“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” – Ronald Reagan
Skim most any document wordsmithed by President Trump’s courtiers and it can almost sound reasonable. Take the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” a letter sent to nine universities that sets conditions for them to continue receiving federal funds. The compact is the work of a task force led by White House advisor May Mailman, recently quoted as saying that universities are producing “indebted students with useless majors who hate our country and like to go to riots.”
Here is what I mean by reasonable:
- Truth-seeking is a core function of institutions of higher education. Fulfilling this mission requires maintaining a vibrant marketplace of ideas where different views can be explored, debated, and challenged.
- Given the importance of academic freedom to the marketplace of ideas, signatories shall adopt a policy protecting academic freedom in classrooms, teaching, research, and scholarship.
- Signatories acknowledge that the freedom to debate requires conditions of civility.
Hard to argue with any of that. Now look at these provisions:
- University admissions decisions shall be based upon and evaluated against objective criteria [as opposed to sex, ethnicity, race, etc.]…
My Questions:
What are objective criteria, anyway? Has there ever been an objective achievement test or grading rubric for the written word? Would May Mailman be an objective evaluator of admissions criteria?
- Signatories commit themselves to…transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.
My questions:
Does this mean it’s permissible to punish, belittle and spark violence against progressive ideas? All the president’s stooges would probably argue that it is only conservative ideas that are under attack so it is only conservative ideas that need to be defended. But what about down the road, when, if the Trumpistas have their way, conservatives are ascendant and progressives in retreat? Are progressives fair game because, to use Trump’s language, they’re “far-left lunatics” and therefore unworthy of protection?
- A steadfast commitment to rigorous and meritocratic selection based on objective and measurable criteria in the appointment process is pivotal for the University’s sustained excellence…[N]o factor such as sex, ethnicity, race, national origin, disability, or religion shall be considered…
My questions:
Again, what constitutes objective and measurable criteria in the realm of scholarly or creative achievement? Search committees generally recognize that the number of publications alone insufficiently measures a job candidate’s qualifications. They typically also consider the reputations of the journals that have published the candidate’s work. Do two articles in a “top-tier” journal equal five articles in a lesser publication? Who decides? And where does assessing the value of a candidate’s work in terms of its contribution to the storehouse of human knowledge or its benefit to society enter the equation?
Do we want search committees to weigh these considerations, or May Mailman?
As for sex, ethnicity, race, etc.: Might there be a value – difficult to objectively measure — in exposing students to instructors from a range of backgrounds? Was the white, male faculty of yore assembled according to objective and measurable criteria? (As columnist Leonard Pitts has written, there has always been affirmative action for white men.)
- [U]niversities poorly equip students when they fail to inform them about likely life earnings for students’ chosen majors…
My questions:
Students who studied computer science are finding that the jobs they trained for have been superseded by artificial intelligence. How valuable would estimates of likely life earnings given to those students as freshmen be now that they have graduated? And are likely life earnings the only meaningful measure of the value of a college education?
- Federal permission for foreign student visas is intended to further America’s national interest to the extent the selected foreign students exhibit extraordinary talent that promises to make America stronger and more economically productive, and the selected students are introduced to, and supportive of, American and Western values, ultimately increasing global understanding and appreciation for the United States and our way of life.
My questions:
Is the purpose of admitting foreign students to make America a better place or to make the world a better place? Wasn’t one of the rationales for enrolling foreign students that it was in our national interest for them to experience life in a free society — and an educational environment that operates free of governmental interference — so that they might return home clamoring for such freedoms in their own country?
- Adherence to this agreement shall be subject to review by the Department of Justice.
My questions:
Is anyone in Justice, from Attorney General Pam Bondi on down, or in the Linda McMahon-led Department of Education, qualified to determine whether universities are adhering to the highest academic standards? Can they, as Trump loyalists, be expected not to bring a political agenda to their reviews?
The American Association of University Professors, including Penn State’s chapter, has urged university leaders to reject the compact. Eight of the nine universities have done so (the University of Texas is cool with it).
Penn State has not been asked to dance to Trump’s tune.
Yet.
