Idea for George Soros and Charles Koch: Fund Campus Debates

At the invitation of Matt Denhart, president of the Coolidge Foundation, I spent an extraordinary day recently speaking to students participating in a Coolidge high school and middle school (!) debate tournament in Raleigh, North Carolina. I watched some students evaluate whether the benefits of attending college exceed the costs. It was a marvelous learning experience for the participants, and led to a civil but spirited discussion of one of the issues of our day.

Bob Luddy, the founder of CaptiveAire Systems, a manufacturer of kitchen ventilation systems, largely financed the event, and his North Carolina efforts led me to think that maybe two extremely wealthy entrepreneurs, George Soros and Charles Koch, could fund a large number of debates involving prominent public intellectuals at the national level, both to encourage collegiate debate but, far more importantly, to introduce more diversity of ideas and civility into discussion of those ideas on campuses. Both gentlemen have shown an interest in open discussion of the issues. The Charles Koch Foundation sponsors educational programs at many universities, and the Soros Open Society Foundations likewise promotes debates (this author himself participated in a debate once in Mr. Soros’ New York apartment).

Suppose Soros and Koch each contributed $50 million to fund a new Collegiate Debate Initiative for three years. The Debate Initiative’s board might consist of two members selected by George Soros, two by Charles Koch, and a chair and perhaps others selected by those four, preferably well regarded national figures not extremely partisan or ideological. The initiative would give $100,000 to $150,000 each year to to fund a series of debates on about 200 campuses (probably about two each semester) on issues of the day.

Should the U.S. drop out of the Paris climate change accord? Should we raise tariffs on Chinese goods? Should we liberalize immigration to the U.S.? Should we have “free” college? Should we have a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Should we ban gasoline-powered automobiles in 10 years? For each debate, a liberal/progressive/socialist speaker would be invited, along with a conservative/libertarian one. For example, Jordan Peterson or Charles Murray might debate Paul Krugman or Thomas Piketty.

These debates would achieve multiple objectives. First, they would provide much needed intellectual diversity on many campuses where most faculty have similar (typically progressive left) perspectives. Second, they would demonstrate the utility of civility and orderly discussion in assessing issues of the day. Third, on many campuses, they would expose students and faculty to first-rate minds that normally would not be seen. Fourth, the value of debate as a learning tool might become greater appreciated as they become more common on campuses. Fifth, debates help demonstrate the importance of freedom of expression and the First Amendment in both learning and in strengthening representative democracy.

In addition to the campus-wide debates featuring prominent public intellectuals, some funds could be used to fund student debate efforts. Perhaps a debating league could be created between schools, where teams of debaters could compete against other teams debating a variety of issues. Ultimately, the Koch-Soros initiative could fund national debate tournaments. Collegiate debating already exists, of course, but this might expand it and make it part of more student lives.

I would envision the initiative encompassing perhaps the largest 50 schools in the U.S. by enrollment, perhaps the 50 most prominent schools as determined by reputation and perhaps another 100 schools selected randomly from a list of all accredited institutions with at least 1,000 students.

One problem probably arising relates to attempts on some campuses to prohibit public campus presentations on the grounds that outsiders (in this case Koch-Soros Initiative people) organized them. There are different ways to overcome this: use off-campus facilities (as the Intercollegiate Studies Institute did in dealing with Gonzaga University), bribe the schools with nice sized “rental” payments, etc. Perhaps the colleges could be allowed to choose between alternative debate topics. Perhaps local campus individuals could be involved in introducing speakers or moderating the debates. Audiences could be polled before and after the debates to ascertain their positions on the debate question, and evaluate who “won” the debate. If successful, hopefully, the debates could be put on a permanent, possibly even endowed basis involving financial support from a broader base of contributors.

SOURCE 





PC insanity may mean the end of American universities

People used to talk about the ends of the university and how the academic establishment was failing its students. Today, more and more people are talking about the end of the university, the idea being that it is time to think about closing them rather than reforming them.

Last month at a conference in London, the distinguished British philosopher Sir Roger Scruton added his voice to this chorus when responding to a questioner who complained of the physical ­violence meted out to conservative students at Birkbeck University.

There were two possible responses to this situation, Sir Roger said. One was to start competing institutions, outside the academic establishment, that welcomed conservative voices. The other possibility was “get rid of universities altogether.”

That response was met with enthusiastic applause.

Sir Roger went on to qualify his recommendation, noting that a modern society required institutions to pursue science and engineering. But the humanities, which at most colleges and universities have devolved into cesspools of identity politics and grievance studies, should be starved of funding and ultimately shut down.

It’s an idea that is getting more and more traction.

In a remarkable essay in Quillette titled “After Academia,” ­Allen Farrington summed up the growing consensus. “We need to stop wringing our hands over how to save academia and ­acknowledge that its disease is terminal.”

Is he right? It is too soon to say for sure. But if so, Farrington is correct that its demise “need not be cause for solemnity.” On the contrary, the end of academia “can inspire celebration,” because it could “allow us to shift our energies away from the abject failure of modern education and to refocus on breathing new life into the classical alternative.”

A huge amount of attention and public anxiety has been expended on the plight of free speech on campus. Every season the situation seems to get a little worse. Guest speakers are routinely shouted at, de-platformed, or disinvited. Students and teachers alike are bullied into ­silence or craven apology by self-appointed virtue-crats in college administrations and among designated victim groups among the students.

But the issue isn’t really, or not only, free speech. Bret Weinstein, a former biology professor, was hounded out of Evergreen State College when he objected to a “Day of Absence” rally that insisted that all whites stay off campus for a day.

Since then, he has been frequently invited to talk about free speech on college campuses. But he notes that the real crisis in education isn’t about free speech. Rather, it is about “a breakdown in the basic logic of civilization.”

Academia is the crucible, the engine room of this rot. But the breakdown of which Weinstein speaks isn’t confined to college campuses. The revolutionary ­intolerance that has made college campuses so inhospitable to free expression and the impulses of civilization has also deeply affected the woke mandarins of social media and Big Tech. It has made serious inroads into the HR departments of the Fortune 500 and elsewhere in the world of business. And it has insinuated itself into the values and practices of most governmental agencies, many of which have yet to meet a politically correct left-wing cause they do not embrace.

The economist Herb Stein once observed that what cannot go one forever, won’t. In the coming decade, we will see many so-called liberal-arts college close their doors. We will also see more alternatives to traditional colleges. Many of these will be on-line. Some will be local, ad hoc ventures. All will be rebelling against the poisonous hand of identity politics.

Thoughtful citizens will want to hasten this process. Their best bet is to pursue strategies to starve Academia Inc. of funds. No public monies should be feeding institutions that claim to be educating students but really are simply indoctrinating them. Parents and alumni, rightly disgusted by what these institutions have done to their children, should refuse to subsidize their perversion.

Once upon a time, universities were institutions dedicated to the pursuit of truth and the transmission of the highest values of our civilization. Today, most are dedicated to the destruction of those values. It is past time to call them to account.

SOURCE 






Time to dump the books? Australian tradesmen earn up to $1MILLION more in their careers than those who do degrees - and graduates are finding it harder to secure full-time jobs

New data comparing the salaries of tradies and university graduates suggest young people would be better off picking up a drill than a textbook.

The surprising data has revealed tradies could make $1million more than university graduates throughout their lifetime.

The figures from the Australian government's Job Outlook website showed blue-collar workers who have come through apprenticeships or having completed vocational training certificates (VET) could be significantly wealthier than the tertiary-educated over the course of their careers.

According to the Job Outlook website, a university-qualified human resources professional could expect to make about $2.78 million over an average 40-year career, and an advertising professional and accountant would make $2.91 million.

On the other hand, a VET-qualified steel construction worker could make $3.15 million, an electrician could make $2.91 million, and a metal fitter could make $3.12 million.

Tradies also avoided HECS debt - the cost of university courses which graduates must pay back once they are in the workforce and their salary reaches a set threshold.

The figures were backed up by research conducted by social demographer Mark McCrindle, which showed people with a tertiary education also had a higher chance of being underemployed.

Mr McCrindle found that from 2008 to 2014, university graduates in full-time employment fell from 86 per cent to 68 per cent, indicating that universities were losing touch with what employers wanted from staff.

By comparison, VET graduates had a full-time employment rate of 78 per cent after training, and 82 per cent of apprenticeship graduates found a job after training. 

Data by recruitment agency Withyouandme also found that tertiary education could be leading to underemployment and a loss of national productivity.

'Individuals are invariably ending up in underemployment and jobs which don't match their potential,' the report said.

'The results show that the number of graduates in every industry is set to outstrip the number of jobs which will be created, making the chances of securing a job in a graduate's industry a difficult proposition.'

'Too many Aussies with Bachelor degrees are pulling beers in pubs or working in retail - careers which are not aligned with their studies.'

A report by Skilling Australia also stated the university drop-out rate was 26.4 per cent between 2005 and 2013, and 21.8 per cent of HECS loans will never be repaid as degrees go unused.

According to experts, employers are more focused on people who have actual skills, employment history, and are job-ready - something fresh university graduates don't always have.

Despite the relatively poor outcomes for graduates, there was no slowing in the number of people seeking university places.

Data showed the number of Australians with HECS debts above $50,000 in 2017-18 reached 208,146, compared to 159,475 in 2016-17.

SOURCE