Dr. Glenn writes, "So why haven’t we seen more pushback from these leaders, a refusal to cave to the often unreasonable demands of race activists?"
Simple answer, really. What matters to those in power? Reputation! And Good paper! Easier to NEVER stand for a principle that is even mildly divisive. No, better to cultivate Smiley faces and preserve one's own reputation. There are no bonus checks for those who stand for principles. There are no bonus checks for those who die on a hill, defending a principled position. Easier to simply jive talk them with a PR confession and throw the opposition a few crumbs.
I mean, really. What administrator --- from a K-12 district, or a Big 10 school, will ever fight for principles of The Enlightenment or Western Civilization? Leadership positions rarely have tenure. EVERY administrator is walking the plank. Bad paper? Controversial history in "managing" anything and your reputation is canceled.
No mystery. Cancel culture is real. Your professional life is over. Prepare for your new career: selling real estate.
Until 1965, administrators did not labor under the illusion of defending principles. They internalized them. They reified the goals of Western Civilization. But after the anti-war protests began; after demands for ethnic studies exploded across the land, successful, responsible administrators leaned that "compromise" and "sensitivity" were the new watchwords for peace on campus. The calculus changed. Proportionality, quotas, and racism became the markers of "success."
A few days ago I wrote a post where I listed different categories of responses to wokism in the university setting, from true believers thru to people keeping their heads down. You seem to place most senior administrators in the category of cynical opportunists. I agree these people exist and were fast adaptors, using woke ideology to advance themselves.
But I think there are many more honest, reasonable administrators who don’t like the direction things are going in, yet find themselves in a jam. I know plenty of people like this. If some issue spins out of control on their watch, it is as you say, they are in deep trouble. I know this, too. The irony is that in protecting themselves they contribute to the very environment that threatens them.
It is the classic tragedy of the commons. Action taken at the individual level to improve the commons leads to a detriment to the person taking the action without necessarily improving the commons in the short term. Classic over-fishing analogy. It is a tough spot to be in.
I have a different perspective.
Dr. Glenn writes, "So why haven’t we seen more pushback from these leaders, a refusal to cave to the often unreasonable demands of race activists?"
Simple answer, really. What matters to those in power? Reputation! And Good paper! Easier to NEVER stand for a principle that is even mildly divisive. No, better to cultivate Smiley faces and preserve one's own reputation. There are no bonus checks for those who stand for principles. There are no bonus checks for those who die on a hill, defending a principled position. Easier to simply jive talk them with a PR confession and throw the opposition a few crumbs.
I mean, really. What administrator --- from a K-12 district, or a Big 10 school, will ever fight for principles of The Enlightenment or Western Civilization? Leadership positions rarely have tenure. EVERY administrator is walking the plank. Bad paper? Controversial history in "managing" anything and your reputation is canceled.
No mystery. Cancel culture is real. Your professional life is over. Prepare for your new career: selling real estate.
Until 1965, administrators did not labor under the illusion of defending principles. They internalized them. They reified the goals of Western Civilization. But after the anti-war protests began; after demands for ethnic studies exploded across the land, successful, responsible administrators leaned that "compromise" and "sensitivity" were the new watchwords for peace on campus. The calculus changed. Proportionality, quotas, and racism became the markers of "success."
A few days ago I wrote a post where I listed different categories of responses to wokism in the university setting, from true believers thru to people keeping their heads down. You seem to place most senior administrators in the category of cynical opportunists. I agree these people exist and were fast adaptors, using woke ideology to advance themselves.
But I think there are many more honest, reasonable administrators who don’t like the direction things are going in, yet find themselves in a jam. I know plenty of people like this. If some issue spins out of control on their watch, it is as you say, they are in deep trouble. I know this, too. The irony is that in protecting themselves they contribute to the very environment that threatens them.
It is the classic tragedy of the commons. Action taken at the individual level to improve the commons leads to a detriment to the person taking the action without necessarily improving the commons in the short term. Classic over-fishing analogy. It is a tough spot to be in.