Aahhh, how little we know about the real world.

Here's Pat Robertson's take on college professors this week and why students (250,000 he hopes - and Shelby only wants 20,000?) must attend HIS university.  Is this the real world?  He is discussing the psychotic David Horowitz's latest screed and claims that leftist professors are "killers."  How fascist can you get without using the label?

ROBERTSON: Ladies and gentleman this is a fascinating book. If you want to, you'd better take your blood pressure medicine before you read it, but it's "The Professors: The 101 most dangerous academics in America" and that's just a short list of the 30-40,000 of them, they're like termites that have worked into the woodwork of our academic society and it's appalling. This is available at CBN.com and book stores everywhere, and you really ought to read it and be informed.

TERRI: It’s interesting that so many conservatives haven't seen this because decades ago we were told that infiltrating education was the way to take over the country, we should have been on alert.

ROBERTSON: They gamed it, these guys are out and out communists, they are radicals, you know some of them killers, and they are propagandists of the first order and they don't want anybody else except them. That's why Regent University for example is so terrifically important and why we're setting up an undergraduate program that hopefully will see shortly 10,000 students, and then from there 250,000 because you don't want your child to be brainwashed by these radicals, you just don't want it to happen. Not only brainwashed but beat up, they beat these people up, cower them into submission. Ahhh! "The Professors", read it.

Angeline wrote:

---

Aahhh, how little we know about the real world. Here's Pat Robertson's take on college professors this week and why students (250,000 he hopes - and Shelby only wants 20,000?) must attend HIS university.  Is this the real world?  He is discussing the psychotic David Horowitz's latest screed and claims that leftist professors are "killers."  How fascist can you get without using the label? ROBERTSON: Ladies and gentleman this is a fascinating book. If you want to, you'd better take your blood pressure medicine before you read it, but it's "The Professors: The 101 most dangerous academics in America" and that's just a short list of the 30-40,000 of them, they're like termites that have worked into the woodwork of our academic society and it's appalling. This is available at CBN.com and book stores everywhere, and you really ought to read it and be informed. TERRI: It’s interesting that so many conservatives haven't seen this because decades ago we were told that infiltrating education was the way to take over the country, we should have been on alert. ROBERTSON: They gamed it, these guys are out and out communists, they are radicals, you know some of them killers, and they are propagandists of the first order and they don't want anybody else except them. That's why Regent University for example is so terrifically important and why we're setting up an undergraduate program that hopefully will see shortly 10,000 students, and then from there 250,000 because you don't want your child to be brainwashed by these radicals, you just don't want it to happen. Not only brainwashed but beat up, they beat these people up, cower them into submission. Ahhh! "The Professors", read it.

---

I hope you are not turning this into another "anti-intellectual" thread, Angeline.  Although, this is part of the anti-intellectual war going on in this country (and other parts of the world).

5 Questions & Some Answers wrote:

---

Wasn't I told that Shelby Thames was unique in that he did not consult faculty before making decisions? Wasn't I told that ST's management style was unlike any other university president's in the country? Wasn't I told that "real" university presidents don't make economic development a goal? Wasn't I told that Thames has an unnatural fixation on applied research? Wasn't I told that no other "real" university use ST's approach to running a university? The answer to all of the above is "YES". At one time or another, all of these claims have been leveled against Thames and the posters on this board have supported those assertions. Thames has been painted as a unique destroyer of USM instead of what he is -- USM's version of what's going on at a lot of other schools. I guess Harvard, Baylor, Stanford, and Tufts are universities that USM doesn't want to emulate. When I read articles like this, it tells me two things. First, it tells me just how out of touch most USM faculty are with what's going on elsewhere. Second, it tells me just how stubborn and unwilling to change faculty are nationwide. We need more reform to the system so that the citizens of Mississippi can get something out of USM other than a good 1960's high school education for our kids. The "balance of power" talked about in the article is slowly swinging away from faculty. It's amazing how profs at other schools are parroting the same tired quotes that have been heard around here for quite a while.

---

No -- you weren't told that.

There have been a number of quite interesting discussions over the past two years concerning how this administration seemed to be at least one example of a troubling trend in higher education.

And please remember that there are many voices on this website -- don't address it or the faculty as though there is one opinion. Careful reading indicates a high degree of disagreement even among those in similar political or ideological camps.

 

stephen judd wrote:

---

5 Questions & Some Answers wrote:
Wasn't I told that Shelby Thames was unique in that he did not consult faculty before making decisions? Wasn't I told that ST's management style was unlike any other university president's in the country? Wasn't I told that "real" university presidents don't make economic development a goal? Wasn't I told that Thames has an unnatural fixation on applied research? Wasn't I told that no other "real" university use ST's approach to running a university? The answer to all of the above is "YES". At one time or another, all of these claims have been leveled against Thames and the posters on this board have supported those assertions. Thames has been painted as a unique destroyer of USM instead of what he is -- USM's version of what's going on at a lot of other schools. I guess Harvard, Baylor, Stanford, and Tufts are universities that USM doesn't want to emulate. When I read articles like this, it tells me two things. First, it tells me just how out of touch most USM faculty are with what's going on elsewhere. Second, it tells me just how stubborn and unwilling to change faculty are nationwide. We need more reform to the system so that the citizens of Mississippi can get something out of USM other than a good 1960's high school education for our kids. The "balance of power" talked about in the article is slowly swinging away from faculty. It's amazing how profs at other schools are parroting the same tired quotes that have been heard around here for quite a while.

No -- you weren't told that.
There have been a number of quite interesting discussions over the past two years concerning how this administration seemed to be at least one example of a troubling trend in higher education.
And please remember that there are many voices on this website -- don't address it or the faculty as though there is one opinion. Careful reading indicates a high degree of disagreement even among those in similar political or ideological camps.
 

---

OK, so USM isn't really that different than the institutions named in the article. Presidents are trying to serve a constituency and faculty are impeding the process.

By the way, logicians, an appeal to tradition is one of the weakest forms of defense. Don't tell me that "academia's always been run this way, so we don't need to change it."

5 Questions wrote:

---

stephen judd wrote: 5 Questions & Some Answers wrote: Wasn't I told that Shelby Thames was unique in that he did not consult faculty before making decisions? Wasn't I told that ST's management style was unlike any other university president's in the country? Wasn't I told that "real" university presidents don't make economic development a goal? Wasn't I told that Thames has an unnatural fixation on applied research? Wasn't I told that no other "real" university use ST's approach to running a university? The answer to all of the above is "YES". At one time or another, all of these claims have been leveled against Thames and the posters on this board have supported those assertions. Thames has been painted as a unique destroyer of USM instead of what he is -- USM's version of what's going on at a lot of other schools. I guess Harvard, Baylor, Stanford, and Tufts are universities that USM doesn't want to emulate. When I read articles like this, it tells me two things. First, it tells me just how out of touch most USM faculty are with what's going on elsewhere. Second, it tells me just how stubborn and unwilling to change faculty are nationwide. We need more reform to the system so that the citizens of Mississippi can get something out of USM other than a good 1960's high school education for our kids. The "balance of power" talked about in the article is slowly swinging away from faculty. It's amazing how profs at other schools are parroting the same tired quotes that have been heard around here for quite a while. No -- you weren't told that. There have been a number of quite interesting discussions over the past two years concerning how this administration seemed to be at least one example of a troubling trend in higher education. And please remember that there are many voices on this website -- don't address it or the faculty as though there is one opinion. Careful reading indicates a high degree of disagreement even among those in similar political or ideological camps.   OK, so USM isn't really that different than the institutions named in the article. Presidents are trying to serve a constituency and faculty are impeding the process. By the way, logicians, an appeal to tradition is one of the weakest forms of defense. Don't tell me that "academia's always been run this way, so we don't need to change it."

---

So far all of your arguments consist of putting statements in the mouths of people who did not utter them and then arguing against them.

No one said USM isn't that different . . .  that is your statment (i.e oversimplification).

No one said that "academia has always been running that way, so we don't need to change it." You are badly simplifying more nuanced arguments that have been addressed for almost two years in much more complex forms.

This kind of thing doesn't serve many useful ends other than getting people juiced up -- a nice strategy for an entertainment medium like talk radio. A poor strategy for actually discussing the issues.  

Few academics would argue that university management needs to be examined. There is at least a worthwhile discussion to be had about whether in the course of putting in new management methods whether the methods aren't actually remaking the content of the university  . . .  whether that is intentional or unintentional. Since the nature of traditional academic inquiry is extremely wedded to content as well as application, this is no small matter. Although you may think that academics make this argument only from self interest (a truth that does need to be acknowleged); the concern also comes from an underlying concern about the nature of knowlege and the definition of an educated human being, and the role a university has in both.

One point that is seldom made is that those who wish to inaugerate "Good" business practices in the university (no disagreement there -- only on what "good" means) also have a self interest involved. Those who support the "new management" styles without caveat seem to miss the way in which university bureaucracies have exploded, the pay gap between of leading university administrators and faculty and staff has grown increasingly wider even as faculty and staff take on more and more duties that were formerly done by management. There seems to be little discussion about whether these new styles are either producing more :bang for the buck" in terms of management efficiency; whether they are better serving the students, and whether they are in fact helping the academic enterprise or harming it.

Those are all points worth discussing . . . . and have been discussed frequently (in quite civil terms) throughout the history of this board. I hope that you will read backwards into some of those past threads on this and the Fire Shelby Board. One USA Today article which primarily focuses on interviewing management/administration experts in a limited number of venues (and Stanford, Harvard, and Tufts are all private entities with quite different missions and rather large endowments) gives a fairly limited view of a substantial issue.

There are good arguments on both sides  . . . . the Thames administration is a good example of a management team that seems to have only quite shallowly aproached the issue of reorganization.

Just for the record, I was at Duke when it got a massive reorganization in the early eighties.

That was controversial too . . . but people weren't on the streets because the admnistration made tough decisions that were clear, transparent, and well communicated. Check it out -- from Terry Sandford's retirement to the hiring of Keith Brodie.

 

Southern Fried wrote:

---

You are a college professor,  aren't you?  Where's the evidence of your "rational, critical thinking?"  It really is tiresome to wade through your constant indiscriminate slams against business and American capitalism and those of us who share a conservative bent.  If you're at USM,  then I'm a colleague and we're probably acquainted. I'm also a Libertarian, an economic conservative, and a believer in capitalism.  That makes me an economic radical?  ...

---

With all due respect, Southern Fried, I would like to address an aspect of your post answering Angeline.  I'm really not rebutting your post, but addressing an aspect that may be contributing to the rants against American capitalism in academia.

I have seen first hand the impact of capitalist principles on science.  Science is suppose to develop in a search for truth, but it is being distorted into a search for capital.  I have seen scientific studies which were incomplete, not reaching scientific conclusions because the "sponsor" only paid for a limited study.  The work couldn't be published as science, but the profs received very good raises because of the "grant" money they obtained.  (Grant is in quotes  because some of this was "pork" to do contractual services rather than real science.)

In science, as in other disciplines, proposals and publications undergo peer review.  However this is being bypassed by people willing to do work for funding.   They are told what to propose to receive the funding, rather than what should be studied to advance science.  Many times the work isn't really science, but engineering.  Applied science and engineering have connections to industry and funding that basic science doesn't.

All of this reminds me of corporate VPs making decisions for the short term impact and their resume enhancement. They then leave the organization before the consequences of their decisions bring the organization down.  We are benefiting today from the discoveries made in basic science decades ago by people searching for knowledge for the sake of knowledge.  While today we only seek profit  and do not invest in real research for the future.  This administration is an expert in this activity and call it economic development. 

Thanks for reading my rant on the impact of applying capitalistic principles to science. 

Please notice that I am not "Southern Fried".

Scientist,

Let's say you want to leave Hattiesburg and go for a vacation in San Diego. However, you don't have the money to cover the entire trip. You find a sponsor who will pay your plane ticket to San Diego (and back) but will not fund your vacation beyond that point. Your sponsor is an organ bank who will require you to fly an organ (on ice) to a transplant recipient in San Diego -- that is your quid pro quo. Once in San Diego, you will have to pay for room, board, etc., out of your own pocket.

Should you decline the sponsorship simply because it is incomplete? Should you decline the sponsorship because of the strings attached? Should you decline the sponsorship because it will still require too much out-of-pocket expense on your part? These are real issues to be considered.

If a scientist enters into a grant arrangement, he/she knows the score: how much funding, limitations, etc. If he/she chooses to do the research, then it is an informed decision made by the researcher. If the sponsor only partially funds the research and the scientist does not or will not complete the research using out-of-pocket funds, then that is not the fault of capitalism (who paid your way to San Diego) but the fault of the researcher (who failed to appropriately estimate the cost of hotel rooms and food in San Diego when he/she was deciding what to do).

There's a difference between a capitalist and a benefactor. The argument you're advancing makes it sound like you want a benefactor who will drop money in your lap and not expect anything in return.

Southern Justice wrote:

---

Please notice that I am not "Southern Fried". Scientist, Let's say you want to leave Hattiesburg and go for a vacation in San Diego. However, you don't have the money to cover the entire trip. You find a sponsor who will pay your plane ticket to San Diego (and back) but will not fund your vacation beyond that point. Your sponsor is an organ bank who will require you to fly an organ (on ice) to a transplant recipient in San Diego -- that is your quid pro quo. Once in San Diego, you will have to pay for room, board, etc., out of your own pocket. Should you decline the sponsorship simply because it is incomplete? Should you decline the sponsorship because of the strings attached? Should you decline the sponsorship because it will still require too much out-of-pocket expense on your part? These are real issues to be considered. If a scientist enters into a grant arrangement, he/she knows the score: how much funding, limitations, etc. If he/she chooses to do the research, then it is an informed decision made by the researcher. If the sponsor only partially funds the research and the scientist does not or will not complete the research using out-of-pocket funds, then that is not the fault of capitalism (who paid your way to San Diego) but the fault of the researcher (who failed to appropriately estimate the cost of hotel rooms and food in San Diego when he/she was deciding what to do). There's a difference between a capitalist and a benefactor. The argument you're advancing makes it sound like you want a benefactor who will drop money in your lap and not expect anything in return.

---

Unfortunately, the comparison begins badly by drawing a parallel between research and "vacation."

There are many worthy areas of study that the corporate world will not fund because there is no clear enomic benefit. Government and private benefactors are important agencies to help fill that gap and to support research on principle, knowing that it is difficult to know what end any piece of particular research may have . . . . it is important that society not  assume that th eonly research worth support (or the only knowlege worth achieving) is that which has an immediate economic benefit.

Clearly the problem under such conditions becomes how to support research and learning that may not have a clearly definable utility -- what standards are used to decide what should be supported, and what must be declined. This is a complicated proposition and not only cannot, of circumstance, be done neatly, but decisions will be made that will sometimes be wrong. Sometimes good research will not receive support -- sometimes bad research will get support. I think there is no way around this dilemma --  

Clearly, even in research areas with some tangible benefit both corporations and government are prepared to tolerate a high degree of "waste" -- meaning research that fails or ends badly or is inconclusive. Clearly this is the case in much military research, and has often been the case in private research.

In past time, this argument was about the level of "basic" research a society chooses to fund, private or government. Increasingly, the argument has become whether to fund such knowlege aquisition at all.

This is short sighted, not only because it sets the stage for a limited intellectual horizon in a culture (a limitation which will inevitably culminate in a failure of imagination) but because the support and development of imagination of all types both advertises and encourages a society's belief in the adventurous . . . . The American market has always been strong because it recognized a balance between the power of the individual imagination and financial support  . . . .  the ability of inventors, researchers and intellectuals to do long term planning AND to learn the art of persuasion has all to do with believing that someone with resources can be persuaded to take risks, or to invest in such activity simply on the basis of its legitimacy as an activity in which a culture wishes to invest and support.

Basic research (meaning research so intrinsic that it does not lead directly to an outcome) needs to be seen as a resource that can be cultivated. It can also be starved.

 

stephen judd wrote:

---

Unfortunately, the comparison begins badly by drawing a parallel between research and "vacation."
There are many worthy areas of study that the corporate world will not fund because there is no clear enomic benefit. Government and private benefactors are important agencies to help fill that gap and to support research on principle, knowing that it is difficult to know what end any piece of particular research may have . . . . it is important that society not  assume that th eonly research worth support (or the only knowlege worth achieving) is that which has an immediate economic benefit.
Clearly the problem under such conditions becomes how to support research and learning that may not have a clearly definable utility -- what standards are used to decide what should be supported, and what must be declined. This is a complicated proposition and not only cannot, of circumstance, be done neatly, but decisions will be made that will sometimes be wrong. Sometimes good research will not receive support -- sometimes bad research will get support. I think there is no way around this dilemma --  
Clearly, even in research areas with some tangible benefit both corporations and government are prepared to tolerate a high degree of "waste" -- meaning research that fails or ends badly or is inconclusive. Clearly this is the case in much military research, and has often been the case in private research.
In past time, this argument was about the level of "basic" research a society chooses to fund, private or government. Increasingly, the argument has become whether to fund such knowlege aquisition at all.
This is short sighted, not only because it sets the stage for a limited intellectual horizon in a culture (a limitation which will inevitably culminate in a failure of imagination) but because the support and development of imagination of all types both advertises and encourages a society's belief in the adventurous . . . . The American market has always been strong because it recognized a balance between the power of the individual imagination and financial support  . . . .  the ability of inventors, researchers and intellectuals to do long term planning AND to learn the art of persuasion has all to do with believing that someone with resources can be persuaded to take risks, or to invest in such activity simply on the basis of its legitimacy as an activity in which a culture wishes to invest and support.
Basic research (meaning research so intrinsic that it does not lead directly to an outcome) needs to be seen as a resource that can be cultivated. It can also be starved.
 

---

First and foremost, let me say that my "bad analogy" is equating two things the principal assumedly "wants" to do. I'm not equating research with vacation, simply building an analogy based on two activities that presumably are positives to the hypothetical individual.

Second, Scientist posts that (s)he has "seen first hand the impact of capitalist principles on science." It is a well-known fact that most capitalistic research labs do not follow the Bell model. Researchers in areas that are attractive to capitalists know this and should not claim to have been hoodwinked by the capitalists. If profits flow from capitalistic ventures to researchers (in the form of overhead, patent income, etc.), then that income can be used to supplement other research projects that are less attractive to capitalists. By using capitalism to fund the research that is feasibly funded by such financiers, university research funds can be used to fund projects that have no capitalistic application.

There are spaces in our world for capitalists and for benefactors. We should take responsibility for our decisions to enagge in research that is funded by a capitalist just as we should be willing to acknowledge the support of a benefactor. If you don't want strings attached, then don't mess around with a capitalist [Alternatively, I am suddenly reminded of "Fred's" benefactress in Breakfast at Tiffany's]. Scientist makes it sound as if capitalists are raping academia, which is untrue. One should expect certain behavior and motivation from someone whose stated goal is profit. On the other hand, there are some areas (arts) in which patronage is the norm and capitalism less established.

I find it a tad strange that someone who can do publishable research in his chosen field cannot anticipate more robustly the outcomes of associations with certain entities and plan his or her research accordingly. Contrarily, if one doesn't want to do research but does it only to stay in a job, then I don't have much sympathy for that.

stephen judd wrote:

---

Unfortunately, the comparison begins badly by drawing a parallel between research and "vacation."

---

Stephen,  I think you would be well advised to examine the "Southern Justice" post again, and perhaps the later post from "Southern Fried."   SJ's  partially funded research--partially funded vacation analogy seems apt as it properly addresses the volitional element in accepting restricted grant monies from industry.  Surely there is room for research that is funded by for-profit corporations and by university controlled research funds which originate from private benefactors.   Scientific research has become so cash intensive that I don't see either source of funding as being sufficient when taken alone.

Gussie's Fried Chicken wrote:

---

Southern Fried wrote: I too am a scientist . . . .  In my field,  much of the seminal research of the past 20 years would likely have never been conducted without massive funding subsidies from private industry. In the same vein,  much of our ongoing research would grind to a halt without Southern Fried, as a prevous poster suggested, do not confuse 'development' with 'research' (thus the term R&D"). Private industry provides funds for 'development' in order to use the specialized facilities that exist on university campuses specifically for the benefit of that industry. Such projects are designed the good of the industry. They are usually 'contracts' and not 'grants' (thus the term 'contractual research.'). The investigator is much like a 'paid hand' laboring for industry. I know. I've had both.

---

I've been employed as a senior research scientist at a Fortune 500 company, and have conducted research for some years now as a university faculty member.  I appreciate the differences,  and the similarities between research and R&D.  If you don't believe that scientists in private industry engage in pure research,  allow me to disabuse you of that notion now.  It's the bedrock of all R&D.  I wish I could hang around for more of this discussion but have to meet with a grad student.  Plus,  I need to act extra busy in case someone is shadowing me today.  I yield the floor.

Southern Justice wrote:

---

Please notice that I am not "Southern Fried". Scientist, Let's say you want to leave Hattiesburg and go for a vacation in San Diego. However, you don't have the money to cover the entire trip. You find a sponsor who will pay your plane ticket to San Diego (and back) but will not fund your vacation beyond that point. Your sponsor is an organ bank who will require you to fly an organ (on ice) to a transplant recipient in San Diego -- that is your quid pro quo. Once in San Diego, you will have to pay for room, board, etc., out of your own pocket. Should you decline the sponsorship simply because it is incomplete? Should you decline the sponsorship because of the strings attached? Should you decline the sponsorship because it will still require too much out-of-pocket expense on your part? These are real issues to be considered. If a scientist enters into a grant arrangement, he/she knows the score: how much funding, limitations, etc. If he/she chooses to do the research, then it is an informed decision made by the researcher. If the sponsor only partially funds the research and the scientist does not or will not complete the research using out-of-pocket funds, then that is not the fault of capitalism (who paid your way to San Diego) but the fault of the researcher (who failed to appropriately estimate the cost of hotel rooms and food in San Diego when he/she was deciding what to do). There's a difference between a capitalist and a benefactor. The argument you're advancing makes it sound like you want a benefactor who will drop money in your lap and not expect anything in return.

---

Thanks for your response, Southern Justice.  I just returned and see that Stephen Judd has responded nicely to this post and there is not much I can add to Stephen's reply. 

I would like to post a story that illustrates the point of my concern (which in a later post you indicate you share).   Most don't know the story of how Einstein, doing an abstract calculation in Quantum Mechanics (1920s or 30s) discovered that an atom can be stimulated to emit radiation if radiation of a certain type is passing it.  The phenomenon is called Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation.  It wasn't until the late 50s or early 60s that scientist used this principle to build the first LASER.   Imagine if Einstein was asked, "What use is your research?"  (Remember it was a discovery, he was surprised by the outcome also.) 

Wouldn't it be interesting if people in Einstein's community couldn't see how to make money from his research  or have "economic development" from it, there would be no lasers today.  Basic research requires a search for knowledge for the sake of knowledge.  This is contrary to capitalistic principles.

Southern Fried wrote:

---

Yes,  this was true of Bell Labs,  as well as my previous employer ....... I was hired to conduct research in a specific area and once onboard was unfettered.  I presume this was predicated on the assumption that I knew what I was doing, and wouldn't squander the company's time or resources.  No one ever directed me to undertake a project with the intention of "inventing" a product which might be sold for profit. 

 I was referring to projects conducted on- campus while a university faculty member - not those conducted off- campus while employed by private industry.

I'm certainly not offended by your take on contract projects displayed on one's vita.  I personally don't have any such projects to tout  since entering academia,  but see nothing wrong with noting them so long as they're properly represented.

All appropriate projects (including those conducted as research, those conducted as contracts, those conducted while in industry, and those conducted while in academics) should be included on a vita.  My point (which I obviously didn't make very clear) is that I have problems with private industry hiring faculty members to conduct private work on university property and with university resources  - unless that work is, as you say, unfettered.

I realize that my position is not compatible with  USM's move toward privatization, but it is my position.

---

Southern Fried wrote:

---

 Sorry,  I didn't understand your original point.  I agree with your position on such projects.

---

Whew!! I'm glad to get that cleared up. Sorry about the misunderstanding. It sounds like your private industry background is very good for USM.