP claims the new policy “almost certainly undermines academic freedom.” They assert that the burden of proving the case for continued employment will shift from the university to the faculty member, who now will have to make the case for retention. Additionally, the criteria for evaluating faculty performance will be expanded to include student success—is the faculty member in question contributing to the ultimate academic and perhaps postgraduate career success of students?
I have family with degrees from multiple Georgia schools, and one is even attending one now. I am not sure the right tenure policy for the flagship campus of the University of Georgia or for Georgia Tech, both institutions with high research support and expectations, are the same as that for Georgia College or Kennesaw State University, with a somewhat different academic mission. Are state coordinating boards an instrument for promoting efficiency and reducing needless duplication, or are they impediments to innovations, barriers to competition, and expensive annoyances?
In some states, the answer for some faculty is to promote full-blown unionization. Personally, I believe the potential effectiveness of that weapon is very limited, as the ultimate financial problems underlying the declining faculty role cannot be solved by a union—unions cannot effectively negotiate higher taxes or state support, for example.
I am a faculty member whose contrarian views angered governors and other powerful policies, for whom tenure provided peace of mind and job security. But if I were to predict what American higher education will be like, say 20 years from now, I would say tenure, if not dead, would be on life support.
https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=13819
***************************************Liberal School Now Expelling Students For Telling Dirty Jokes?
Administrators at one of the United States’ oldest and most prestigious private schools are now drafting a policy where they are going to punish any and all “harmful” language – such as “misplaced humor” – with expulsion, according to leaked documents that were obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
The news outlet reported last Tuesday that this draft called the “anti-bias” policy has been circulating among administrative ranks at the St. Alban’s School in Washington, D.C. This is a famous all-boys school that has alumni that are former vice presidents and two current U.S. Senators.
The new policy is allegedly seeking to crack down on what it is calling “harmful” speech and it is also taking the controversial approach of prioritizing the impact that the speech has over the basic needs and intent of the speaker. Indeed, the new guidelines are so strict that many of the students at St. Albans could be expelled even under a single infraction.
“It is the impact of hate speech, rather than the intent of those perpetrating it, that is of utmost importance,” the draft policy states. As such, boys could be expelled “even in the case of a single expression, act, or gesture”—including “misplaced humor,” which the policy says “should be reported immediately to the student’s adviser.”
Reporting infractions would fall to students, teachers, and parents. “We also expect that anyone, whether student, faculty, staff, or family member, who witnesses, or has knowledge of an incident of hate speech, will report the incident to the appropriate individual,” the draft policy reads, clarifying that nobody will be punished for making “a good faith report.”
Interestingly enough, St. Alban’s was once considered an old-fashioned and more conservative school in comparison to some of its elite private school competitors. That has changed in recent years, though, because now they too are under the same progressive sway as other private institutions. The Free Beacon noted that it is not entirely clear whether the policy is still in its draft stages or whether it has gone into effect, as St. Albans has not responded to requests for comment from the outlet. But the outlet noted the policy changes have likely been in the works for more than a year.
In July 2020, there were plans for the school to significantly expand its “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” efforts. This came on the heels of the George Floyd death, and it was one of the main reasons why the school had committed to “developing a new policy for inclusion in the Student Handbook that specifically addresses racial hate speech.”
There have been other progressive initiatives that the school has been undertaken by the school, including the scrapping of Columbus Day and replacing it with “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” and the school’s efforts to sponsor an “Alliance of White Antiracists.”
At least one alumnus has been disheartened by the changes.
“St. Albans used to have a simple honor code: Don’t lie, cheat, or steal,” the alumnus told the Free Beacon. “Everything else was adjudicated human-to-human. Now boys are being policed for humor and innocuous comments are subject to the highest form of punishment.”
This new policy from St. Albans is reminiscent of this uber-woke speech code that was implemented at the Grace Church School in NoHo, in which students are advised against using terms that the school considered to be “offensive” such as “Merry Christmas” and “mom and dad.” Huh? Yeah, you read that right. It’s official: the liberals have now gone completely nuts.
https://theinformedamerican.net/liberal-school-now-expelling-students-for-telling-dirty-jokes/
******************************************Woke at Wellesley Public Schools
Parents sue over policies that segregate students and chill speech.
Critical race theory dominates college campuses these days, but parents are fighting its spread to K-12 education. Three Massachusetts families are suing Wellesley Public Schools over woke policies they say violate their children’s rights.
“Nearly seven decades of Supreme Court precedent have made two things clear: Public schools cannot segregate students by race, and students do not abandon their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate,” says the suit filed in federal court Tuesday afternoon by the nonprofit Parents Defending Education. The suit says Wellesley Public Schools “is flouting both of these principles.”
Wellesley has promoted “affinity groups” that hold events for specific races. Parents Defending Education alleges these groups are racially exclusionary “by definition and design,” given that “certain Wellesley students” including the plaintiffs’ children “are prohibited from participating in certain school activities because of their race and ethnicity.” The parents say this violates the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The parents group raised similar concerns earlier this year in a complaint to the federal Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, but the agency hasn’t acted. In May Wellesley superintendent of schools David Lussier and director of diversity, equity and inclusion Charmie Curry told us that no students or staff were barred from participating.
But email correspondence obtained by the nonprofit Judicial Watch and cited in the complaint adds credence to the Wellesley parents’ worries. After a March 2021 shooting in Atlanta that killed several Asian women, Ms. Curry promoted a “Healing Space for Asian and Asian American Community.” A white teacher asked whether it was “appropriate for me to go.” Ms. Curry responded that “this time, we want to hold the space for the Asian and Asian American students and faculty/staff.”
Parents say a seventh grader received an email that described the healing space as “for our Asian/Asian-American and Students of Color, *not* for students who identify only as white” and added, “if you need to know more about why this is not for White students, please ask me!” The complaint says that “other middle school teachers sent similar messages to their students.” Mr. Lussier and Ms. Curry didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The Wellesley parents also take issue with the school district’s handling of so-called bias incidents, which they say penalize and chill speech. Under school policy, a bias incident can encompass “conduct, speech or expression” that “has an impact but may not involve criminal action” or demonstrates even “unconscious bias,” among other acts.
The complaint says this policy is so “unconstitutionally overbroad” that it can encompass “virtually any opinion or political belief—as well as any use of humor, satire, or parody.” Some of the plaintiff parents say their children have begun self-censoring for fear of penalty.
Parents shouldn’t have to go to court to have a say in how their children are taught, but they have no alternative when school administrators won’t listen. The Wellesley suit is one to watch and could echo beyond New England.
***********************************
My other blogs: Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*******************************
