Texas A&M's Treatment of Journalism Director Raises Academic Freedom Concerns
Political appointees should have no role in faculty hiring decisions.

Texas A&M University has come under fire for pushing out an incoming director of the school's journalism program following a series of complaints over her political views.
Last month, Texas A&M announced that it had appointed Kathleen McElroy, the director of the journalism program at the University of Texas at Austin from 2016 to 2022, to lead Texas A&M's journalism program. According to The Texas Tribune, McElroy originally received an offer to run the program as a tenured professor, pending approval of the school's board of regents.
However, McElroy says that the school soon began altering the terms of her contract, following conservative backlash over her writing on racism and diversity initiatives within newsrooms and college campuses.
According to the Tribune, several members of the school's board of regents had read an article in the Texas Scorecard highlighting McElroy's views on faculty diversity and objectivity in journalism. The article quoted extensively from an op-ed McElroy had written for The Daily Texan in 2020, where McElroy called for tracking faculty diversity and wrote that "because of racism throughout fundamental American institutions—including education and, in my particular field, journalism—growing diversity in higher education seems difficult."
McElroy told The New York Times, where she once worked as an editor, that Texas A&M's interim dean for liberal arts had warned her of the backlash over her writing. "I said, 'What's wrong?'" McElroy recounted to the Times. "He said, 'You're a Black woman who was at The New York Times and, to these folks, that's like working for Pravda.'"
Eventually, McElroy says she agreed to sign a five-year contract without tenure, which was swiftly downgraded to a one-year contract, which emphasized "that the appointment was at will and that she could be terminated at any time," according to the Tribune. Following this offer, McElroy decided to turn down the position and return to her previous job at the University of Texas at Austin.
McElroy's story is akin to a different controversy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in which journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones had a similar tenured teaching offer revoked following conservative uproar over the political beliefs expressed in her writing. In both cases, politically appointed boards of regents made the decision to deny tenure. A recently signed law in Texas banning diversity, equity, and inclusion offices in public state colleges only adds to the political nature of McElroy's effective ouster.
However, just as in Hannah-Jones' case, this case is concerning not simply because a university decided not to hire a professor with controversial beliefs but because of how it went about it. Faculty may reasonably object to McElory's views on journalism—for example, her skepticism of objectivity in journalism or her views on how diversity should be approached in the newsroom. However, once faculty have duly voted to hire a professor, the intervention of political appointees is inappropriate—and poses a real threat to academic freedom.
"Members of the boards of trustees of universities have no expertise to assess the quality of an individual's work and the potential contribution that a faculty member might make to the campus," wrote Princeton politics professor Keith E. Whittington in The Volokh Conspiracy (which is hosted by Reason) in a 2021 article about Hannah-Jones. "What board members do have are political opinions and personal interests. If boards can block faculty hiring and promotion decisions, the inevitable result will be to shrink the range of acceptable ideas that can be expressed, taught and investigated on the university campus."
Texas A&M's decision to deny tenure to McElory is yet another entry in our increasingly fraught culture war politics over what should be taught—and who should teach—at American public universities. While these are pressing questions that deserve inquiry, intervention in controversial hiring decisions is best not left to political appointees.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
How dare oversight boards...practice oversight. Those JERKS!
"the inevitable result will be to shrink the range of acceptable ideas that can be expressed, taught and investigated on the university campus."
What's the down side?
Th irony being that pseudo-intellectual leftism is the only range of acceptable ideas on many campuses. So, preventing one more person from spouting the same nonsense doesn’t do anything but expand the potential range of ideas students might be exposed to.
And that is how fanatics eat themselves and implode. It's like one of those slide shows of zooming into microscopic images. What appears homogeneous to outsiders has a surprising amount of differentiation once you drill down.
G, LG, LGB, LGBT, LGBTQWERTY, wait a sec, why two Ts, get them out of here, you TERF savage! AstroTERF to you, landlubber!
And when it's faculty involved, everything is already petty to start with, so the animosity is already there.
McElroy told The New York Times, where she once worked as an editor, that Texas A&M’s interim dean for liberal arts had warned her of the backlash over her writing. “I said, ‘What’s wrong?'” McElroy recounted to the Times. “He said, ‘You’re a Black woman who was at The New York Times and, to these folks, that’s like working for Pravda.'”
lol…
Hint: It’s not the ‘blackness’ that elevates distrust here. If Glenn Loury had worked at the New York Times… but the New York Times would… never hire Glenn Loury. Once you start to see how all these pieces fit together, the vertical ID starts to make a lot more sense.
"... that’s like working for Pravda."
The interim dean was just speaking the plain truth. If the jackboot fits...
Like Glenn Loury, McElroy is black with Scottish roots.
And Barack Obama. The oppression these people endure is just appalling.
“… that’s like working for Pravda.”
Something like writing for Reason. But job security makes it worth the price.
Wait, your very first paragraph said "pending approval of the school's board of regents."
The board of regents whose job it is to oversee decisions of administration, to whom the institutions must be accountable lest they are just given public money and allowed to do whatever the fuck they want.
However, once faculty have duly voted to hire a professor, the intervention of political appointees is inappropriate
This phrase... like the faculty aren't entirely political in their nature.
The board of regents are the adults in the room, the outside perspective. They're not different than a board of a corporation, representing the interests of those who fund the operation -- taxpayers for a public university, investors for a corporation -- against the insular and self-centered interests of those within the operation.
This is people doing their job. Hiring a blatantly, virulently political person for a high level, tenured job, should merit some outside review.
The very first sentence says "pushing out an incoming". If, whatever it is, is being pushed out, it's not incoming. If it's incoming, it's not being pushed out.
At this point, Reason has thoroughly convinced me along several avenues that between Rolling Stone, the NYT, and even Reason's own selective inflation of people they like with cameras and anonymous sources as "citizen journalists" and people they don't like with cameras and sources as conspiracy theorists; if every journalism school in the country spontaneously caught fire, burnt to the ground, and lost their endowments in the process, it wouldn't be a significant loss to free speech one way or the other.
Probably a net gain to free speech.
When the speech police proggies drove liberals with decades of experience from the newsrooms, it was very obvious what's taught to aspiring journalists is antithetical to free and open discourse.
You reap what you sow.
Probably a net gain to free speech.
If not free speech then certainly at least to an informed *and thinking* populace. Even if all the propaganda outlets save one burned down, we'd at least save on bandwidth.
And, again, of the last 4 or 5 cases regarding F.I.R.E. that Reason has brought up, the majority have been this exact same "don't read my words, just sympathize with my meaning" bullshit. Article titled: "Teacher Fired Over Free Speech" but actual, factual: "Adjunct Professor's Aid Contract Unrenewed After Using University Brand To Promote Own Labor Group".
Changing the terms of the agreement WHILE IN THE NEGOTIATION PHASE is not, nor will it ever be an “Academic Freedom Concern”.
Of course, the problem as usual, is us little people thinking it’s not okay for people in positions of authority to be spouting off warmed over Marxist bullshit with a racial perfume and totally not the people pushing the idea that America is inherently, irredeemably racist and oh by the way we should give all the power and authority to control peoples lives to that very government that has been inherently irredeemably racist since before it’s founding.
It really makes you wonder if Teen Reason's cunt brigade is actually this stupid, or they just hope their readers are.
Hey, you are talking about highly qualified investigative reporters, all schooled at the finest propaganda, er, journalism schools. Like GAYDAR, they have super-sensitive detection ability to sense evil conservative influences in any situation. And the ability to either cheer or hate bureaucracy depending on the political slant.
"Members of the boards of trustees of universities have no expertise to assess the quality of an individual's work and the potential contribution that a faculty member might make to the campus"
I think the only appropriate response to that claim is "bullshit". It doesn't take a genius or even a specialist to assess someone's work or potential contributions. Employers do that literally thousands of times every single day. This myth that only faculty are "qualified" to judge other faculty is protectionist sophistry of the worst sort. It's only connection to "academic freedom" is that it asserts an utter freedom from accountability - something enjoyed by infants but inappropriate for adults - and wildly inappropriate for the adults that we want training our children how to think.
It is honestly some of the most sophist positioning that I have seen in a while.
that I have seen in a while.
since 1pm.
As indicated above, the tone deafness of ivory-tower dwellers complaining that the people who live in still-higher ivory towers don't come down to their towers to interact with them doesn't convince me we need more or better communications between ivory towers. It only convinces me that we aren't burning them all down fast enough.
Principles shminciples. What matters is the political views of the people doing the discriminating. If you agree with them then it's good, and if you don't then it's bad.
Amirite?
Public university tenure as a protected class jobs program for minorities isn't actually a principle for anybody except lowlife piece of shit racists like you, drunky. In the same way that you weren't guaranteed a home or a job until you got on SSI and section 8 housing, radical Marxist academics aren't guaranteed a faculty position at a public university just because of the color of their skin. Now crawl back into your bottle or see if shreek the pedophile needs a little sucky sucky.
The principle of blind faith in government institutions?
sarcasmic 4 weeks ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Nothing good will come from losing faith in institutions like elections and courts, and all of the blame rests squarely on Trump’s ego.
Doesn’t it suck when you get payback, sarc?
I’m making over $30k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
This is where i started...............>>> http://www.Richcash1.com
I think it's funny that people pretend only political appointees have political beliefs and positions.
I mean, if you don't think faculty members also hold political beliefs and positions, I've got all sorts of land to sell you.
Political appointees should have no role in faculty hiring decisions.
This is exactly backwards of how the government should run. The inference here is government and its agencies should be run by unaccountable bureaucrats, which is an insane take from a libertarian magazine. They want to put the power in the hands of people the populace has no standing to push back against. Again, an insane ask.
I'd just as soon get rid of the Civil Service and go back to patronage. It was more honest and allowed cutting the burrocracy once in a while. The Civil Service will never shrink.
I actually agree with this.
But they'd chip nicely.
We already have a pretty good idea of what a patronage system would look like, because that was the 19th century, and it was corrupt as fuck. Can you imagine what it would look like in the 21st century? It would be corruption on steroids.
It literally could not get any more corrupt than it is now you historically illiterate stupid fat fucking faggot.
Oh yes it could.
Can you imagine what it would look like in the 21st century? It would be corruption on steroids.
So no difference then.
100% this.
With patronage, bare minimum, the PRESIDENT was responsible for he put into the offices. NOW --- it is "nobody's" fault and nobody can do a thing about it.
Emma isn't a libertarian, and this isn't a libertarian magazine, anymore.
She's sure libertarian when someone won't let her buy a fucking drink, though.
This is pretty small potatoes when you consider that this same magazine supports having the entire federal government operated by an unelected permanent bureaucracy whose star chambers are to be kept secret not just from the voters but also the actual elected executive... the head of the very department where the permanent bureaucracy resides.
Yes. Reluctantly and strategically. But on the bright side the adults are in charge again. Admittedly WW3 might be a problem. But ya gotta break some eggs.
Wars are literally adult activities. Boom.
Until Ukraine runs out of 18 to 60 year olds.
There are plenty of Americans who can be shipped out for the greater glory of Raytheon.
how dare you question her lived experience ... newsrooms and college campuses obviously tilt right politically and are in desperate need of subjective diversity measures
Particularly the newsroom of the New York Times. Right-wing hellhole.
I'd argue that spouting off Marxist bullshit now is evidence that you are too stupid for any job that requires any semblance of intellect.
People discuss how many people religion killed over millenia. Communism beats that and it took about 100 yrs to do it.
The trustees provide oversight - it's their *job*. This article has everything bass-ackward. Besides, there are many examples of hiring decisions which have been reversed when additional information came to light. I see no difference here.
Fuck off with your LARP shreek.
So this woman openly proposes to promote racist ideology in a state university and representatives of the state have doubts about her appointment. But this is a problem because "academic freedom". The idea that public institutions should tolerate racist ideology because the faculty thinks it's cool is not libertarian or even adjacent. If you want to promote racism as a Klan member, Nazi, BLM leader or an elitist academic have at it. But start your own private university. I don't want to pay for this crap.
But it's totally racist to not be racist, donchakno?
I know Right? I don't even know who to apologize to anymore.
Never apologize. They just take it as a sign of weakness like sharks scenting blood in the water.
Not sharks. More like carnivorous goldfish.
NHJ I’m sure lost her position justifiably over junk scholarship and sophomoric propaganda masquerading as History
Emma, Emma, Emma. Would you be as critical of political interference if the Board of Regents in California derailed the hiring of a journalism department head who had (gasp!) worked for Fox and published work critical of CRT and affirmative action?
Or to be more aligned with this woman(?)s extremism, an avowed neo nazi and white separatist.
Another shitty opinion. It’s a demand that non-leftists abandon our institutions to the sole control of the left, allowing the resulting corruption to continue unchecked forever.
No thanks. Wresting control of our institutions is literally the most important priority for returning sanity to American politics.
Well, at least there's no chance of "both sides" here because there's zero chance a conservative prof was ever rejected for a top position in a journalism program. Is there any such thing as a conservative prof in all of journalism studies?
Well, all the people who are supporting the trustees' decision here, need to make up their mind.
Should the university be a place of truly free and uninhibited inquiry? Or should the university be a place that promotes the ideology of the trustees? You can't have both, as this episode demonstrates.
There is no such thing as "truly free and uninhibited inquiry", so your either/or is invalid.
Probably not, but it is a worthy ideal to strive for. Or is it? That is the crux of the question.
What is the worthy ideal of hiring racists to indoctrinate young adults?
Okay Jesse. I took you off mute probably as a mistake, but we will see where this goes.
What YOU label as "indoctrination" is just someone else's good idea. You don't like the idea. That's fine. But should a university be a place where all ideas are explored, even the ones that you don't like? Or should a university be a place where only those ideas that are deemed acceptable by the taxpayers/politicians get discussed?
"What YOU label as “indoctrination” is just someone else’s good idea. You don’t like the idea. That’s fine. But should a university be a place where all ideas are explored, even the ones that you don’t like?"
But they are NOT that. Have not been that in my lifetime.
If you truly think "all ideas" are explored in university, you're either willfully naive or utterly blind.
It is the ideal that the university strives for. That it imperfectly does so does not mean that the ideal doesn't exist or that it isn't honestly striving for it.
It is not honestly striving for it and I'm not about to give them benefit of the doubt. The university has not strived for it since about the 60's.
You can't really have it both ways.
You can't complain that conservative points of view should receive a fair hearing on university campuses because universities should be a place of open inquiry, and then demand that those same universities stifle open inquiry the moment they confront a topic that conservatives don't like.
So if you want universities to be ideological indoctrination camps, then just say so. Then it's just a matter of political control of the Board of Trustees to decide on the ideology that will reign supreme on the campus.
But if you genuinely object to the concept of universities as ideological indoctrination camps, then it means that you will have to put up with ideas that you don't like, and it also means that left-wingers will have to put up with ideas that they don't like either.
So which will it be?
You've had this explained to you quite literally hundreds of times, every single time you trot out this pathetically retarded false dilemma argument in defense of racists and pedophiles being employed without condition or restriction by fucking taxpayers in public institutions of learning, you lardass fat fucking piece of shit. No university is now, nor has ever been, a place of unconstrained exchange of ideas, and public universities in particular are not and cannot be so, because by making them public you have made them subject to being managed by their owners - the fucking taxpayers who are compulsorily robbed to support them.
If the ideal clearly does not exist, governing it as if it does would be silly,
You have more freedom to inquire outside of university than you have inside university. It's not even close.
And Jeff sets up the wrong false dichotomy. Trust the politics if elected officials overseeing an institution funded by taxpayers or allow schools propped up by tax dollars to push the politics.
Only one is accountable to the people. Jeff chooses the one that is not.
But this is partly my point. If the mission of a university is supposed to be the free and uninhibited exploration of ideas, then it necessarily follows that there will be times that ideas at the university will be discussed that a lot of people, including taxpayers and politicians, will object to. So, are you going to side with the people exploring ideas, even controversial ones? Or are you going to side with the people demanding compliance with what the taxpayers and politicians want?
This still isn't and still has never been the case you historically illiterate fat lardass piece of shit. If you hadn't dropped out of community college in Toronto you likely would have found that out.
I'll side with the people exploring ideas, even controversial ones, when they do so with their own time, money and resources. I'll even defend them from fat fucking Nazi bootlicking censorious faggot pieces of shit like you who use the government to coerce private actors to silence their voices. When they decide they want to explore pedophilia and racism on the public dime they can go fuck themselves with your pathetic microchode. Neatly solves your entire false dilemma, so don't bring that shit around again.
Fine, so I’ll put you down for “*public* universities should be ideological indoctrination camps”.
Should the university be a place of truly free and uninhibited inquiry? Or should the university be a place that promotes the ideology of the trustees? You can’t have both, as this episode demonstrates.
No, and not unless they are directly paying for the product (the education).
No to which?
You asked two questions, you received two answers.
I'm not sorry you can't read commas properly.
Most often he's just lying, but there are those rare moments of honesty where he's merely an illiterate fat fucking retard.
Okay, got it. I'm sorry that you don't think universities should be a place where ideas are explored.
What do you see as the proper role of the university?
Should the university be a place of truly free and uninhibited inquiry?
Note how Jeffey only applies this standard of perfection when it serves to oppose changing the status quo, yet he never applies this standard to those controlling the institution today. Is the university a place of truly free and uninhibited inquiry? Since this is laughable he's arguing shouldn't do this even though all it does is make the university .1% less leftist. It is exactly this result he opposes.
Note how you perpetually lie about anyone who disagrees with you. You create strawman positions instead of arguing honestly against the position put in front of you.
When I say "free and uninhibited inquiry", I mean it. That also means some lefties will be upset when ideas that THEY don't like will be explored.
Since this is laughable he’s arguing shouldn’t do this even though all it does is make the university .1% less leftist.
I've been pretty consistently a defender of the concept of a liberal education, where all ideas are explored in an intellectual, rigorous, respectful and professional manner. I am fine with ANY idea being discussed in an educational setting in this way. So I oppose firing this person based on her beliefs, I oppose firing conservative professors based on their beliefs. How about you?
It’s amusing when left wingers claim you lie but can’t actually identify one. They’ve learned that attaching labels and then using that label to discredit even when the label is false works for them because their media and academic allies control the acceptance of those labels. The tactic doesn’t work in the real world because non-leftists aren’t subject to institutional control and instead judge for themselves.
Further he claims to support a liberal education, but in reality we have only leftist education systems. Professors absolutely promote agendas through grading and other tactics. Jeffrey’s only reaction to this is to minimize it, protecting his team.
Meanwhile as he misrepresents reality he pretends he’s interested in honest discussions, something he has never once engaged in.
You lie at the outset when you claim I am a left-winger. And it is a repeated tactic of yours to create strawmen arguments. For example, this is a strawman argument:
Note how Jeffey only applies this standard of perfection when it serves to oppose changing the status quo, yet he never applies this standard to those controlling the institution today.
It is false that I only apply a standard of perfection when it serves to oppose changing the status quo. Heck it is false that I am even applying a standard of perfection at all. I am proposing an ideal to strive for, full well knowing that full achievement of that ideal is understandably not possible, but yet something that should be pursued. It is also false that I am not applying this standard to the status quo. When I say I want a university that strives for the ideal of free and uninhibited exploration of ideas, I mean that. There is nothing there about "only left-wing ideas" or "only right-wing ideas". So you have packed three strawmen into one concise sentence. Well done.
Further he claims to support a liberal education,
It's not a mere claim. I do support a liberal education.
but in reality we have only leftist education systems.
To the extent that the education system does not follow a model of a liberal education system, then it ought to be changed to fit this model.
Professors absolutely promote agendas through grading and other tactics.
To the extent that professors try to undermine this ideal of the free and uninhibited exploration of ideas through deceptive tactics, they ought to change their practices.
Jeffrey’s only reaction to this is to minimize it, protecting his team.
I haven't minimized anything. I have no team to protect. I am arguing on behalf of an ideal, that in reality does not exist in its purest form, but that most universities are striving for, some more imperfectly than others.
Now, instead of spending all of your time creating strawmen and attacking me, why don't you actually address the question. Should the university be a place that has the open and uninhibited exploration of ideas, or not?
Of course you’re a left winger. You just think people here will accept libertarian arguments better so you make them. The tell between a real libertarian and a left winger posing as one to better protect the left is that the left winger tactically uses libertarian arguments but only against the left’s enemies. Not coincidentally you apply your supposed libertarian principles only against the right including with your latest ploy the death of civic mindedness. This is despite the obvious fact that this death predates the events you blame it on by decades. If you’re so fair minded why blame the right for the death of something that’s been dead for decades? If you were really concerned about it shouldn’t you be able to point to decades of comments criticizing the left for this?
If you were a libertarian with the concerns you claim to have you could. But you can’t because you never cared about institutional mission until you had their opportunity to attack the right over it.
It’s also amusing Jeffrey pretends to think attacking others is a problem, yet that’s all he ever does to others. He wants to pretend he doesn’t have a team. But all his bullets are pointed at one team’s enemies. He may claim not to be a member of the other team, but if that were really true he would have no problem firing bullets at them. Instead he blames the right when the left caused the problem.
“I am arguing on behalf of an ideal, that in reality does not exist in its purest form, but that most universities are striving for”
More nonsense, but revealing. Almost no universities are striving for this, in fact almost all of them are developing methods to further restrict speech and impose stricter political standards. It is A&M fighting that trend by refusing to continue hiring senior administrators to enforce that ideology. That’s why Jeff criticizes them, so they will rejoin the crowd and more fully embrace leftism.
You are the one analyzing my text in a left/right fashion, not me. I'm not a big fan of Team Red, that is for sure. But it's not because I'm a left-winger. It's because I'm not a big fan of Team Red. The left/right dichotomy is a lie. I don't fall on the left/right scale.
Not coincidentally you apply your supposed libertarian principles only against the right including with your latest ploy the death of civic mindedness. This is despite the obvious fact that this death predates the events you blame it on by decades.
I don't agree that civic mindedness has been dead "for decades". Perhaps if you would present some evidence for your claim then we could have a discussion. But no, you simply assume that I have the same knowledge base as you but I am pulling some deceptive trick instead.
I don’t agree that civic mindedness has been dead “for decades”.
Right, since accepting reality would undermine your attacks on the right you pretend it doesn't exist. But every reasonable person recognizes the left politicized academia for decades. Many institutions are so secure in their political control they are formalizing their previously underground politicization process by openly demanding political loyalty statements as part of the hiring process. This comes on the heels of decades of politically based hiring and institutional change including the development of grievance studies and administrative departments (Title IX, DEI) to fund far left political activism. None of this exists to Jeffey though, the only relevant fact is that A&M refused to go from 98.6% left to 98.61% left which proved the end of civic-mindedness.
Perhaps if you would present some evidence for your claim
The evidence is all around, it takes motivated ignorance to pretend others need to provide it for you. Again, note the difference: he accepts and internalizes the smallest issues from the right while ignoring the entire remaking of academia because it came from the left. But he wants to pose as a neutral arbiter as if others don't recognize the absurdity. Imagine criticizing the French for shooting Germans surrounding Paris in 1914 with the claim we should all strive for peace. Then when someone points out that the Germans invaded he demands someone else provide "evidence". Then when they point out reality he simply ignores it.
then we could have a discussion.
Remember this is the guy whose entire response was "ok boomer". While he poses as if he's interested in actual discussion (when useful) his actual comments, tu quoque and tactical ignorance, show he isn't. He's just a troll claiming principles he demonstrably doesn't believe in.
And it's interesting that you define "left-winger" in a purely tribal fashion. You can't point to a single left-wing policy or position that I hold that isn't also a libertarian position. I don't support single-payer health care, I don't support the Green New Deal, I don't support a great deal of what Team Blue proposes in terms of policy. But to you, it still makes me a "left-winger" because you see me only attacking Team Red.
You are just completely stuck in tribalism mode, and I don't think there is anyone who can pull you out of it.
Speaking of solid journolisming, my paper only has 7 articles on Trump on their main website today. I guess they needed a DeSantis disco nap.
I teach in academia and am offended that you think Hannah-Jones was qualified to be in the classroom. Her completely made up tome of bullshit should have, and did, disqualify her from being in the classroom. And the fact she was offered tenure was another steaming pile of bullshit. That dumb cunt deserves no acknowledgement from academia other than to point out the obvious fucked up history she made up.
Glad the door hit her in the ass on the way out.
No, IIRC UNC ultimately offered her the job, but NHJ was peeved that they hesitated before capitulating to her, so she threw their offer back in their faces. A proper reward for the university’s cringing appeasement, to get treated with contempt by the person they were trying to appease.
Now, as to deferring to journalists' supposed expertise in history, that’s a bad idea: history shows that your average journalist is not an expert on history. Some journalists do deep dives into historical subjects, applying journalistic methods, especially when there are still living witnesses. But that’s not what most journalists have experience in doing.
Why is an arm of the state training journalists qua journalists?
Why is any academic institution doing it?
Why not train future journalists on the subjects they will end up covering – not just politics but math, science, economics – you know, the subjects about which their sources will try to fool them. Actual work on actual journalistic outlets would provide the specifically journalistic training.
Of course, the risk is that, if they learn too much STEM stuff or what have you, they might get a better-paying job than journalism. But maybe they could still do journalisming on the side, using the knowledge they have from their main job.
I’m confused by what free-expression principle is behind the idea of having one level of government (composed of academics) choose administrators based on politics, while other levels of government (trustees) have to rubber-stamp what the lower level decided.
This is an “academic freedom” principle, but academic freedom is broader than the First Amendment and includes issues of governing structures. This is a debatable issue, even in the university itself.
There’s even a question whether trustees are violating their trust by too much rubber-stamping.
It’s not like they’re deciding here about the value of a brain surgeon’s work at a medical school – maybe your average banker, serving as a trustee, would lack the necessary knowledge to second-guess the surgeon’s colleagues who want him as boss.
But not every academic subject is brain surgery. In the softer studies, our hypothetical banker can tell the difference between chicken shit and chicken salad. Maybe he even has experience in seeing how journalists cover the economy, and measuring that coverage against his own knowledge.
(I’m almost sorry I used a banker as an analogy since bankers vary in quality, but let us suppose a good, competent banker.)
having one level of government (composed of academics) choose administrators based on politics
In what universe do faculty choose administrators?
This one, lardass. In the time it took you to eat those 6 Twinkies while making yourself look like a retarded piece of shit you could have looked that up yourself.
lol. That form is for faculty to *evaluate* administrators, not select them. Administrators are selected by the board, as they always have been.
"Academic freedom", a concept invented by a union of professors to launder their desire for absolute control over universities without any outside oversight, should be suppressed whenever and wherever it tries to raise its head.
If we're going to have any public universities, they should be entirely answerable to the duly-elected representatives of the public in all decisions, including policies, hiring, curriculum, and research. Insofar as the duly-elected university governance chooses to allow greater or lesser degrees of faculty input on policies and hiring, or autonomy on curriculum and research, that should be entirely a locally-negotiated contractual arrangement.
If professors want to teach at universities that are run by a professors' cooperative, they are perfectly free to start their own private institutions and attempt to raise funds for them.
Hey cytotoxic: this also neatly snaps off your false dilemma in your fat fucking asshole. Have somebody who actually attended college read it to you and then explain what it means you fat fucking bitch.
Judging by the responses, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised at how many people here explicitly want public universities to be ideological indoctrination camps, but here we are.
There was a time when civic-minded people created public institutions with the idea that they would serve a higher ideal, even if those institutions from time to time did not produce results that each citizen personally agreed with.
But now it appears that this civic-mindedness has been lost, and the demand is that these institutions must serve the narrow parochial demands of citizens and taxpayers even at the expense of the higher ideal that they were intended to serve.
It's these types of responses which causes me to have despair for the libertarian movement. Because if we ever do get to a state of a vastly reduced government and a vastly reduced welfare state, social problems won't just suddenly go away - it will require civic-minded people, charitable people, selfless people to give of themselves to help those who are less fortunate, who otherwise would have received help from the welfare state. But if that civic-minded virtue is lost, then I fear that we will instead just have a bunch of narrow-minded assholes encamped in their bunkers telling the less fortunate to just fuck off.
I shouldn’t be too surprised at how many people here explicitly want public universities to be ideological indoctrination camps...
That boat already sailed a long time ago. The question now is whether those indoctrination camps will enforce the doctrines of the bureaucracy that rules them or those of the public forced to pay for them by weight of law.
The simplest answer is to dispense with the public university and let the market sort itself out.
I agree that schools generally should be privatized, but privatizing the schools doesn't address the heart of the matter here though.
In the private marketplace, we all have the choice to serve our narrow short-term interests, or to serve our broader ideals. Do we buy the lowest-price item at Walmart that is made in China? Or do we spend more money and spend more time looking for the domestically made product, in order to serve an ideal of supporting domestic industry? Do we buy the cheap disposable item? Or do we do some research and buy the more durable and sustainable item which serves an ideal of being good stewards of the environment? And we see, time and time again, what tends to happen is that more people tend to choose their short-term interests over their long-term ideals. They tend to buy the cheap shit from Walmart over the slightly more expensive goods that support American businesses. They tend to buy the disposable crap that has to be replaced in a few years rather than buy more sustainable item that is better for the environment. That is because there tends to be a cost associated with choosing one's ideals over one's short-term interests.
So what will happen if the schools are all fully privatized? I submit that we will tend to see the same dynamic at play. Consumers will tend to choose their short-term interests over their broader ideals. They may SAY they want their kids to have a "well rounded education" but when it comes to their tuition dollars, they will choose the school that aligns with their ideology over the one that presents a multitude of ideas, some of which conflict with their ideology.
So privatizing the schools is good and all, but that's not the real solution to the problem here. The real solution here has to be to convince more people to choose the broader ideal of a well-rounded liberal education, over their short-term interest of never being upset because they are exposed to an idea they don't like. Because if people don't have that, then it doesn't matter if the schools are public or private - they will make their choice either way, either at the ballot box or with their wallets.
“But now it appears that this civic-mindedness has been lost, “
The absurdity here is the inherent assertion that only now has this civic mindedness been lost. The reality is this was lost 50 years ago when the end of the Vietnam War deprived leftist radicals of their popular support and in response they began their march though our institutions so they could accomplish their agenda bureaucratically. Revealingly Jeff has no objection to the loss of our civic mindedness over the course of 5 decades. Only now that others respond in kind does he dredge up these long dead fantasies, but only to blame others. He still directs no criticism to those who killed what he supposedly supports showing that he doesn’t really care about it at all. After all if he did care he would surely express some criticism toward the people who actually caused the problem. He doesn’t though because protecting them is his goal.
Ok boomer.
Remember, this is the guy who poses as interested in honest discussion.
Tu quoque is so impressive. In Jeff’s defense it probably is better than his trying to address the merits since they are obviously correct.
It’s interesting though we have another tool who seems to think everyone who knows anything before the last election must be a boomer. Leftists do this because they know their beliefs contradict themselves based solely on whether they are in power so they want to delegitimize understanding how our current circumstances evolved.
One can see the dilemma here - NOT hiring someone based on their views on race, gender & sexual identity - if their views espouse the NEED TO hire based on race, gender & sexual identity - seems inappropriate from one perspective. In this case, the candidate had excellent qualifications from the meritocratic viewpoint and advocated for a proportionality representative faculty to ease students’ identification and learning from “someone like them”.
The intersectionality expectation adds complexity though. What was once an expectation for male/female and Black/white representation now expands to smaller intersectional sub-categories, like Black Queer. Even in the Black Queer intersectional sub-category, there appears to be sensitivity to the ‘transitioned-from’ identity - can a Black queer student transitioned from a female birth sex truly feel comfortable learning from a Black Queer faculty member transitioned from a male birth sex? Apparently not. It seems the minimum faculty size has to expand to accommodate the increasingly fractal nature of representative proportionality.
"Political appointees should have no role in faculty hiring decisions."
Is not Texas A&M a public university? Yes, it is. So, political appointees should have a role in faculty hiring decisions.
Why is Reason so insistent that we create a nobility of unaccountable education lords?
Political appointees should have no role in faculty hiring decisions.
This seems odd, to say the least. The Board of any university is supposed to the group exercising control of the institution on behalf of its owners. It's why they're elected by the owners of the institution. To say the owners of an institution should have no say in the personnel decisions of the institution is....novel, at last from a libertarian perspective. Is the preference for personnel decisions be made by the employees in a Survivor-style popularity contest?
This would apply double for a public university, where the owners of the university, the taxpayers, are forced into their relationship by means of state coercion. The faculty and staff of a state public university are state bureaucrats. To claim that only the bureaucracy and not the representatives of the public forced to pay for that bureaucracy should have a say in the personnel decisions of the public university is to throw overboard any notion of a representative republic in favor of an artificial aristocracy.
Sure, the Board of Trustees *can* exercise that level of control. They *can* micromanage the affairs of the university. But that is not an appropriate level of management for any board of any large organization, really. A more appropriate type of board-level management is to set overall policy and vision for the institution, and hire the executive officers to achieve that vision.
This really just goes back to the whole argument of what 'local control by school boards' really means. I guess you are arguing that the elected officials - school board, Board of Trustees, whomever - should have to approve every single decision made by the institution? If a teacher wants to buy a pencil, it has to be approved by the board first?
"set overall policy and vision for the institution, and hire the executive officers to achieve that vision."
The head of an academic department *is* an executive officer.
The head of an academic department is more like middle management.
I'm talking about people like the Chief Academic Officer or the Chief Financial Officer. Those are the types of people that are more appropriate for a Board of Trustees to appoint.
Whomever said that is either an abject retard, deliberately misleading, or both. If that’s how somebody wants their board of trustees to operate, that works but the idea that that’s the only way a board of trustees works is, again, absolutely retarded. There are all kinds of trusts overseen by boards of trustees who hire no one and explicitly determine on a person-by-person basis who the trust’s funds get distributed to. The board specifically does *not* set the overall vision the trust's benefactor does and the trustees are in charge of ensuring that vision.
Is the preference for personnel decisions be made by the employees in a Survivor-style popularity contest?
"Big Brother, Suvivor, hell, fucking Thunderdome for all I care. #NeverApprentice #HiredNotFiredNoMatterWho"
I would *love* to live in a world where it was 100% clear that the above is 100% parody and nobody has to actually wonder if anybody else's TDS runs so deep as to actually bias their hiring/firing methodology preferences in such a fashion. Alas, that is not our world.