Excerpt, Quotations From Chairman Mao TseTung
Within the ranks of the people, democracy is correlative with centralism and freedom with discipline. They are two opposites of a single entity [the New Entity?] contradictory as well as united, and we should not one-sidely emphasize one to the denial of the other. Within the ranks of the people [faculty?] we cannot do without freedom, nor can we do without discipline; we cannot do without democracy; nor can we do without centralism. This unity of democracy and centralism, of freedom and discipline, constitute our democratic centralism. Under this system our people enjoy extensive democracy and freedom, but at the same time they have to keep within the bounds of socialist discipline.
Sound familiar?
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
the state strategic plan
in a response to
Repost: How academic corporatism can lead to dictatorship
below,
The University System of Ohio will end the counter-productive competition among institutions for scarce resources. The historic strengths and traditions of our individual universities will be
drawn upon to create distinctive missions for each, leading to the establishment of nationally and
internationally-recognized Centers of Excellence that will be drivers of both the regional and state economies and that will complement the comprehensive, quality education available at each institution. Each institution will delineate these Centers of Excellence, together with specific goals and measurements by which the goals can be evaluated.
This paragraph in and of itself is not so bad, if by "Centers of Excellence" one does not mean departmental programs.
High-quality associate and bachelor’s programs in core fields will be made available at a University System of Ohio campus within 30 miles of every Ohioan, utilizing the existing
infrastructure of community colleges and regional campuses. These associate and bachelor’s degrees will be among the lowest cost available anywhere in the country.
The Board of Regents will implement the Ohio Skills Bank to link industry demand to workforce
supply in the state’s 12 economic development regions. Demand for employment in each
region will be measured against the supply of students and programs available, and the programs offered will be adjusted accordingly.
these two paragraphs suggest that economic forces will drive programs and curricula.
The plan is not all bad; there are many opportunities present to grow a wide variety of programs IF the chancellor sees the value in those programs. the problem is that this is a one-pony show, which will flop back and forth as different administrations come into office. anyway, that is my take.
i would certainly like to see further discussion of the state plan; my misgivings may be misplaced. the plan is located at
i recommend that all of our comments be posted as original documents rather than as "comments" - that way they are more likely to be noticed.
Repost: How academic corporatism can lead to dictatorship
below,
The University System of Ohio will end the counter-productive competition among institutions for scarce resources. The historic strengths and traditions of our individual universities will be
drawn upon to create distinctive missions for each, leading to the establishment of nationally and
internationally-recognized Centers of Excellence that will be drivers of both the regional and state economies and that will complement the comprehensive, quality education available at each institution. Each institution will delineate these Centers of Excellence, together with specific goals and measurements by which the goals can be evaluated.
This paragraph in and of itself is not so bad, if by "Centers of Excellence" one does not mean departmental programs.
High-quality associate and bachelor’s programs in core fields will be made available at a University System of Ohio campus within 30 miles of every Ohioan, utilizing the existing
infrastructure of community colleges and regional campuses. These associate and bachelor’s degrees will be among the lowest cost available anywhere in the country.
The Board of Regents will implement the Ohio Skills Bank to link industry demand to workforce
supply in the state’s 12 economic development regions. Demand for employment in each
region will be measured against the supply of students and programs available, and the programs offered will be adjusted accordingly.
these two paragraphs suggest that economic forces will drive programs and curricula.
The plan is not all bad; there are many opportunities present to grow a wide variety of programs IF the chancellor sees the value in those programs. the problem is that this is a one-pony show, which will flop back and forth as different administrations come into office. anyway, that is my take.
i would certainly like to see further discussion of the state plan; my misgivings may be misplaced. the plan is located at
i recommend that all of our comments be posted as original documents rather than as "comments" - that way they are more likely to be noticed.
Repost: How academic corporatism can lead to dictatorship
I had posted this as a comment to another post a few days ago. A colleague requested that I post this again as a main post so that it would be more prominent and hopefully would draw some further comment of its own.
A colleague sent department faculty this letter to the editor which appeared in the March 13, 2008 issue of Nature. I think you’ll find it describes the situation at UT fairly well and that A&S faculty at other institutions are also battling the top-down corporatism the president displayed in his recent "re-engineering the undergraduate curriculum" address.
-----------------------------------
How academic corporatism can lead to dictatorship
SIR — Michael Crow’s Book Review of Daniel Greenberg’s Science for Sale (Nature 449, 405; 2007) calls for a response because it reflects a worsening philosophical divide in US academia between those who regard universities as analogous to corporations and think they should be run that way (mostly career administrators) and those who see universities as primarily intellectual enterprises governed by academic core values(mostly line faculty). Asserting that the university is an idea — not an ideal or an ideology — Crow, who is president of Arizona State University, plays down or ignores most of the dangerous consequences of campus capitalism.
Faculty members would generally hold that universities represent ideals as well as ideas. These are manifest in a value system that is among the first casualties of academic corporatism. Derived from political corporatism, academic corporatism is an administrative strategy that is antithetical to the spirit that academics hold dear —including openness, transparency, collegiality, meritocracy, rule-governed procedures, balanced curriculum, a level playing field for probationary faculty and participation by faculty in governance.
Like its political counterpart, academic corporatism often results in dictatorships, with ideas originating only from the top and nothing going the other way. Academic assemblies, unions and senates are eviscerated, neutralized or eliminated altogether. Faculty members are disenfranchised. There is a chilling effect on free speech and the notion of an open marketplace for ideas.
This can wreak havoc with a university’s curriculum, jeopardize its intellectual and educational missions and compromise its future. As former Harvard president Derek Bok said: “The end to which this process could lead is not a pleasant prospect to behold.”
G. A. Clark
Department of Anthropology, School of Human Evolution and Social Change,
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287-2402, USA
NATURE|Vol 452|13 March 2008|p. 151
A colleague sent department faculty this letter to the editor which appeared in the March 13, 2008 issue of Nature. I think you’ll find it describes the situation at UT fairly well and that A&S faculty at other institutions are also battling the top-down corporatism the president displayed in his recent "re-engineering the undergraduate curriculum" address.
-----------------------------------
How academic corporatism can lead to dictatorship
SIR — Michael Crow’s Book Review of Daniel Greenberg’s Science for Sale (Nature 449, 405; 2007) calls for a response because it reflects a worsening philosophical divide in US academia between those who regard universities as analogous to corporations and think they should be run that way (mostly career administrators) and those who see universities as primarily intellectual enterprises governed by academic core values(mostly line faculty). Asserting that the university is an idea — not an ideal or an ideology — Crow, who is president of Arizona State University, plays down or ignores most of the dangerous consequences of campus capitalism.
Faculty members would generally hold that universities represent ideals as well as ideas. These are manifest in a value system that is among the first casualties of academic corporatism. Derived from political corporatism, academic corporatism is an administrative strategy that is antithetical to the spirit that academics hold dear —including openness, transparency, collegiality, meritocracy, rule-governed procedures, balanced curriculum, a level playing field for probationary faculty and participation by faculty in governance.
Like its political counterpart, academic corporatism often results in dictatorships, with ideas originating only from the top and nothing going the other way. Academic assemblies, unions and senates are eviscerated, neutralized or eliminated altogether. Faculty members are disenfranchised. There is a chilling effect on free speech and the notion of an open marketplace for ideas.
This can wreak havoc with a university’s curriculum, jeopardize its intellectual and educational missions and compromise its future. As former Harvard president Derek Bok said: “The end to which this process could lead is not a pleasant prospect to behold.”
G. A. Clark
Department of Anthropology, School of Human Evolution and Social Change,
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287-2402, USA
NATURE|Vol 452|13 March 2008|p. 151
Sunday, April 6, 2008
more on OSU
here is the academic plan for OSU (e.g. strategic plan).
now why do you think we are a "tier 4" school? we have tier 4 administrators with tier 4 imaginations.
here is a book review describing the origins of the OSU academic plan...
http://trustees.osu.edu/kirwan_years/order_kirwan_years.pdf
now why do you think we are a "tier 4" school? we have tier 4 administrators with tier 4 imaginations.
here is a book review describing the origins of the OSU academic plan...
http://trustees.osu.edu/kirwan_years/order_kirwan_years.pdf
Governance at BGSU and OSU
the academic charter at BGSU is at
BGSU :: Offices :: Faculty Senate
it includes the bylaws of the board of trustees, which are far less specific in their listing of powers than the corresponding bylaws at UT. Instead, responsibilities and authorities are laid out explicitly in the academic charter, and faculty governance is both explicit and implicit throughout the document. the following is taken from article I: the basic principles:
D. The primary responsibility for the development and maintenance of the University's academic
programs belongs to the faculty.
E. There must be faculty participation within the governance structure of the University, and
student participation when deemed appropriate, for discussion of problems and policies at all
levels within the University.
F. Faculty and student participation is fundamental to good faculty-student-administrator relations
in a mature university.
G. It is recognized that all members of the University Community and the Trustees have legitimate
concerns about all aspects of the University. It also is recognized that the primary concern of
students is with learning and pursuing their courses of study; the primary concern of members of
the faculty is with effective teaching and scholarly research or creative work; and the primary
concern of administrators is to provide service and support to the students and the faculty, to
protect the legal interests of the University, and to assure the implementation of the policies and
procedures prescribed by the governing councils and agencies of the University.
the bylaws of the board of trustees at OSU are here: Bylaws
the section on faculty powers states:
BGSU :: Offices :: Faculty Senate
it includes the bylaws of the board of trustees, which are far less specific in their listing of powers than the corresponding bylaws at UT. Instead, responsibilities and authorities are laid out explicitly in the academic charter, and faculty governance is both explicit and implicit throughout the document. the following is taken from article I: the basic principles:
D. The primary responsibility for the development and maintenance of the University's academic
programs belongs to the faculty.
E. There must be faculty participation within the governance structure of the University, and
student participation when deemed appropriate, for discussion of problems and policies at all
levels within the University.
F. Faculty and student participation is fundamental to good faculty-student-administrator relations
in a mature university.
G. It is recognized that all members of the University Community and the Trustees have legitimate
concerns about all aspects of the University. It also is recognized that the primary concern of
students is with learning and pursuing their courses of study; the primary concern of members of
the faculty is with effective teaching and scholarly research or creative work; and the primary
concern of administrators is to provide service and support to the students and the faculty, to
protect the legal interests of the University, and to assure the implementation of the policies and
procedures prescribed by the governing councils and agencies of the University.
the bylaws of the board of trustees at OSU are here: Bylaws
the section on faculty powers states:
(1) The legislative authority to establish educational and academic policies of the university is vested in the university faculty, subject to the approval of the board of trustees. In this connection, the university faculty shall have the authority, subject to the approval of the board of trustees, to adopt rules to effectuate the educational and academic policies of the university. It shall also act upon all matters of routine faculty business in pursuance of already established university policies and shall recommend to the board of trustees candidates for honorary degrees.
(2) The university faculty may delegate any or all of its authority and responsibility to a university senate if such senate is established by rule and approved by the board.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
You can post this a thousand times. It gets better with every read.
What is truly interesting about the fiasco at UT is that nothing in the State's strategic plan requires or even hints at the dictatorial crap that we face day to day, though everything they're doing is supposedly linked to the state's new strategic plan. Indeed, it calls for strong liberal arts, consultative leadership, and explicitly for thinking of "areas of excellence" as complementary to--not exclusive of--traditional areas of scholarly activity.
A&S Council would do well to invest in nice printed copies of the state's strategic plan for every member of the college. It might actually save us.