Jose Cabranes is a former trustee and general counsel of Yale. Candace de Russy mentioned that he came up with the following suggestion, which seems to be a good one:
>"Perhaps it is time for law-making bodies to reconsider the historic restrictions on the standing of a university’s co-owners to bring legal actions enforcing the duties of university fiduciaries. [As Cabranes explains,] [i]n most states, by law or custom, only the state attorney general may bring an action against directors of a charitable organization [to include university trustees] for breach of fiduciary duties."
Bravo. There are numerous realistic and legitimate duties that the public ought to expect university trustees to fulfill, and morally these duties to parents, students and the public are fiduciary in nature. Private parties ought to have the right to enforce these duties under the law because Attornies General are likely too busy and often too corrupt to enforce them. That they are not enforceable suggests that there has been corruption in fact vis-a-vis charitable institutions and universities.
It is time to discard out-of-date restrictions on law suits against trustees that allow academic administrators and faculties to hide behind a charitable institutional veil that permits them to waste, mismanage and even steal.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
The Hard Sciences Are Politically Correct Too!
Beware optimisim about any corner of higher education. Professor Frank Tipler, a mathematical physicist at Tulane University, just sent me the following e-mail about political correctness in physics. Many of us in the social sciences think of the hard sciences as the last bastion of academic standards, but sadly this appears to be over-optimism. The text of Professor Tipler's e-mail follows.
Dear Mitchell,
>>
>> Why do you except the hard sciences from your critique? During the
>> thirty years I've been a professor of Mathematical Physics, the
>> physics departments at the "leading" American universities have
>> become hostile to the fundamental laws of physics, specifically
>> quantum mechanics, relativity, and the second law of thermodynamics.
>>
>> It is my impression that most technological advance during the past
>> two decades has come, not from university science and engineering
>> departments, but from private individuals, and researchers at
>> industrial labs. For example, the revolutionary idea of the quantum
>> computer was first advanced by David Deutsch, who, although he has
>> the title of Professor of Physics at Oxford University, actually
>> receives no salary from the university. He earns his living by free
>> lance writing, and the occasional prize for his work (like last
>> year's $100,000 Edge Foundation Prize). Deutsch, a supporter of the
>> Conservative Party, is too unorthodox to hold a regular university
>> position. Michael Shor, who invented the Shor Algorithm that,
>> running on a quantum computer, could break any of the Internet
>> Security codes, was and is employed by what in my childhood was
>> called Bell Labs.
>>
>> A few years ago, Science magazine ran an article showing that most
>> science articles paid for by NSF were never even cited by anyone
>> except the author. Completely worthless work, in other words.
>>
>> Most university mathematics departments teach a theory of probability
>> and statistics that was created in the early 20th century by
>> psychologists and sociologists instead of a more sophisticated theory
>> created around 1800 by the great physicists Simon de Laplace and Karl
>> F. Gauss. Using the physicists' probability theory, it is possible
>> to show that the social scientists' probability theory is designed to
>> tend to confirm whatever the experimenter wishes to be true. To the
>> best of my knowledge, the physicists' theory of probability is taught
>> only at four universities: Cambridge, Stanford, Washington St. Louis,
>> and North Carolina State University. See Edward Jaynes' Probability
>> Theory (Cambridge University Press, 2002) for a history of this
>> nonsense, together with a description of the correct theory of
>> probability.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the incorrect theory of probability is required by the
>> FDA in tests of drugs. Fortunately, DNA typing uses the correct
>> theory of probability.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Frank J. Tipler
>> Professor of Mathematical Phyiscs
>> Tulane University
>
Dear Mitchell,
>>
>> Why do you except the hard sciences from your critique? During the
>> thirty years I've been a professor of Mathematical Physics, the
>> physics departments at the "leading" American universities have
>> become hostile to the fundamental laws of physics, specifically
>> quantum mechanics, relativity, and the second law of thermodynamics.
>>
>> It is my impression that most technological advance during the past
>> two decades has come, not from university science and engineering
>> departments, but from private individuals, and researchers at
>> industrial labs. For example, the revolutionary idea of the quantum
>> computer was first advanced by David Deutsch, who, although he has
>> the title of Professor of Physics at Oxford University, actually
>> receives no salary from the university. He earns his living by free
>> lance writing, and the occasional prize for his work (like last
>> year's $100,000 Edge Foundation Prize). Deutsch, a supporter of the
>> Conservative Party, is too unorthodox to hold a regular university
>> position. Michael Shor, who invented the Shor Algorithm that,
>> running on a quantum computer, could break any of the Internet
>> Security codes, was and is employed by what in my childhood was
>> called Bell Labs.
>>
>> A few years ago, Science magazine ran an article showing that most
>> science articles paid for by NSF were never even cited by anyone
>> except the author. Completely worthless work, in other words.
>>
>> Most university mathematics departments teach a theory of probability
>> and statistics that was created in the early 20th century by
>> psychologists and sociologists instead of a more sophisticated theory
>> created around 1800 by the great physicists Simon de Laplace and Karl
>> F. Gauss. Using the physicists' probability theory, it is possible
>> to show that the social scientists' probability theory is designed to
>> tend to confirm whatever the experimenter wishes to be true. To the
>> best of my knowledge, the physicists' theory of probability is taught
>> only at four universities: Cambridge, Stanford, Washington St. Louis,
>> and North Carolina State University. See Edward Jaynes' Probability
>> Theory (Cambridge University Press, 2002) for a history of this
>> nonsense, together with a description of the correct theory of
>> probability.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the incorrect theory of probability is required by the
>> FDA in tests of drugs. Fortunately, DNA typing uses the correct
>> theory of probability.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Frank J. Tipler
>> Professor of Mathematical Phyiscs
>> Tulane University
>
Higher Education as an Example of Special Interest Rent Extraction
David Horowitz's The Professors depicts academics who are successful without having made any important breakthroughs in science, are not necessarily talented scholars (some are, but most in his book aren't)* and who have no knowledge that would enable undergraduates to think creatively or to succeed in their careers. Academia has become a pretext for extraction of rents for academics themselvs without intellectual accountability or standards. Academics admit this among themselves (not for popular consumption though, as that would threaten salary increases), as Michael Berube's review essay on "Abuse of the University" suggests. Increasingly academics act as though Veblen was right in Higher Learning in America and that universities are pointless rituals that serve as market screens for employers and in loco parenti for Gentleman C's.
The question then becomes why universities continue to receive so much governmental and public support. If the professors themselves (and left wing journalists such as Jane Jacobs in The Dark Age Ahead) begin to argue that universities pursue a vacuous "excellence" or provide pointless credentials then why should the public support such institutions? The claim that a college degree becomes an entry barrier to the professions and so serves the economic interest of the professionals is not a sufficient argument (this is the same argument as signaling theory) because an inexpensive test could serve equally well as an entry barrier.
A better explanation is in the group interest theory of Mancur Olson in The Rise and Decline of Nations and George Stigler, that special interest groups such as university administrations can pressure Washington and the state capitols to provide economic benefits. The argument would go that because professors and universities are compact interest groups with alot of free time and excess resources, they are effective lobbies. As a result, their demand for regulatory support and economic largesse is far greater than that of more deserving groups, such as the poor. Therefore, universities extract benefits that could otherwise have gone to help impoverished Americans to provide six figure salaries to left wingers with crackpot political views who advocate the destruction of the very firms who are paying their bloated salaries.
*One of my favorites is Professor Michael Vocino (p. 345) who, according to Horowitz, although in his fifties has not completed his dissertaton and is still merely a Ph.D. candidate. Professor Vocino's dissertation concerns an analysis of the cartoon show South Park and is entitled "'They've Killed Kenny!': Popular Culture, Public Ethics and the Televisual." Yet, despite the lack of a doctorate and, according to Horowitz, zero refereed publications (allegedly his only publications are a short book on ethics for public administrators and bibliographical lists) the University of Rhode Island has promoted him to full professor. This is understandable because Vocino has the requisite qualification for a career at the University of Rhode Island: he is a gay activist. According to a student named Nathaniel Nelson, Vocino entered the classroom on the first day announcing "My name is Michael Vocino and I like dick." Such is the value of a degree from the University of Rhode Island.
corruption
The question then becomes why universities continue to receive so much governmental and public support. If the professors themselves (and left wing journalists such as Jane Jacobs in The Dark Age Ahead) begin to argue that universities pursue a vacuous "excellence" or provide pointless credentials then why should the public support such institutions? The claim that a college degree becomes an entry barrier to the professions and so serves the economic interest of the professionals is not a sufficient argument (this is the same argument as signaling theory) because an inexpensive test could serve equally well as an entry barrier.
A better explanation is in the group interest theory of Mancur Olson in The Rise and Decline of Nations and George Stigler, that special interest groups such as university administrations can pressure Washington and the state capitols to provide economic benefits. The argument would go that because professors and universities are compact interest groups with alot of free time and excess resources, they are effective lobbies. As a result, their demand for regulatory support and economic largesse is far greater than that of more deserving groups, such as the poor. Therefore, universities extract benefits that could otherwise have gone to help impoverished Americans to provide six figure salaries to left wingers with crackpot political views who advocate the destruction of the very firms who are paying their bloated salaries.
*One of my favorites is Professor Michael Vocino (p. 345) who, according to Horowitz, although in his fifties has not completed his dissertaton and is still merely a Ph.D. candidate. Professor Vocino's dissertation concerns an analysis of the cartoon show South Park and is entitled "'They've Killed Kenny!': Popular Culture, Public Ethics and the Televisual." Yet, despite the lack of a doctorate and, according to Horowitz, zero refereed publications (allegedly his only publications are a short book on ethics for public administrators and bibliographical lists) the University of Rhode Island has promoted him to full professor. This is understandable because Vocino has the requisite qualification for a career at the University of Rhode Island: he is a gay activist. According to a student named Nathaniel Nelson, Vocino entered the classroom on the first day announcing "My name is Michael Vocino and I like dick." Such is the value of a degree from the University of Rhode Island.
corruption
Academic Reform as Charade
The notion of reform assumes an institution that is worth saving. There is scant evidence that higher education is so, with the exceptions of technology, the sciences, and professions. While there is a long standing human capital argument that would favor higher education, there is no evidence that higher education optimally enhances necessary skills. There are no controlled or comparative studies of say business school graduation versus military service, or community college versus apprenticeship programs, not to mention creative alternatives that have been ignored because of the dominance of higher education systems. It is entirely possible that human capital can be more effectively enhanced through alternative institutions that have not received state support. The fact that universities depend on extraordinary degrees of government largesse and donations suggests that the economic returns due to the human capital that they produce do not justify the universities' extent. If this were not the case, state support and donations would be unnecessary, especially in today's liquid debt markets. Donations can infer not gratitude for economic returns, but the quest for social image and status, hence cannot be assumed to reflect repayment for economic benefits. If universities produced the value that they consume, students and firms would voluntarily pay to cover universities' costs to obtain the valuable knowledge that they produce.
The movement for academic reform takes as a starting point the view that intolerance of traditional approaches to education; the rejection of core curricula; and political correctness are impediments to the proper functioning of universities. Like any reform movement, it argues that improving the institution will be worthwhile because then it will perform more authentically, effectively and efficiently. In pursuing such ends, the reformers become part of the university system.
Phil Orenstein has been working on an article that argues that Nazism was a direct offshoot of the 19th century German university, and that Fichte and other German Idealists were the bedrock foundation on which not only Nazism, but also the modern university rests. In Phil's view, both the holocaust and the modern university are the heirs of the 19th century German university. Phil's idea is seminal because today's universities foster totalitarian ideologies and support intolerant extremism that, though cloaked in left wing garb, is little different from Nazism. Hence, the pattern of political correctness becomes not peripheral, or externally introduced by 1960s radicals, but rather fundamental to the culture and processes of universities themselves. Universities foster totalitarianism, and totalitarianism is inextricably linked to universities, not a peripheral malaise.
Academics who claim that they aim to reform their institutions from within thus have far-fetched, self-contradictory aims. Not only are universities culturally adverse to performing what the public expects (balanced education, for example) but their hiring and assessment policies are impossibly skewed toward favoring faculty who support totalitarian approaches and state-based solutions, and to suppression of any who disagree. The notion of reform in the real-world university context thus is a self-serving charade. Self-serving because the professor/reformer, whose conscience tells him that the institution is fraudulent or politically suppressive, can assauge his conscience while remaining secure in his knowledge that his activities will come to naught.
The spread of universities hearkens a deterioration of American democracy. This occurs in part through decades of advocacy of state-based solutions, Keyensian economics, Marxian sociology and similar university movements that advocate destructive social goals. It also occurs because of values that universities inculcate, such as identity politics, political correctness, uniformity of thinking and conformity to a professor's whims.
Society needs to begin to think of creative alternatives to universities that will sidestep the cracked views of a professoriate whose greatest contributions are left wing totalitarianism and the will to power.
Candace de Russy responds to this essay at:
http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTdkNzU5OWQ0MjAwYmIwNTE3MTJjN2I5ODQ4OGVmZTc=
The movement for academic reform takes as a starting point the view that intolerance of traditional approaches to education; the rejection of core curricula; and political correctness are impediments to the proper functioning of universities. Like any reform movement, it argues that improving the institution will be worthwhile because then it will perform more authentically, effectively and efficiently. In pursuing such ends, the reformers become part of the university system.
Phil Orenstein has been working on an article that argues that Nazism was a direct offshoot of the 19th century German university, and that Fichte and other German Idealists were the bedrock foundation on which not only Nazism, but also the modern university rests. In Phil's view, both the holocaust and the modern university are the heirs of the 19th century German university. Phil's idea is seminal because today's universities foster totalitarian ideologies and support intolerant extremism that, though cloaked in left wing garb, is little different from Nazism. Hence, the pattern of political correctness becomes not peripheral, or externally introduced by 1960s radicals, but rather fundamental to the culture and processes of universities themselves. Universities foster totalitarianism, and totalitarianism is inextricably linked to universities, not a peripheral malaise.
Academics who claim that they aim to reform their institutions from within thus have far-fetched, self-contradictory aims. Not only are universities culturally adverse to performing what the public expects (balanced education, for example) but their hiring and assessment policies are impossibly skewed toward favoring faculty who support totalitarian approaches and state-based solutions, and to suppression of any who disagree. The notion of reform in the real-world university context thus is a self-serving charade. Self-serving because the professor/reformer, whose conscience tells him that the institution is fraudulent or politically suppressive, can assauge his conscience while remaining secure in his knowledge that his activities will come to naught.
The spread of universities hearkens a deterioration of American democracy. This occurs in part through decades of advocacy of state-based solutions, Keyensian economics, Marxian sociology and similar university movements that advocate destructive social goals. It also occurs because of values that universities inculcate, such as identity politics, political correctness, uniformity of thinking and conformity to a professor's whims.
Society needs to begin to think of creative alternatives to universities that will sidestep the cracked views of a professoriate whose greatest contributions are left wing totalitarianism and the will to power.
Candace de Russy responds to this essay at:
http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTdkNzU5OWQ0MjAwYmIwNTE3MTJjN2I5ODQ4OGVmZTc=
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
