There is a flurry of commentary from multiple sources about the testimony of the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and University of Pennsylvania to Congress a week ago. I don’t care to single out any particular piece of commentary the sheer volume of commentary prompts me to make some observations of my own.
First, the clumsiness of the three college presidents makes me wonder if they are actually suited for their jobs or, more precisely, what they think their jobs are. I think the job of a college president is to a) raise money and b) avoid controversy for their institutions (see the previous). If anything they accomplished the opposite of that.
Second, and more importantly, I don’t think that institutions of higher learning can devote as much time and money as they have to whinging about microaggressions and creating “safe spaces” as they have over the last half dozen years or so without getting completely fair charges of favoritism and, conversely, prejudice when they do not extend the same protections to all racial, ethnic, national, or religious groups equally. It’s a case of being hoist by their own petard to use Shakespeare’s coinage.
They should have confined themselves to saying that their institutions stand for freedom of speech and inquiry and they condemn calls for the killing of any group on the basis of their race, etc. and otherwise maintain a modest silence.. Their reluctance to do that has gotten them in sufficient hot water that one of the three has resigned while the president of Harvard is getting statements of support from the university, student body, etc.
I also think that the entire microaggressions and “safe spaces” posture is a strategic error. IMO people have the right to believe and say what they care to short of incitement to violence however heinous; others have the right to disagree. Congress, other legislatures, and prospective donors have a complete right to deny the institutions funding or grants on the basis of the positions they’ve staked out.
AFAICT they gave factually correct answers, the kinds a lawyer might give, but it wasn’t the venue to sound lawyerly. They should have given a proper PR response as you suggest. “Genocide is awful and we condemn it”, then avoid giving clear but politically correct answers on anything else.
The micro aggression stuff is about money. It’s not really an issue at most schools. It’s an issue at some of the elite ie expensive schools, as they need to keep the rich kids and their parents happy.
Steve
It appears to be a more significant issue at a larger number of institutions of higher learning than you imply. If the findings of Heritage can be believed the average college has 3.4 DEI officers for every 100 faculty members, an average of 45.1 DEI personnel per institution. DEI officers are in the business of finding microaggressions and setting up “safe spaces”, basically what used to be called “consciousness raising”. It’s not their sole responsibility but it’s among their responsibilities. They will find problems to deal with as a form of job protection. Whether that actually increases diversity, equity, and inclusion appears to be a matter of dispute.
A little quick back of the envelope calculation and we’re talking about more than $525 million in expenditures.
Went through the 4 universities closest to us. One of them had 4 DEI staff. One of them also had 4 but listed people teaching global studies/international affairs as part of the DEI team, one had no separate DEI staff, just a council of about 12 people on the team. One had 3 DEI staff. Some of the DEI staff were part time. If you included part time staff the ratio of DEI (including part time) to regular staff was about 1:150, 1:100, 0:400, 1: 90. At the first university, the largest, if you include all of the DEI staff including part timers to only the full time teaching staff you get a ratio of 1:30.
Steve
If you live in Florida the government even has the right to transparently and proudly punish speech it doesnt like.
Steve
Are you asking whether the states have the authority to regulate the speech of staff at the institutions of higher learning that they fund? I think it’s pretty clear that they do.
I was referring to the authority to punish speech by private entities.
Steve