Is Studying Bad for Black People?
Birmingham City University offers a Black Studies course with a provocative reason to sign up. No, it’s not a guarantee of a job or entrance to prestigious master’s program. Too bourgeois (read white). But you will learn to ‘build a radical community of practice,’ according to a report in The Conservative Woman.
The author, Ollie Wright, says, “BCU no longer sees itself limited by the old-fashioned notion that universities should simply teach. They are there to change things through ‘social activism,’ necessary in the face of an educational system that is so racist that according to Dr. Kehinde Andrews, an associate professor on the Black Studies course, universities are like ‘slave plantations.’”
The obvious is true. If education only helps white people, why should black people bother to study and therefore perpetuate the ‘white privilege’ that has stifled them? In other words, if you won’t join them, become a permanent victim instead.
Loyalty Oaths Back in a New Form
Cal Poly San Luis Obispo is the latest college to “require a diversity statement from candidates for all faculty and staff searches, “the College Fix reports.
For Cal Poly, requiring the diversity statement is one part of a larger effort school officials are engaged in to “improve diversity” via dozens of various endeavors outlined in its 30-page action plan. As part of the diversity initiatives plan, the university also has a goal of “increasing, in a Proposition 209-compliant manner, the hiring of diverse faculty utilizing cluster hires every other year.”
Critics of required diversity statements have suggested they are a tool used to weed out candidates who do not agree with the leftist notion that identity politics should be the lens through which academics is taught. What’s more, critics contend, seeking to identify and hire underrepresented conservative and libertarian scholars is not the type of “diversity” sought through the statements. Finally, they argue, the statements are used to elevate applicants of color over other qualified candidates.
Nicholas Christakis, Pilloried by Leftist Students, Wins Yale Teaching Award
A Yale professor who was abused by a mob of shrieking students in 2015 has been awarded the highest faculty honor by the university. Nicholas Christakis, along with his wife Erika, was targeted by students in 2015 after Erika sent an email urging students to not be so easily offended by Halloween costumes and chiding the administration for announcing to students which costumes were unacceptable. The administration refused to fire the Christakises, as unhappy students demanded, but otherwise spent no time or energy defending the embattled professors. Nicholas resigned his position at a residential college and Erika resigned from the faculty. This week, Christakis was awarded the title of Sterling professor, “the highest honor bestowed on Yale faculty,” said the Yale Daily News. A campus spokeswoman said that Christakis’s appointment “was the result of his body of academic work” and had nothing to do with the 2015 protests.
Brea Baker ’16, who participated in the 2015 protests, said she was not surprised by Christakis’ appointment since it falls in line with the Salovey administration’s habit of “sneak decision making and going against the will of the student body.” Still, she said, she was “shocked at the explicit cowardice” to announce the appointment, which she called “insult enough,” when students were away from campus on summer break.“Yale sells a vision of intimate residential college system led by administrators tasked with our emotional and social health above anything,” Baker said. “Based on the original email, administrative responses and now this appointment, it seems that only students of color understand this. If Yale insists on selling this narrative, then those who don’t understand their obligations to the student body should be replaced.”
50 Shades of White
Campus Reform reports that The University of Colorado-Colorado Springs is no longer offering a course that critiqued “individualism, consumerism, meritocracy,” and “productivity” as staples of “white culture.” The 3-credit "Witnessing Whiteness" course is still listed on the website for UCCS's Graduate Certificate in Diversity, Social Justice, and Inclusion, but is conspicuously absent from the school's official course catalog.
To read more Notable Items, click here.
I wonder if Professor Treadgold is talking about his own St. Louis University, where the tuition and fees are at least nominally not much short of those at Harvard, maybe 93%.
Anyhow, I wasn’t able to read John Leo’s piece behind the WSJ paywall (I let my subscription lapse some time ago). So I went to the Amazon site, found this:
“he proposes federal legislation to monitor the quality and honesty of professors and to limit spending on administration to no more than 20 percent of university budgets (Harvard now spends 40 percent).”
This strikes me as a horrid idea for too many reasons to list. And his further idea to start a new elite university that would be different from what we already have, that would welcome moderates and conservatives along with liberals and leftists, strikes me as rather naive. First of all, don’t places like the University of Chicago, Caltech sort of fit the bill already? Both those places could use the dough it would take to start a new university from scratch. Second, I am doubtful that the new university would be more successful than most of the old in resisting what seem like almost unstoppable forces. (I know, that sort of contradicts what I just said about a couple of distinguished schools that also are something of outliers. But that sort of supports my point that the money might be better placed at schools that already exist and seem to have a track record.)
The limiting of administrative positions, in universities and K-12 schools, is a good idea. Less administrators means less wacky programs and less internal agendas, more plain old teaching and research overseen only by professional peers.
Thank you for an interesting review of “The University We Need.” I completely agree with Warren Treadgold’s thesis–founding a “new university” may be the only solution. It is unalterably clear that America’s universities have been co-opted by the far left and a college “education” is no longer worth the expense. However, I was surprised Treadgold did not mention Hillsdale College as a template for the university he proposes. Hillsdale is the polar opposite of today’s typical university and (as of now) the sole beacon of hope.(I have no connection to Hillsdale College, having graduated from the University of Redlands, a small, private college that has also been corrupted by leftist ideology. But I admire Hillsdale’s unswerving belief in America’s ideals–since 1844!)
I’m wondering how the debate teams function in the postmodern university. Remember in the old days, a topic would be presented, such as, “Resolved: Capital punishment should be ended.” One team would take the affirmative and the competing team would take the negative. But now there is only one side permitted in controversial ideas–which are now no longer controversial at the university. The team that in former days would have argued the now politically incorrect side would today be charged as thought criminals and subjected to disciplinary proceedings and rehabilitation–even though they might protest that they didn’t really hold that viewpoint. One of the foundational ideas underpinning the old debate structure was that to have an informed and reasonable commitment to an idea, one must know and understand the arguments against it as well as for it.
I got a glimpse of how “debate” teams now function, and it came as quite a shock, since I once participated on a team myself. My faculty office is next to classrooms where a debate meet was being held one weekend several weeks ago. I was surprised to hear a guy screaming, his rant peppered with F-bombs, so I went and peered into the classroom to see what was going on. The room was filled with young people in very prim attire, and the young man “debating” was standing in front, the veins on his face bulging as he rendered his social justice “oratory.” And his presentation–of you could call it that–was typical of the entire morning. It seems that what we used to call “forensics teams” back in my day are now just theater; the participants do not reason, just emote. Perhaps they are judged on how impassioned their emoting is. Are these our future attorneys?
The real old-style debate is called “Parliamentary Debate”. There are other ones “XYZ Debate” that range from limp to ridiculous.
Nowadays I expect the teams take turns denouncing anyone opposing the correct political line, and the most fervent denunciation wins. Either that or they all start clapping once the topic is announced, and whoever stops clapping first gets sent to the gulag.