Last week, John and I had an all-too-rare in-person conversation sponsored by the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs here at Brown University.
[Time 28:00]; On Tenure pursuit limiting a professor’s availability. My BA in Biology is from UC Santa Cruz. In the mid-to-late 1980’s; while an undergrad; I interacted entirely with graduate students who led weekly discussion groups. The only time I interacted with a professor was when writing a senior thesis for graduation.
Yes, these institutions were the crown jewels. I'm not sure they still are. When people being hired as math profs are asked to affirm their commitment to DEI (not necessarily Brown, but some well-publicized public schools), the institution is lost.
You don't want some DC apparatchik dictating speech or course content?
1) Do you really claim that Brown (or other Ivy's) really have free and open discourse in the classroom? How would you answer Haidt's claim that, beyond a certain liberal/conservative faculty ratio (long since passed), the scientific process breaks down due to group-think?
2) (The libertarian speaks) I'm not convinced there should be *nearly* as much government funding of higher education. But, given it does fund it.... welcome to democracy. I am truly not convinced that many "leading" institutions of higher education are doing more good than harm.
It is unfortunate that Trump is cutting with an axe instead of a scalpel. But, a) an axe may be the only tool he has, and b) the rot may be so deep (DEI in the math curriculum???) that an axe is the proper tool.
I'm sure I'm overly generalizing. But the conversation itself is *way* overdue.
(To add some more thoughts: The fact that govt. money has strings attached is well established. Do you object to Davis-Bacon? Do you object to 8(a) contracting set-asides for small women and minority-owned businesses? Only "greedy evil capitalists" object to strings being attached to the vast majority of government funding. So, I'm less than sympathetic to the plight of academia, who, like the rest of us, must now dance to the tune of their government pay masters.)
What a hoot. Lots of how nice we are and then you take down the questioner at the end of the session. Just couldn't resist correcting his use of English--and the academics chuckled. Really?
The idea of freedom of speech doesn't mean students can damage property. It seems to me that everyone is overlooking that. At the same time, the information I found online??????says the majority of federal funding goes to grants like Pell. That's great, but someone has to check the financial records to determine if distribution is accurate.
btw, that remind me that several months ago, Glenn in one of those personal convos and moments of introspection had mentioned that apart from growing distant from his colleagues in the Econ Depot, his relationship with the Watson Institute had also been interrupted if not severed. He never elucidated on the reasons behind these comments, and it's his right not to, but I think if he is going to mention such things publicly, we his loyal viewership might merit perhaps a bit of elucidation and or context. In any event, I am glad to see the relationship has been at least somewhat restored? (or was this a one kind/unique kind of a thing?)
First question asked by Prof. Schiller: "At what point did higher education lose the general public, and why?" Based on polling from Pew Foundation, 54% of Republicans held a favorable view towards universities in 2015 and that declined to 33% in 2019. Over the same time period, Democrats had about a 70% favorable view.
Why the change? Maybe transgender issues? There were a few ugly campus disruptions at Yale (Halloween), UC Berkeley, Evergreen and Middleburry that got a lot of press in those years.
Additionally, there has been a long standing critique of secularization of university education perhaps starting with WF Buckly Jr's "God and Man at Yale" (1951). Universities have also places where Darwin's theory of evolution was taught, and professors read and discuss Karl Marx, and more recently climate change. Richard Nixon said "the professors are the enemy" which JD Vance recently quoted approvingly. So, Republicans and Conservatives may have had some long standing skepticisms of universities, but some events around 2015-19 seems to have expanded or intensified that skepticism.
Harvard will settle the claims of the federal government, and keep its federal money, by shedding the more egregious of its DEI policies and practices and strengthening its enforcement of antisemitism policies, without any damage to the crown jewels of civilization, or any significant impediment to university research and development. Established federal law gives the government the authority to withhold federal grants and subsidies from colleges and universities found, pursuant to investigation and a hearing, to be discriminating on the basis of race, ethnicity, etc., in their policies, practices, or procedures.
For example, under the Carter administration, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Education, moved to withhold all federal funds from the University of North Carolina on the basis of a claim that UNC was operating a “dual system of education.” OCR based that claim upon the overwhelmingly black composition of the student bodies and staff at UNC’s five historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), and that of the majority white composition of the remaining 11 institutions. To avoid loss of federal funding, OCR demanded that UNC cease offering parallel educational programs at majority white and majority black schools in the same geographical area, so that white students could enter a particular program offered at only the local HBCU and black students could enter such programs offered offered at only the local majority-white schools. The reorganization of programs demanded by OCR, was intended to erase the traditionally African American character of the HBCUs. After some legal skirmishes, UNC settled the matter by agreeing to greatly reduced terms that preserved the HBCUs.
Harvard and the other schools cited by the Trump administration, will settle if only to avoid a public examination of their conduct and practices regarding DEI and antisemitism, particularly in the wake of the embarrassing dramas involving Claudine Gay, Minouche Shafik, and others. Despite President Garber’s lofty public pronouncements, Harvard has already signaled its desire to settle by engaging as its chief legal counsel two Republican insiders, one with the first Trump administration, and the other with the George W. Bush administration, two
“Trump Whisperers” brought on specifically to make a deal.
The biggest obstacles to a deal are the Trump Admin's inability to follow the law, to agree on a reasonable set of demands, and, if they ever do reach a deal, their willingness to uphold their end.
I've als never seen anything from Trump that he believes that a deal can be made that is mutually beneficial for both parties. If I buy Moroccan vanilla beans, at a price I think is fair, because I plan to bake something, then that is the very definition of a positive sum deal. They wanted my money, I wanted their product, we are both better off for having made the deal. Trump's view is that Morocco is robbing us blind and US/Morocco trade needs to be stopped by imposition of punitive tariffs.
For those reasons, I don't really think a deal is coming anytime soon. Not with Harvard, not with trading partners.
Are these institutions really the crown jewels of America? When I see the university system I see corruption, waste, and moral decay. Are we supposed to feel confident in these institutions when the graduates who go on to lead our society have proven themselves incompetent ideologues? There is a lot of high quality research that is produced by universities but my sense is that gives cover for political ideology to go unchecked. It is a misuse of prestige to keep people in line which has precipitated a crisis in legitimacy. It is risky, but bulldozing the institutions and rebuilding them from scratch minus the insane ideology is one of the few viable paths to correcting the trajectory of this country.
Great conversation. John is right. There are powerful leftists on campus who feel they are doing the honorable thing by fighting for minorities. They have a prevailing vision that gives them a sense of purpose. Thomas Sowell has written about this many times.
The problem is that when you compromise objective truth for subjective truth, then everyone loses. It is crucial to know every side of an argument.
I encourage my fellow subscribers to read about the Kalven Report from the 1960s. It covers the importance of free inquiry on campus. The link is below.
Trump taking a sledge hammer to the crown jewels of civilization? Maybe. Or maybe he's just dismantling arcades full of PacMan and Pong machines. Like video arcades, professional boxing, and drive-in movie theaters, colleges could lose their prominence in society. All things must pass.
Two things informed my attitude while listening to this episode. First, I recently watched the movie "Fly Me to the Moon," which was set in the time period surrounding the 1969 moon landing. (Spoiler: We won the space race.) Second, the latest All-In podcast, which included a discussion of China's new and fully-functioning thorium reactor.
A thorium reactor is a real thing. DEI, CRT, trans swimmers -- give me a break. I want a moon landing. I want a thorium reactor. Real things. Amazing things. Do you think China cares about the "diversity" of the people working on thorium reactors? We have to compete with one arm tied behind our back.
I would honestly make an effort to see the Professors at a LIVE event at least one time, though it's so much easier to watch a quality recording from the comfort of my home/desk. I always wish these talks/interaction didn't end after an hour.
I agree. This is why I have an entire archive of the Glenn and John Show on my iPod. The archive dates back to their very first conversation in the fall of 2007. They are awesome. I'm a doctoral student. And I have made references to their written work and conversations numerous times within my own work.
[Time 39:00]; GL discusses the “lived experience” as weighted by numerous categories beyond race. I want to add that “lived experience” is more easily predicted where quantified.
Example A: McWhorter, Boghossian and Bret Weinstein are male and have approx the same birth year. That makes the lived experience for all three very similar to a degree.
Example B: I have official privilege that is age-defined. I can obtain a drivers license, vote, join the military and purchase tobacco, alcohol and guns.
Example C: Two-parent household vs. single parent vs. status as step-child vs. foster care. Examples A, B and C are more easily quantified than race.
People who yammer about DEI are letting incompetent people do severe damage to scientific research. This should not come as a surprise given their trust in a man who dumped a bear cub carcass in Central Park to determine the cause of autism by September.
[Time 28:00]; On Tenure pursuit limiting a professor’s availability. My BA in Biology is from UC Santa Cruz. In the mid-to-late 1980’s; while an undergrad; I interacted entirely with graduate students who led weekly discussion groups. The only time I interacted with a professor was when writing a senior thesis for graduation.
To push back a bit on Glenn:
Yes, these institutions were the crown jewels. I'm not sure they still are. When people being hired as math profs are asked to affirm their commitment to DEI (not necessarily Brown, but some well-publicized public schools), the institution is lost.
You don't want some DC apparatchik dictating speech or course content?
1) Do you really claim that Brown (or other Ivy's) really have free and open discourse in the classroom? How would you answer Haidt's claim that, beyond a certain liberal/conservative faculty ratio (long since passed), the scientific process breaks down due to group-think?
2) (The libertarian speaks) I'm not convinced there should be *nearly* as much government funding of higher education. But, given it does fund it.... welcome to democracy. I am truly not convinced that many "leading" institutions of higher education are doing more good than harm.
It is unfortunate that Trump is cutting with an axe instead of a scalpel. But, a) an axe may be the only tool he has, and b) the rot may be so deep (DEI in the math curriculum???) that an axe is the proper tool.
I'm sure I'm overly generalizing. But the conversation itself is *way* overdue.
(To add some more thoughts: The fact that govt. money has strings attached is well established. Do you object to Davis-Bacon? Do you object to 8(a) contracting set-asides for small women and minority-owned businesses? Only "greedy evil capitalists" object to strings being attached to the vast majority of government funding. So, I'm less than sympathetic to the plight of academia, who, like the rest of us, must now dance to the tune of their government pay masters.)
“And don’t only be interested in people doing horrible things.”
“And anyone who’s read my book knows I wanna be a player.” 😂
🔥
What a hoot. Lots of how nice we are and then you take down the questioner at the end of the session. Just couldn't resist correcting his use of English--and the academics chuckled. Really?
The idea of freedom of speech doesn't mean students can damage property. It seems to me that everyone is overlooking that. At the same time, the information I found online??????says the majority of federal funding goes to grants like Pell. That's great, but someone has to check the financial records to determine if distribution is accurate.
btw, that remind me that several months ago, Glenn in one of those personal convos and moments of introspection had mentioned that apart from growing distant from his colleagues in the Econ Depot, his relationship with the Watson Institute had also been interrupted if not severed. He never elucidated on the reasons behind these comments, and it's his right not to, but I think if he is going to mention such things publicly, we his loyal viewership might merit perhaps a bit of elucidation and or context. In any event, I am glad to see the relationship has been at least somewhat restored? (or was this a one kind/unique kind of a thing?)
First question asked by Prof. Schiller: "At what point did higher education lose the general public, and why?" Based on polling from Pew Foundation, 54% of Republicans held a favorable view towards universities in 2015 and that declined to 33% in 2019. Over the same time period, Democrats had about a 70% favorable view.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/08/19/the-growing-partisan-divide-in-views-of-higher-education-2/
Why the change? Maybe transgender issues? There were a few ugly campus disruptions at Yale (Halloween), UC Berkeley, Evergreen and Middleburry that got a lot of press in those years.
Additionally, there has been a long standing critique of secularization of university education perhaps starting with WF Buckly Jr's "God and Man at Yale" (1951). Universities have also places where Darwin's theory of evolution was taught, and professors read and discuss Karl Marx, and more recently climate change. Richard Nixon said "the professors are the enemy" which JD Vance recently quoted approvingly. So, Republicans and Conservatives may have had some long standing skepticisms of universities, but some events around 2015-19 seems to have expanded or intensified that skepticism.
Harvard will settle the claims of the federal government, and keep its federal money, by shedding the more egregious of its DEI policies and practices and strengthening its enforcement of antisemitism policies, without any damage to the crown jewels of civilization, or any significant impediment to university research and development. Established federal law gives the government the authority to withhold federal grants and subsidies from colleges and universities found, pursuant to investigation and a hearing, to be discriminating on the basis of race, ethnicity, etc., in their policies, practices, or procedures.
For example, under the Carter administration, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Education, moved to withhold all federal funds from the University of North Carolina on the basis of a claim that UNC was operating a “dual system of education.” OCR based that claim upon the overwhelmingly black composition of the student bodies and staff at UNC’s five historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), and that of the majority white composition of the remaining 11 institutions. To avoid loss of federal funding, OCR demanded that UNC cease offering parallel educational programs at majority white and majority black schools in the same geographical area, so that white students could enter a particular program offered at only the local HBCU and black students could enter such programs offered offered at only the local majority-white schools. The reorganization of programs demanded by OCR, was intended to erase the traditionally African American character of the HBCUs. After some legal skirmishes, UNC settled the matter by agreeing to greatly reduced terms that preserved the HBCUs.
Harvard and the other schools cited by the Trump administration, will settle if only to avoid a public examination of their conduct and practices regarding DEI and antisemitism, particularly in the wake of the embarrassing dramas involving Claudine Gay, Minouche Shafik, and others. Despite President Garber’s lofty public pronouncements, Harvard has already signaled its desire to settle by engaging as its chief legal counsel two Republican insiders, one with the first Trump administration, and the other with the George W. Bush administration, two
“Trump Whisperers” brought on specifically to make a deal.
The biggest obstacles to a deal are the Trump Admin's inability to follow the law, to agree on a reasonable set of demands, and, if they ever do reach a deal, their willingness to uphold their end.
I've als never seen anything from Trump that he believes that a deal can be made that is mutually beneficial for both parties. If I buy Moroccan vanilla beans, at a price I think is fair, because I plan to bake something, then that is the very definition of a positive sum deal. They wanted my money, I wanted their product, we are both better off for having made the deal. Trump's view is that Morocco is robbing us blind and US/Morocco trade needs to be stopped by imposition of punitive tariffs.
For those reasons, I don't really think a deal is coming anytime soon. Not with Harvard, not with trading partners.
Are these institutions really the crown jewels of America? When I see the university system I see corruption, waste, and moral decay. Are we supposed to feel confident in these institutions when the graduates who go on to lead our society have proven themselves incompetent ideologues? There is a lot of high quality research that is produced by universities but my sense is that gives cover for political ideology to go unchecked. It is a misuse of prestige to keep people in line which has precipitated a crisis in legitimacy. It is risky, but bulldozing the institutions and rebuilding them from scratch minus the insane ideology is one of the few viable paths to correcting the trajectory of this country.
Great conversation. John is right. There are powerful leftists on campus who feel they are doing the honorable thing by fighting for minorities. They have a prevailing vision that gives them a sense of purpose. Thomas Sowell has written about this many times.
The problem is that when you compromise objective truth for subjective truth, then everyone loses. It is crucial to know every side of an argument.
I encourage my fellow subscribers to read about the Kalven Report from the 1960s. It covers the importance of free inquiry on campus. The link is below.
https://www.thefire.org/news/wisdom-university-chicagos-kalven-report
Trump taking a sledge hammer to the crown jewels of civilization? Maybe. Or maybe he's just dismantling arcades full of PacMan and Pong machines. Like video arcades, professional boxing, and drive-in movie theaters, colleges could lose their prominence in society. All things must pass.
Two things informed my attitude while listening to this episode. First, I recently watched the movie "Fly Me to the Moon," which was set in the time period surrounding the 1969 moon landing. (Spoiler: We won the space race.) Second, the latest All-In podcast, which included a discussion of China's new and fully-functioning thorium reactor.
A thorium reactor is a real thing. DEI, CRT, trans swimmers -- give me a break. I want a moon landing. I want a thorium reactor. Real things. Amazing things. Do you think China cares about the "diversity" of the people working on thorium reactors? We have to compete with one arm tied behind our back.
I would honestly make an effort to see the Professors at a LIVE event at least one time, though it's so much easier to watch a quality recording from the comfort of my home/desk. I always wish these talks/interaction didn't end after an hour.
I agree. This is why I have an entire archive of the Glenn and John Show on my iPod. The archive dates back to their very first conversation in the fall of 2007. They are awesome. I'm a doctoral student. And I have made references to their written work and conversations numerous times within my own work.
if you would happen to have a full archive of all their convos on bloggingheads, I would be very interested
They are all online, and they are free. Go to bloggingheads tv.
All together, it would be a large audio file.
how much can I offer you for a copy of the entire file?
I'm on my way out right now. I'll get back to you by tomorrow.
cool. Let me know
[Time 39:00]; GL discusses the “lived experience” as weighted by numerous categories beyond race. I want to add that “lived experience” is more easily predicted where quantified.
Example A: McWhorter, Boghossian and Bret Weinstein are male and have approx the same birth year. That makes the lived experience for all three very similar to a degree.
Example B: I have official privilege that is age-defined. I can obtain a drivers license, vote, join the military and purchase tobacco, alcohol and guns.
Example C: Two-parent household vs. single parent vs. status as step-child vs. foster care. Examples A, B and C are more easily quantified than race.
People who yammer about DEI are letting incompetent people do severe damage to scientific research. This should not come as a surprise given their trust in a man who dumped a bear cub carcass in Central Park to determine the cause of autism by September.
He doesn't need to wait until September. It's almost completely genetic. But that's not the answer people want to hear.
It'd be nice if RFKJ states that in September, but I would actually bet against it. But who knows...