Schooling the Higher Ed Establishment

Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has been making news in recent months as a possible presidential candidate and, more importantly, as a state executive intent on improving the quality of life for his constituents—depending on your point of view. Naturally, The New York Times and the line of ducklings that follow it have put the worst possible construction on DeSantis’s actions, deriding his policies as mainly being political posturing aimed at the vast population of slack-jawed dimwits that make up the Republican Party across the country (and in 2016 somehow decided the party’s candidate for president):

On Tuesday, Governor DeSantis, a Republican, took his most aggressive swing yet at the education establishment, announcing a proposed overhaul of the state’s higher education system that would eliminate what he called “ideological conformity.” If enacted, courses in Western civilization would be mandated, diversity and equity programs would be eliminated, and the protections of tenure would be reduced.

The Times notes that DeSantis had already “moved to overhaul the leadership of the New College of Florida, a small liberal arts school in Sarasota that has struggled with enrollment, but calls itself a place for ‘freethinkers.’” (Apparently this passage was written without irony.) The New College “is regarded as among the most progressive of Florida’s 12 public universities,” the Times reports. DeSantis overhauled the college’s board of trustees by appointing conservatives, saying, “If it was a private school, making those choices, that’s fine, I mean, what are you going to do?” the Times quotes him as saying. “But this is paid for by your tax dollars.”

The new appointees include nationally prominent conservatives such as Christopher Rufo of the Manhattan Institute, Matthew Spalding of Hillsdale College, and Ryan Anderson of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, all of whom are strong critics of the drift of education away from what young people need to know and be able to do, and its replacement with political indoctrination into hatred of the United States and its history and institutions. The Times notes Rufo’s “vigorous attacks on ‘critical race theory.’”

The Times reporters acknowledge that DeSantis is not exactly on an island in his displeasure with the recent hard-left turn of the nation’s education system after decades of drift in that direction:

Mr. DeSantis’s embrace of civics education, as well as the establishment of special civics programs at several of the state’s 12 public universities, dovetails with the growth of similar programs around the country, some partially funded by conservative donors.

The programs emphasize the study of Western civilization and economics, as well as the thinking of Western philosophers, frequently focusing on the Greeks and Romans. Critics of the programs say they sometimes gloss over the pitfalls of Western thinking and ignore the philosophies of non-Western civilizations.

What should amaze and delight conservatives is how much success even a little pushback can achieve. The College Board, which creates and manages tests and associated curricula to help institutions of higher education ascertain how likely prospective students are to succeed in college, revised its AP History course to eliminate the most aggressive race-baiting elements, the Times reports:

After heavy criticism from Gov. Ron DeSantis, the College Board released on Wednesday an official curriculum for its new Advanced Placement course in African American Studies—stripped of much of the subject matter that had angered the governor and other conservatives.

The College Board purged the names of many Black writers and scholars associated with critical race theory, the queer experience and Black feminism. It ushered out some politically fraught topics, like Black Lives Matter, from the formal curriculum.

And it added something new: “Black conservatism” is now offered as an idea for a research project.

The Times singles out DeSantis as a motive force behind the change:

The pushback began in January, when Governor DeSantis of Florida, a Republican who is expected to run for president, announced that he would ban the curriculum, citing the draft version. State education officials said it was not historically accurate and violated state law that regulates how race-related issues are taught in public schools.

As I noted above, DeSantis is not alone in this effort to reform higher education. The Times reports:

In another red flag to the College Board, there was the possibility of other opposition: more than two dozen states have adopted some sort of measure against critical race theory, according to a tracking project by the University of California, Los Angeles, law school.

S.T. Karnick: skarnick@heartland.org

*************************************************

Conservatives on campus hit the wall of censor sensibility

Virtually every academic working in an Australian university is today being force-fed a steady diet of views that are widely accepted by those on the political left and yet widely rejected by those on the political right.

For instance, their university administrations will tell them how wonderful “diversity, equity and inclusion” goals are.

Indeed, most will have to sit through some sort of online indoctrination modules, answering trite little multiple-choice answers at the end where the “correct” answer is the left-wing progressive’s preferred answer (and where any schoolchild of average IQ could guess the expected choice).

Now conservatives like me would say the whole diversity bureaucracy – and you would be stunned to learn how much is spent on this in our universities – should be dismantled immediately. I believe in merit. Hire the best person regardless. But under the guise of “diversity, equity and inclusion”, university administrations bring to bear factors other than merit.

Most often what happens is that they take some favoured academic position or student course opening and they begin by looking at the percentage of some favoured group in the wider population. Then they aim to recreate that same level or percentage for the favoured group in these job positions or student places.

This, of course, is the essence of identity politics. You define individuals in group terms by characteristics they share with others in the wider population. And notice that the key characteristics are such things as one’s type of reproductive organs or of skin pigmentation, never political viewpoints.

Notice as well that if simply hiring on merit achieved these identitarian outcomes (as is sometimes implicitly suggested), there would be no need for the huge diversity, equity and inclusion bureaucracy in the first place.

While we’re at it, readers can notice as well that these sort of implicit identitarian quotas are not just restricted to favoured groups, they are also used only for desirable jobs and places.

For instance, on some reckonings men hold about 95 per cent of the jobs that lead to deaths on the job. Highly dangerous jobs, in other words.

You won’t hear identitarian quota-pushers say “hey, not enough women are dying at work so we need to equalise things and get more women into these jobs”. Not just because that’s a stupid attitude but because these quota-pushers only focus on corporate board positions, top-end professorships, MP preselections and the like.

Of course I could make the same sort of point about how left-leaning our universities are across a host of topics and values.

Who thinks any Australian university administration is not wholly behind the voice? Or wasn’t against former prime minister Tony Abbott’s turning back the boats? Or didn’t go all-in supporting lockdowns? The list goes on and on and lines up just about perfectly with the views of left-wing political parties, not right-wing ones.

Which might explain for readers a couple of depressing bits of recent information. Start with last year’s Harvard University poll undertaken by student newspaper The Crimson. It polled Harvard professors in arts and engineering about their political orientation. The results were astounding.

The poll found just 1.4 per cent of Harvard academics, total, said they were politically conservative or very conservative. And remember, in the recent midterm election over half of voters for the House of Representatives voted Republican.

And note, too, that this was an anonymous survey and that it polled engineering professors who are more likely to be conservative than most any other part of the university. That tells you just how incredibly monolithically orthodox anglosphere universities have become, remembering that left-wing progressive views are today’s campus orthodoxy.

Consider the abovementioned voice proposal here in Australia. I’m a law professor who has published widely on Australian and anglosphere constitutional law matters. I’m against the voice. My best guess is that across the whole of Australia’s dozens and dozens of law schools there might be at most four other law professors teaching public law who share my view. So is the idea so self-evidently terrific or is there just almost zero viewpoint diversity on our campuses?

Here’s more bad news. A survey out this month in Britain, by the Legatum Institute, found 35 per cent of British academics self-censor but for conservative academics that figure jumps up to 75 per cent who self-censor.

As for students at university, the Legatum survey found 25 per cent said they self-censor but that jumped up to 59 per cent for conservative students. And it found only one in 10 academics anonymously identifies as right-of-centre.

When former High Court of Australia judge Robert French did his report for the former Coalition government and concluded there was no free speech problem at Australia’s universities, he was right. But only in a technical sense.

When there is so little viewpoint diversity and so few conservatives on campus, and many of those few feel the need to self-censor, of course anyone looking at university policies and free speech legal cases won’t find a problem.

What would a left-leaning academic ever want to say that would incline a probably just as left-leaning university vice-chancellor to want to bring the university’s code of conduct down on him or her?

It’s hard to think of anything at all that could cause those with left-of-centre views any problems. But if you were a junior academic who thought the daily genuflections about acknowledgements of Country were patronising and condescending, would you feel you could say so or refuse to perform them?

Or if you thought lockdowns were thuggish and despotic and counter-productive? Or if you thought vaccine mandates were wholly illiberal? Or if you thought being asked to trumpet support for climate change was against the latest scientific data? Or if you favoured stopping the boats or questioned the new trans orthodoxy? Or if you agreed with former James Cook University professor Peter Ridd (who questioned the scientific research by institutions including the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence)? Or maybe if you believe the voice is a terrible idea that will divide Australians by race and trigger a high chance of judicial activism?

Could you say that without hurting your promotion prospects? Or would you just self-censor? Or maybe leave academic life and contribute to the collapsing viewpoint diversity at our universities? I think we all know the answers to those questions.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/conservatives-on-campus-hit-the-wall-of-censor-sensibility/news-story/47a9e0e8b388dcc38090de3ed3a266d5 ?

****************************************************

Australian universities split on decision to adopt controversial definition of antisemitism

There is no doubt that speech about Jews and Israel is heavily constrained -- too constrained in my view

Australian universities are split on whether to adopt a controversial definition of antisemitism following a push from parliamentary MPs that has been criticised as an “outright attack on academic freedom”.

On 25 January the University of Melbourne became the first institution to publicly announce it would adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism as part of its broader “anti-racism commitment”, leading to backlash from the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network who said it had been denied repeated requests for consultation.

The University of Melbourne’s move came after the Parliamentary Friends of IHRA sent an open letter to vice-chancellors in November, urging them to formally adopt the IHRA definition and requesting a response by the end of January.

The IHRA has faced global backlash among Palestinian and Arab scholars who argue its definition of antisemitism, which includes “targeting the state of Israel”, could be used to shut down legitimate criticism of Israel and stifle freedom of expression, citing the banning of events supporting Palestinian rights on campuses after the definition was adopted by universities in the UK.

The Parliamentary Friends of IHRA is headed by the MPs Josh Burns, Allegra Spender and Julian Leeser, and members include the attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, and former ministers Alan Tudge and Paul Fletcher.

The group’s letter said universities weren’t being asked “to restrict academic freedom of speech” but rather “make it clear, in word and deed, that antisemitism and Holocaust denial are false and pernicious ideologies and are not acceptable to your university”.

But the president of the National Tertiary Education Union Sydney branch, Nick Riemer, said the Parliamentary Friends of the IHRA had launched an “outright attack on academic freedom”.

“[The IHRA] will prevent universities doing what they’re meant to do … critically analyse the contemporary world without concern for lobbies,” he said. “A powerful political lobby is trying to stifle the course of free debate in universities.

Guardian Australia can reveal Macquarie University and the University of Wollongong had already changed their policies to include the IHRA statement before the letter.

A source who wished to remain anonymous told Guardian Australia there had been no consultation with academics at Macquarie University before the definition was included into its Equity, Diversity and Inclusion policy over the summer of 2021. Macquarie University was approached for comment.

The University of Wollongong said it adopted the definition in April and said it would have no impact on “academic freedom and freedom of speech”. “Instead, it is a reference for our community members to help understand what may constitute antisemitism,” the university said.

The Australia Palestine Advocacy Network said it was “disturbed” by the lack of transparency.

“Universities that have adopted the definition have not consulted with community groups or stakeholders,” said its president, Nasser Mashni. “Some universities have engaged with us on this issue, but others have either refused to acknowledge our correspondence, or misled us.”

Other universities were split on their response, with some considering the definition and others appearing to rule out a change.

The University of Sydney said it was “carefully considering” the definition and had not made any decisions.

A spokesperson for the Australian National University said it was “aware” of the IHRA definition and was “giving it due consideration”, while the University of Adelaide said “discussion on this matter will continue”.

A University of New South Wales spokesperson said it recognised the definition raised “complex legal and other issues”.

A spokesperson for Griffith University said it recognised antisemitism as a serious form of discrimination but wouldn’t be adopting the definition.

A spokesperson for James Cook University said it already had policies in place and that suitably addressed “the balance between free speech and vilification”, while the University of Queensland said its overarching policy “clearly states” the expectations of the community to prevent discrimination.

Parliamentary Friends of IHRA has also been critiqued by Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Australia for potentially violating rules which specify Parliamentary friends groups must be “apolitical”.

In a letter of complaint on 22 November, BDSA said of 11 examples in the IHRA working definition illustrating antisemitism in practice, seven related to Israel and political debate around it.

The Zionist Federation of Australia said the group was a “reflection of the importance both sides of politics places on the fight against rising antisemitism”.

“We look forward to working hand-in-hand … as we continue to advocate the adoption of the IHRA by businesses and institutions across Australia,” it said.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/06/australian-universities-split-on-decision-to-adopt-controversial-definition-of-antisemitism

***********************************

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)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************