|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Feb 6, 2024 10:15:03 GMT -5
Dear XYZ,
The new year presents us with the opportunity to reimagine the community we aspire to become and take stock of all that we have learned from the past twelve months.
2023 has made clear to me, and many others in higher education, the importance of institutional voice. College and university leaders can command significant attention and connect with large audiences of students, faculty and staff, community leaders and alumni. This influence should be wielded responsibly.
Colleges and universities can foster healthier campus climates by demonstrating transparency and consistency in their approach to institutional statements and their use of institutional voice. Going forward, Holy Cross will no longer comment, as an institution, on matters or events that are not directly connected to our work and identity as an academic institution.
I am the president of the nation’s only exclusively undergraduate Jesuit, Catholic liberal arts college. My email inbox, however, tells another story replete with frequent correspondence from individuals who, depending on the issue at hand, make requests of both my voice and my silence on matters that have little to do with leading the College of the Holy Cross.
I am not alone or unique. This is an experience shared by almost every College and university president today, but these pressures are not new. There is historical precedent in American higher education. I was four years old when the University of Chicago published the Kalven Report, its groundbreaking statement on the university’s role in political and social action. A little over 20 years ago—and with far fewer words—the University of Wisconsin-Madison issued brief clarification on its institutional voice amidst the turmoil of the invasion of Iraq (“The University of Wisconsin does not have a foreign policy.”). This shift in cultural expectations around institutional voice accelerated with the advent of social media. The growth of digital platforms that encourage near-constant discourse led to increasing demand for this particular form of communication from colleges and universities.
In our roles as presidents and senior leaders we speak not only as individuals but as institutional representatives, and there is considerable public appetite for that contribution. This moment in time invites us to deeper reflection. When and why do we speak up? How might the College’s voice impact our community and the outcome of broader events? How might our silence be perceived?
It is essential to focus first upon our shared understanding of what we do at Holy Cross and in higher education more broadly. Holy Cross is an academic institution, defined by our commitment to intellectual freedom and academic inquiry, and called to engage in critical examination, scholarship and dialogue across differences.
In this time of prolific public statements, there is an expectation that colleges and universities—rather than the critical thinkers within those institutions—should participate regularly in broader public discourse. I have come to appreciate more deeply the impact of institutional statements on campus culture and in the classroom. Statements on politics and current events may unintentionally deter campus members from fully expressing their views or engaging in scholarship. For faculty and staff, the College serves as their employer. For students, the College offers an educational experience and confers their degree.
At Holy Cross, an institutional statement is authored by members of the senior leadership team and designed to offer the College’s response or perspective on topics directly related to our work, mission, or the roles served by campus community members. Institutional statements are not opinion pieces, personal social media posts, lectures, teach-ins, debates or vehicles for geopolitical advocacy. All of the aforementioned communications, even those which may be controversial, unpopular or polemic, are welcome at Holy Cross. A commitment to academic freedom is a commitment to enable and protect a vibrant culture of inquiry and dialogue.
There are several instances where the College can and should use its voice and issue statements. In reflecting on when and why to make an institutional statement on an issue or event, our administration will be influenced by factors such as:
• Whether it affects the College’s or higher education’s ability to pursue its core educational mission;
• Whether it directly and significantly impacts the ability of our campus community members to fulfill their roles; and
• Whether our particular Jesuit, Catholic mission and identity call us to join other higher education institutions to help positively influence the matter.
These guiding principles for the College’s institutional voice do not apply to individuals in our learning community. As I communicated last fall, faculty and students are supported and encouraged to engage in scholarship, pedagogy and advocacy to effect positive change by:
• Discussing events and politics in Holy Cross classrooms and fostering open dialogue for students;
• Hosting seminars, forums and events to learn about current issues and histories; and
• Engaging and sharing in research, publications and creative work.
I am committed to supporting a healthy and engaged academic environment at Holy Cross. That invites me, as president, to be reflective and transparent in my approach as a leader. I and other members of the leadership team will continue to communicate regularly about campus life, matters core to our institution and identity, and institutional planning. You can continue to count on the College to support your voice and scholarship as we engage in the critical work of sharing, shaping and supporting an excellent and diverse academic environment.
Sincerely,
Vincent D. Rougeau
President
--
Well done, PVR. I wish your predecessor shared a similar mindset.
|
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Feb 6, 2024 10:41:33 GMT -5
Wow, I think he nailed it. Can he also get major corporations to share this viewpoint as well, particularly by abandoning the irrelevant, "Cause of the Month," "National Whatever Day," and "Make My Irrelevant Logo Match Your Color Scheme Season?"
|
|
|
|
Post by td128 on Feb 6, 2024 10:57:56 GMT -5
In re this specific sentence: "Discussing events and politics in Holy Cross classrooms and fostering open dialogue for students."
Over the last ten years, countless Crusaders have told me that they very much feel inhibited as to openly sharing varying thoughts and views primarily in class but also on campus. This sense of feeling inhibited is often backed up by professors singling out students who have shared views deemed counter to 'the narrative' and then subsequently negatively impacting their grade.
It's WRONG but it is very REAL.
VR's Statement on Statements opens the door to broaching this topic with him and the Academic Dean.
Hopefully we can get back to freely and openly sharing ideas across the entire spectrum of thoughts and opinions in pursuit of TRUTH and fully consistent with the Mission of the college.
|
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Feb 6, 2024 11:07:48 GMT -5
Whenever this topic comes up I recall the comment of a man who said..."In the Soviet Union we do have freedom of speech. You can say anything you want to say...once."  |
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Feb 6, 2024 11:16:04 GMT -5
Well thought out and expressed.
Thank you, Pres. Rougeau
|
|
|
|
Post by dadominate on Feb 6, 2024 11:21:13 GMT -5
Wow, I think he nailed it. Can he also get major corporations to share this viewpoint as well, particularly by abandoning the irrelevant, "Cause of the Month," "National Whatever Day," and "Make My Irrelevant Logo Match Your Color Scheme Season?" well done, pvr! there is no sense needlessly disenfranchising alumni and supporters of holy cross with polarizing (and usually politically motivated) statements with little direct relevance to holy cross. as for your point on similar behavior from corporations, i think all of us can force the hand of major corporations out of this divisive behavior by not buying the products of companies who unnecessarily divide us with polarizing statements/marketing with little to no relevance to their products. |
|
|
|
Post by td128 on Feb 6, 2024 11:24:51 GMT -5
Anybody care to venture a guess as to when and where the phrase 'political correctness' was supposedly originated?
PVR displaying leadership with today's obituary.
|
|
|
|
Post by alum on Feb 6, 2024 11:39:32 GMT -5
I mostly agree with what he says, although I don't know how frequently the College has issued an institutional statement, either through him or his predecessors so I am not sure how much practical effect this will have. I do have a couple of thoughts:
1. I can't tell for sure whether VR has reserved to himself the right to comment individually on matters which are not appropriate for an institutional statement. Will he continue to speak but make it clear that he is commenting as an individual and not on behalf of the College? I guess we just wait and watch.
2. He writes that among the factors to be considered in deciding whether the institution should speak is "Whether our particular Jesuit, Catholic mission and identity call us to join other higher education institutions to help positively influence the matter." Is anyone else concerned that he has cast alma mater in the role of a follower as opposed to a leader? Caution isn't always a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Feb 6, 2024 11:56:39 GMT -5
“I have come to appreciate more deeply the impact of institutional statements on campus culture and in the classroom. Statements on politics and current events may unintentionally deter campus members from fully expressing their views or engaging in scholarship.”
If this is a statement indicating a belated appreciation for diversity of opinion on college campuses -especially opinions contrary to the prevailing campus liberal orthodoxy - it is certainly welcome.
Of course, he may have something completely different in mind.
Another take might be a reconsideration of his decision to post an editorial regarding Judge Thomas on the eve of the Supreme Court’s decision on race- based college admissions,
|
|
|
|
Post by alum on Feb 6, 2024 12:24:03 GMT -5
“I have come to appreciate more deeply the impact of institutional statements on campus culture and in the classroom. Statements on politics and current events may unintentionally deter campus members from fully expressing their views or engaging in scholarship.” If this is a statement indicating a belated appreciation for diversity of opinion on college campuses -especially opinions contrary to the prevailing campus liberal orthodoxy - it is certainly welcome. Of course, he may have something completely different in mind. Another take might be a reconsideration of his decision to post an editorial regarding Judge Thomas on the eve of the Supreme Court’s decision on race- based college admissions, I don't think that VR is saying that he didn't previously believe in diversity of opinion on campus. I think he is expressing a better appreciation for the possiblity that institutional speech can have the effect, intended or not, of chilling contrary speech by other members of the community and that he has decided that the institution should sacrifice whatever value its speech has for the greater good of robust speech by other members of the community. |
|
|
|
Post by dadominate on Feb 8, 2024 7:02:07 GMT -5
below is an important movement that is aligned with (perhaps part of the inspiration underlying?) PVR's recent statement. institutionalneutrality.org/i can say as an independent libertarian type, i have met a handful of others who have similar views, but i do not know a single openly conservative faculty member among the literally hundreds with whom i have collaborated over the past twenty years at the medical school on which i am faculty. they are undoubtedly there, it is just too oppressive of an environment to offer a different view. conversely, i know dozens upon dozens of very outspoken leftists. perhaps more concerning, i cannot think of a single conservative cause for which there was ever a university-led seminar, workshop, mass email blast, signage on campus, etc. there have been literally thousands of these aligning with causes generally associated with the left (abortion, transgender surgery, blm/anti-racism, lgbtq, ukraine, etc.). this really needs to change if higher education is to become anything other than an echochamber. especially concerning is that this is occurring in professional schools just as much as it is liberal arts institutions, where one might expect (though certainly not condone) complete homogeneity in perspectives. while there are obviously just a tiny fraction of conservative institutions (e.g., liberty, hillsdale), which serve as a necessary counterbalance to the vast majority of leftist institutions, i suspect similar concerning "one think" phenomena might be occurring there, as well. diversity (of ideas) and tolerance (of differing opinions) are completely lacking in higher education today. |
|
|
|
Post by td128 on Feb 8, 2024 8:33:00 GMT -5
Dadominate, I fully concur. Based on reading and reviews, these developments are not by happenstance but are very much by design going back to at least post WWII if not even prior to that. It is not merely academia but also media and government where those looking to slowly and methodically overtake the development of how issues of the day are framed and managed. What is behind all of this? Like everything else in the world, HUGE MONEY.
I personally would like to see more open forum Point-Counterpoint style debates not only at Holy Cross but elsewhere. We need more vigorous engagement not less. To this end, I think/hope we might all agree that censoring and Cancel Culture are anathema to a world that promotes truly free speech and open sharing of ideas. I personally believe AI needs to have serious oversight and uncaptured regulatory 'rules of the road' instituted. I am hugely concerned that the algorithms within selected AI platforms will have little of that sort.
For those who care to delve deeper into this space a book I strongly recommend is Foundations by Rene Wormser: www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/2175523
This is a searching analysis of some of America's most powerful tax-exempt foundations, their actions as opposed to their stated purpose's (LD: we call this charity fraud), the interlocking groups of men who run them, and their influence on the country at large. The author, as counsel to the Reece Committee (1954), which investigated foundations for the last Republican Congress, gained a unique insight into the inner workings of the various Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford-created giants. He also witnessed the intense and powerful opposition to any investigation of these multi-billion-dollar public trusts. The Reece investigation was virtually hamstrung from the start to its early demise, which was aided and abetted by leading newspaper of the country.
"It is difficult for the public to understand," writes Mr. Wormser, "that some of the great foundations which have done so much for us in some fields have acted tragically against the public interest in others, but the facts are there for the unprejudiced to recognize." "The power of the individual foundation giant is enormous. When there is like-mindedness among a group of these giants, which apparently is due to the existence of a closely knit group of professional administrators in the social science field, the power is magnified hugely. When such foundations do good, they justify the tax-exempt status which the people grant them. When they do harm, it can be immense harm - there is virtually no counter-force to oppose them."
|
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Feb 8, 2024 15:46:25 GMT -5
below is an important movement that is aligned with (perhaps part of the inspiration underlying?) PVR's recent statement. institutionalneutrality.org/i can say as an independent libertarian type, i have met a handful of others who have similar views, but i do not know a single openly conservative faculty member among the literally hundreds with whom i have collaborated over the past twenty years at the medical school on which i am faculty. they are undoubtedly there, it is just too oppressive of an environment to offer a different view. conversely, i know dozens upon dozens of very outspoken leftists. perhaps more concerning, i cannot think of a single conservative cause for which there was ever a university-led seminar, workshop, mass email blast, signage on campus, etc. there have been literally thousands of these aligning with causes generally associated with the left (abortion, transgender surgery, blm/anti-racism, lgbtq, ukraine, etc.). this really needs to change if higher education is to become anything other than an echochamber. especially concerning is that this is occurring in professional schools just as much as it is liberal arts institutions, where one might expect (though certainly not condone) complete homogeneity in perspectives. while there are obviously just a tiny fraction of conservative institutions (e.g., liberty, hillsdale), which serve as a necessary counterbalance to the vast majority of leftist institutions, i suspect similar concerning "one think" phenomena might be occurring there, as well. diversity (of ideas) and tolerance (of differing opinions) are completely lacking in higher education today. I suspect conservatives and moderate academics no longer have a desire to seek employment at places they see as both race-obsessed and Marx-tinged. Normal folks have long since written off the tiresome oddball and lockstep leftist theories and see the academy as a place to ignore or ridicule. Or both. At the same time it is reassuring to see that our president values a diversity of opinion at our undergraduate institution. |
|
|
|
Post by princetoncrusader on Feb 8, 2024 17:47:59 GMT -5
I attended a lecture, "The Constitution of Academic Liberty", by Niall Ferguson of Hoover at Princeton yesterday afternoon. It's part of the James Madison program hosted by Prof. Robert George. The Scotsman is a prolific publisher (16 books) and touched on several issues raised in this thread. One of his more interesting slides was entitled "Number of Democratic Faculty Members for Every Republican in 25 Academic Fields." Here is an abbreviated version:
Engineering 1.6
Chemistry 5.2
Economic 5.5
Physics 6.2
History 17.4
Classics 27.3
Sociology 43.8
English 48.3
Religion 70
Sample size: 5,116; the paper was published in 2018 by a Brooklyn College professor.
Anyone see a pattern here? I will try to post the video when it is up on the Madison program site.
|
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Feb 8, 2024 19:35:16 GMT -5
Much ado...
Obviously, college professors are smart. All kidding aside. Would there be an outcry from the same folks if conservative leaning Repubs were dominant? And, the Bklyn College prof? Is he part of a right wing "cabal"? I don't care. Obviously, he/she is free to publish his research.with his political views. Should we close down Hillsdale? Liberty U? Of course not.
One would need to establish more than a teacher's political party for it to have any significance.
I had a prof. in law school. He was an HC grad and a well known conservative. I could sense his extreme annoyance that I another HC grad, a student in his class did not ascribe to his right wing views. Remember him criticizing Dr. King's March on Washington in one of his lectures. Didn't change my mind about the great Dr.King. My grades were good except for his class in Constitutional Law. Received my lowest grade by far in his class although I did pass. Was it politically based bias?
My point is not political. It is this. I would be sensitive to & oppose any situation in which a teacher would allow his political views to impact his grading.
Are universities to question teaching applicants about their political affiliations? Root out those w/undesirable political views? Attempt to establish quotas? Should we notate a Prorf's political party and the political parties of his students to see if he graded those students in his political party higher than others? Ridiculous?
Round & round we go.
Bottom line. The US has the finest post-secondary colleges & universities in the world.
PS A year later I transferred to Grad school. He moved to another law school. He has since passed away . God Bless him. Peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by td128 on Feb 9, 2024 4:25:46 GMT -5
Much ado . . . about a whole host of very serious topics. There are great people across the entire spectrum and there are not so great people as well.
Would seem readily apparent that with almost everything in life, BALANCE - as in a well balanced distribution of thoughts and opinions on the key issues of the day and political thought and philosophy overall - would be and should be preferred AND pursued.
We have little of the sort right now in and throughout the world of academia and it shows. Thank you princeton crusader for sharing those data points. One does not generate such egregiously skewed distribution if the practices in place were not so inherently biased by design. This dynamic is anything but healthy leading to the echo chambers within many if not most of the ivory towers throughout our land.
Info of that sort leads to heightened risks of indoctrination on our college and university campuses as opposed to education.
|
|
|
|
Post by alum on Feb 9, 2024 10:00:54 GMT -5
I attended a lecture, "The Constitution of Academic Liberty", by Niall Ferguson of Hoover at Princeton yesterday afternoon. It's part of the James Madison program hosted by Prof. Robert George. The Scotsman is a prolific publisher (16 books) and touched on several issues raised in this thread. One of his more interesting slides was entitled "Number of Democratic Faculty Members for Every Republican in 25 Academic Fields." Here is an abbreviated version: Engineering 1.6 Chemistry 5.2 Economic 5.5 Physics 6.2 History 17.4 Classics 27.3 Sociology 43.8 English 48.3 Religion 70 Sample size: 5,116; the paper was published in 2018 by a Brooklyn College professor. Anyone see a pattern here? I will try to post the video when it is up on the Madison program site. Here is the referenced Brooklyn College professor's study of the political affilliation of faculty at the top liberal arts colleges. HC is included. www.nas.org/academic-questions/31/2/homogenous_the_political_affiliations_of_elite_liberal_arts_college_facultyI have no doubt that the data is reasonably accurate, although online sources of party affiliation are hardly perfect as the professor acknowledged. Many states don't keep track of party affiliation. centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/registering-by-party-where-the-democrats-and-republicans-are-ahead/ That said, it is important to note that only a small percentage of college students attend these elite LACs. More college students major in "business" than anything else, by a wide margin. Health care jobs (non MD, inc. nursing, PT etc) are probably second. There are few students getting degrees in those fields at the schools the professor surveyed. This study is presumably valid for what it tests but not valid for higher education as a whole. I would surmise that professors in business etc might not be as predominantly Democrats, but I have no data to support that. The real question is why. Are the traditional liberal arts fields of more interest to people more likely to register as Democrats than Republicans? Are Republicans being discriminated against in hiring? Are there other reasons? |
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Feb 9, 2024 10:15:13 GMT -5
I attended a lecture, "The Constitution of Academic Liberty", by Niall Ferguson of Hoover at Princeton yesterday afternoon. It's part of the James Madison program hosted by Prof. Robert George. The Scotsman is a prolific publisher (16 books) and touched on several issues raised in this thread. One of his more interesting slides was entitled "Number of Democratic Faculty Members for Every Republican in 25 Academic Fields." Here is an abbreviated version: Engineering 1.6 Chemistry 5.2 Economic 5.5 Physics 6.2 History 17.4 Classics 27.3 Sociology 43.8 English 48.3 Religion 70 Sample size: 5,116; the paper was published in 2018 by a Brooklyn College professor. Anyone see a pattern here? I will try to post the video when it is up on the Madison program site. Conclusion: Geeks are more conservative than people drawn to liberal arts |
|
|
|
Post by td128 on Feb 9, 2024 10:23:36 GMT -5
1 for every 5 still means that MORE THAN 80% of the faculty members in the Sciences are Democratic. Makes the other courses of study north of 90% if not even north of 95%. Seriously, HOW BORING many of these departments must be if you have almost nobody who has a meaningfully different point of view when it comes to political thought and philosophy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Feb 9, 2024 10:49:19 GMT -5
Seriously, HOW BORING many of these departments must be if you have almost nobody who has a meaningfully different point of view when it comes to philosophy. Sheldon Cooper will tell you that the energy transfer of the moving (falling) tree coming to an abrupt halt as it hits the ground will create a sound wave no matter who is in the area - and you're foolish for even questioning the most basic principles of physics |
|
|
|
Post by td128 on Feb 9, 2024 12:00:13 GMT -5
Not a big Physics guy but I might imagine that any/all sound within the confines of an ECHO CHAMBER likely reverberates in an ongoing circular sort of fashion to create what ultimately sounds like . . .
well, it's not good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Feb 9, 2024 12:02:16 GMT -5
1 for every 5 still means that MORE THAN 80% of the faculty members in the Sciences are Democratic. Makes the other courses of study north of 90% if not even north of 95%. Seriously, HOW BORING many of these departments must be if you have almost nobody who has a meaningfully different point of view when it comes to political thought and philosophy. This is a non-sequitur. Of the author's sample size of 8,688, about 40 percent are either not registered, or registered with no party affiliation. For Holy Cross, the sample is 51 percent registered as either Democrat or Republican, and 49 percent with no party affiliation. The study does not break out, by school, the number of those with party affiliations by academic department, For Holy Cross, the number of registered Democrats exceeds the number of registered Republicans by 13:1, but registered Democrats only represent a plurality of the faculty, not a majority. For the general category of science and engineering, the n value of all professors in the sample is 1608. I will note that liberal arts colleges typically lack engineering programs. Of the LACs included in the study, only Harvey Mudd, USNA, and USMA have robust engineering programs. |
|
|
|
Post by td128 on Feb 9, 2024 12:11:44 GMT -5
Thank you Phreek. I stand corrected and appreciate your making that point. I should have added the qualification 'of those who responded'.
My overarching point, though, regarding the benefit of a balanced distribution -- a reasonably bell shaped distribution so to speak - - would seem to stand and that we might have what looks like a half a bell or something of that sort but often limited representation on one slope and end of that curve. Once again, reasonably boring and not beneficial in terms of stimulating honest and engaged debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Feb 9, 2024 13:29:01 GMT -5
Thank you Phreek. I stand corrected and appreciate your making that point.
My overarching point, though, regarding the benefit of a balanced distribution -- a reasonably bell shaped distribution so to speak - - would seem to stand and that we might have what looks like a half a bell or something of that sort but often limited representation on one slope and end of that curve. Once again, reasonably boring and not beneficial in terms of stimulating honest and engaged debate. I think you are 'whistling Dixie' on striving for a bell-shaped distribution. The demographics are against it. White males, who I will characterize as being more conservative than other demographic cohorts, are in absolute decline. And there is no prospect that I see for reversing that. In 2010, White (M/F) undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting, post-secondary instituions was 10.9 million. In 2021, it was 7.8 million In 2010, females (all races) were 56.7 percent of the undergraduate student population. In 2021, the female percentage was 57.8 percent. In 2021, there were 2.0 million females enrolled in post-baccalaureate degree programs, and 1.2 million males . The male number is basically straight-line since 2010, while the female number has increased from 1.7 million in 2010. In 2021, the White, non-Hispanic total fertility rate in the U.S. was 1.6 live births per woman over her child-bearing life-time. The required replacement rate is at least 2.1 live births per woman. Immigrants to the United States are helping make up for the shortfall. In 2017, the total fertility rate in the United States among immigrants was 2.17 live births. |
|
|
|
Post by td128 on Feb 13, 2024 8:09:23 GMT -5
I personally believe our nation and the world at large are in the midst of what might be defined as a form of great awakening in which TRUTH is embraced and elevated. I see this as reversing many predatory practices promoted by the model of Public-Private-Philanthropathic (yes. . . ) partnerships.
The Power of the Holy Spirit is central to this awakening.
Alma Mater can and hopefully will play a central role in these pursuits of the Way, the Truth and the Life. (John 14:6)
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014&version=KJV
|
|
