We have previously mentioned the train wreck known as Teen Vogue. If you click on an article, you’ll now get a blurb, saying “Politics, the Teen Vogue way,” which makes me ask: weren’t Vogue and Teen Vogue supposed to be about fashion and makeup? You can check out this story to get a clue about the intellectual heft of Teen Vogue.

Campus Cancel Culture Freakouts Obscure the Power of University Boards

This op-ed argues that university boards are really in control of many core functions on college and university campuses.

By Asheesh Kapur Siddique^[1]Asheesh Kapur Siddique is an assistant professor in the Department of History at UMass Amherst. | May 19, 2021

Do American universities lack ideological diversity? Are they bastions of left-wing thought and hostile to conservatives? In early April, the Crimson, the student newspaper of Harvard University, published an article asserting that the university’s conservative faculty are “an endangered species,” which quickly animated establishment concerns about the alleged lack of ideological diversity on American college campuses. But the right is not underrepresented in higher education; in fact, the opposite is true: The modern American university is a right-wing institution. The right’s dominance of academia and its reign over universities is destroying higher education, and the only way to save the American university is for students and professors to take back control of campuses.

Conservatives continually cite statistics suggesting that college professors lean to the left. But those who believe a university’s ideological character can be discerned by surveying the political leanings of its faculty betray a fundamental misunderstanding of how universities work. Partisan political preferences have little to do with the production of academic knowledge or the day-to-day workings of the university — including what happens in classrooms. There is no “Democrat” way to teach calculus,^[2]Actually, there are plenty of people who believe that there is racism in the teaching of mathematics. nor is there a “Republican” approach to teaching medieval English literature; anyone who has spent time teaching or studying in a university knows that the majority of instruction and scholarship within cannot fit into narrow partisan categories. Moreover, gauging political preferences of employees is an impoverished way of understanding the ideology of an institution. To actually do so, you must look at who runs it — and in the case of the American university, that is no longer the professoriate.

Faculty once had meaningful power within higher educational institutions. In 1915, faculty at American universities organized themselves into the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), which championed academic freedom and significant faculty participation in the administration of appointments, peer reviews, and curriculum — a principle that came to be known as “shared governance.” Though it was resisted by administrators and boards of trustees for much of the early 20th century, the shared governance model was cemented within the modern university in the post-World War II era. This was especially apparent in the 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, issued jointly by the American Council on Education, the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, and the AAUP, which specified that faculty, administrators, and boards of trustees formed a “community of interest” that should share responsibilities to produce well-governed institutions.

But from the mid-1970s on, as the historian Larry Gerber writes, shared governance was supplanted as the dominant model of university administration as boards of trustees and their allies in the offices of provosts and deans took advantage of public funding cuts to higher education and asserted increasing control over the hiring of the professoriate. They imported business models from the for-profit corporate world that shifted the labor model for teaching and research from tenured and tenure-track faculty to part-time faculty on short-term contracts, who were paid less and excluded from the benefits of the tenure system, particularly the academic freedom that tenure secured by mandating that professors could only be fired for extraordinary circumstances.

Asheesh Kapur Siddique, from his UMASS Amherst page.

There’s more at the original, but you can tell that Dr Siddique is a loony leftist when, on his personal website, that his “preferred gender pronouns are he / him / his / himself.”

Dr Siddique is so very concerned that colleges and universities, though the teaching staff are filled with liberals, are normally governed by boards of trustees, and those trustees are frequently representatives of the business, financial and legal communities. He doesn’t seem to understand: the boards of trustees aren’t there to teach, but to keep the school running. That means seeking donations and strong financial management.

The corporate capitalist regime that controls American university boards today has manufactured the current crisis of higher education by inflating tuition to compensate for state funding cuts while passing on the debt to students; hiring contingent rather than tenure-line staff to pay teachers less while withholding the security of academic freedom; and appointing administrators who are ultimately accountable to the regime.

Well, yes, of course: these are things necessary to keep colleges running. But Dr Siddique’s biggest complain is the one he put in parentheses, as though it was some kind of aside:

Case in point: The UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees recently declined to appoint Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones to a tenure-track position following conservative outcry over her work on the 1619 project, documenting the history of slavery in the U.S. As one board member told NC Policy Watch, “This is a very political thing. …There have been people writing letters and making calls, for and against. But I will leave it to you which is carrying more weight.”

Let’s be honest here: Mrs Hannah-Jones does not have her doctorate, normally a requirement for a tenure-track position. More, he scholarship in writing her 1619 Project has been seriously questioned:

In the fall of 2019 the World Socialist Web Site interviewed four leading historians who had major problems with the 1619 Project. This included the leading historians of the American Revolution and the Civil War. Brown University’s Gordon Wood, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his work on the American Revolution, “couldn’t believe” that Hannah-Jones had argued that the American Revolution was fought to protect slavery.^[49] Princeton’s James M. McPherson, who won the Pulitzer Prize for work on the Civil War, stated that he was “disturbed by what seemed like a very unbalanced, one-sided account, which lacked context and perspective on the complexity of slavery.”^[50]

It’s a rather amusing take to think that the people of Massachusetts, who did not keep slaves, would have been the primary instigators of the American Revolution to protect slavery.^[3]There were a few, with the emphasis on ‘few,’ New Englanders who benefitted from the slave trade, in that some of the slave ships were owned by New Englanders. More, slavery was perfectly legal in the British Empire, with the slave trade encouraged. Great Britain did not abolish slavery until 1833, more than half a century after our Revolution began, and our independence was won.

Is it any particular wonder that the University of North Carolina declined to award her a tenure-track position? UNC is like any major state university; it depends in part on alumni and supporter donations. Perhaps the Board of Trustees didn’t think it would be particularly helpful to alienate potential and continuing donors to have a tenure-track professor telling them how racist they were, or to have a faculty pushing the critical race theory.