Elite universities are the least of our problems with higher education. While state institutions are theoretically subject to political control, the key word is theoretically. Basically, conservatives have just done a terrible job in exercising that control. (I blame sportsball which is an endless source of perks for politicians.) My #1 priority would be to retake the Colleges of Education which are not only a bastion of the Left on their own but corrupt K-12 in the bargain.
Every problem in the USA - the country being too lawyered up, too many regulations, abominably poor K-12 education pipeline for the money spent, and now the spread of pro-Hamas protests - all of it is due to private Ivies. Elite state universities like the UC system do contribute, but less than 20%.
IMO, this that the post WW2 American Academe itself it not a neutral inheritance of Dartmouth v Woodward but a deliberately contrived consolidation built through Cold War federal funding, licensing cartels, cultural planning, and various chicaneries by powerful interests, in other words, the University as we know it was contrived into existence by powerful interests, not captured in partisan skirmishes. Your argument for the future, that conservatives should reassert control over existing elite universities, mistakes the structure itself for a natural given and so it misses the far better path, which is not to replicate the Federalist or Jeffersonian strategies of capture but to re-pluralize the Academe so as to restore the Old American Academe, civic colleges, polytechnics, pluralized high schools, independent professional schools, normal schools, and more institutions that were embedded in local society and that once supplied both expertise and civilizational depth, and in both those cases in a far better and more comprehensive way than the System we have now
Interesting history, first time I heard the story told.
Another story that would be interesting for American Compass to explore that was expressly political in exactly the way you describe would be the liberal version of Keynes’ macroeconomics, as the liberal version intentionally deleted and redefined the conservative elements in Keynes, such that I would not call anything in the field of macroeconomics today actually Keynesian.
Beyond that I can tell you that I have spent a lot of time in the academy and have a lot of respect for the liberal arts and sciences.
In the field of sociology, for example, the standard cannon beyond quantitative methods is the work of Marx, Durkheim, and Weber. In so far as they all investigate the existing being of society, based upon historical evidence - they could all be thought of as conservative scholars, even though Deneen would object.
Roughing up the Ivy League schools is just going to build resentment and make progress more difficult.
The Trump administration functions on loyalty not competence and gives conservative scholarship a black eye one day after another. Ask yourself, for example, why do the policy proposals of American Compass, get so little traction in the financial arena, fiscal policy, industrial policy, etc. you get tariffs and immigrants thrown out of the country and not much else
IMO, this that the post WW2 American Academe itself it not a neutral inheritance of Dartmouth v Woodward but a deliberately contrived consolidation built through Cold War federal funding, licensing cartels, cultural planning, and various chicaneries by powerful interests, in other words, the University as we know it was contrived into existence by powerful interests, not captured in partisan skirmishes.
Your argument for the future, that conservatives should reassert control over existing elite universities, mistakes the structure itself for a natural given and so it misses the far better path, which is not to replicate the Federalist or Jeffersonian strategies of capture but to re-pluralize the Academe so as to restore the Old American Academe, civic colleges, polytechnics, pluralized high schools, independent professional schools, normal schools, and more institutions that were embedded in local society and that once supplied both expertise and civilizational depth, and in both those cases in a far better and more comprehensive way than the System we have now
What about just use the system that exists. Congress funds what it what's to fund. Civil rights laws are enforced as the administration in power, subject to judicial review, wants to enforce them?
Idk if this is a joke, but that makes no sense. There are no ways for judicial review to happen if civil rights is determined differently every 4 years. That and this article clearly states scotus has political interests, and the ending of random federal courts universal injunctions demonstrates that even while maintaining a more apolitical court. That and Congress is hardly popular in their own right. It'd be such a nightmare having congress decide so much based on immediate political interests. None of that would prevent or uphold either side of the position. Politics mostly fills in gaps; it's not ideal.
Why on God's green earth would anyone listen to the person making a blatant ad hominem argument instead of providing substantial interaction with anything presented in the article?
My real account is right here. One thing for sure is I know that Dear Leader Trump and his supposed Christian followers don't seem to heed to Matthew 25:31-46, which are the direct words of Christ himself.
The whole piece uses loaded language, stereotypes, and reflects a fairly poor description and events. For example, from 1970 onward, Republicans held the White House for Nixon, Ford, Reagan 1, Reagan 2, Bush the Elder, Bush the Younger 1, Bush the Elder 2 and Trump 1. Democrats, Carter, Clinton 1, Clinton 2, Obama 1, Obama 2 and Biden. Eight for Republicans, Six for Democrats. It even notes that in 1987 a BIPARTISAN majority overrode Reagan on limiting Federal Involvement in colleges and universities So, while the author demonizes Democrats, Liberals, Progressives or whatever you want to call them, most of the modern legislation and policies happened during both parties watches in the White House. The author, if he is indeed 26, could have first likely voted for President in 2016, presumably for Trump. He hardly has any worldview other than books to understand what he's talking about, and it's reflected in the poor structure of his prose and argument, both relying on and attacking another author's work. At the end of the day, it's nothing more than a young man's weak justification for all the stuff Trump is doing, most of it not permitted by the Constitution or law, such as withholding funding. At the end of the day, this piece is about power for power's sake, clothed in righteousness, which is a sure sign it's not very righteous at all.
I have not read the book but I think you miss a key point about Higher Education and politics. Indeed as Jim King points out there is no such thing as a political chemistry department. One of the Errors of the Critical "Thinking" movement that captured so much of higher education is that those people thought the areas like biology could be political - so we got useful idiots spouting nonsense like there are hundreds of genders. Even in areas like history, political science and economics we got faculty who reduced everything to politics. When I was an undergraduate I was quite concerned about the implications of the expansion of the Vietnam war. With a small group of fellow students I went to our major professor and demanded that we do a teach in. He was a Quaker activist but came back with a surprising answer - he agreed to support us but only if we used the day to explore the issue not to indoctrinate. We held the day and got discussions from all points of view. The day was political but it was held on ground designed to explore an issue not to sermonize. That small nuance is the important distinction which I think your essay fails to recognize.
How does it fail to recognize it? That's a totally different subject. By the way, he did say downstream of ideologies etc etc is politics. It's obvious that the scientific method holds to certain metaphysics. These metaphysics cannot account for the humanitarian and physical sciences. That leaves a clear gap in the teaching which was interpreted in a political dei sense. That and you can't separate the material from the humanitarian.
Tell me what a more conservative chemistry department would like?
Less race and sex quota people?
Actually no DEI and no race or sex quotas. Even if that means 90% of professors will be straight men, many from overperforming minorities.
Fascinating history. I had never heard of this ruling.
Elite universities are the least of our problems with higher education. While state institutions are theoretically subject to political control, the key word is theoretically. Basically, conservatives have just done a terrible job in exercising that control. (I blame sportsball which is an endless source of perks for politicians.) My #1 priority would be to retake the Colleges of Education which are not only a bastion of the Left on their own but corrupt K-12 in the bargain.
Every problem in the USA - the country being too lawyered up, too many regulations, abominably poor K-12 education pipeline for the money spent, and now the spread of pro-Hamas protests - all of it is due to private Ivies. Elite state universities like the UC system do contribute, but less than 20%.
IMO, this that the post WW2 American Academe itself it not a neutral inheritance of Dartmouth v Woodward but a deliberately contrived consolidation built through Cold War federal funding, licensing cartels, cultural planning, and various chicaneries by powerful interests, in other words, the University as we know it was contrived into existence by powerful interests, not captured in partisan skirmishes. Your argument for the future, that conservatives should reassert control over existing elite universities, mistakes the structure itself for a natural given and so it misses the far better path, which is not to replicate the Federalist or Jeffersonian strategies of capture but to re-pluralize the Academe so as to restore the Old American Academe, civic colleges, polytechnics, pluralized high schools, independent professional schools, normal schools, and more institutions that were embedded in local society and that once supplied both expertise and civilizational depth, and in both those cases in a far better and more comprehensive way than the System we have now
Daniel,
Interesting history, first time I heard the story told.
Another story that would be interesting for American Compass to explore that was expressly political in exactly the way you describe would be the liberal version of Keynes’ macroeconomics, as the liberal version intentionally deleted and redefined the conservative elements in Keynes, such that I would not call anything in the field of macroeconomics today actually Keynesian.
Beyond that I can tell you that I have spent a lot of time in the academy and have a lot of respect for the liberal arts and sciences.
In the field of sociology, for example, the standard cannon beyond quantitative methods is the work of Marx, Durkheim, and Weber. In so far as they all investigate the existing being of society, based upon historical evidence - they could all be thought of as conservative scholars, even though Deneen would object.
Roughing up the Ivy League schools is just going to build resentment and make progress more difficult.
The Trump administration functions on loyalty not competence and gives conservative scholarship a black eye one day after another. Ask yourself, for example, why do the policy proposals of American Compass, get so little traction in the financial arena, fiscal policy, industrial policy, etc. you get tariffs and immigrants thrown out of the country and not much else
IMO, this that the post WW2 American Academe itself it not a neutral inheritance of Dartmouth v Woodward but a deliberately contrived consolidation built through Cold War federal funding, licensing cartels, cultural planning, and various chicaneries by powerful interests, in other words, the University as we know it was contrived into existence by powerful interests, not captured in partisan skirmishes.
Your argument for the future, that conservatives should reassert control over existing elite universities, mistakes the structure itself for a natural given and so it misses the far better path, which is not to replicate the Federalist or Jeffersonian strategies of capture but to re-pluralize the Academe so as to restore the Old American Academe, civic colleges, polytechnics, pluralized high schools, independent professional schools, normal schools, and more institutions that were embedded in local society and that once supplied both expertise and civilizational depth, and in both those cases in a far better and more comprehensive way than the System we have now
What about just use the system that exists. Congress funds what it what's to fund. Civil rights laws are enforced as the administration in power, subject to judicial review, wants to enforce them?
Idk if this is a joke, but that makes no sense. There are no ways for judicial review to happen if civil rights is determined differently every 4 years. That and this article clearly states scotus has political interests, and the ending of random federal courts universal injunctions demonstrates that even while maintaining a more apolitical court. That and Congress is hardly popular in their own right. It'd be such a nightmare having congress decide so much based on immediate political interests. None of that would prevent or uphold either side of the position. Politics mostly fills in gaps; it's not ideal.
Why on God’s green earth would anyone listen to a fellow with a bachelor’s history degree only four year’s out of college?
Why on God's green earth would anyone listen to the person making a blatant ad hominem argument instead of providing substantial interaction with anything presented in the article?
Believe me, a lot of people are saying the author is a total loser. Total whack job.
Okay sock account with two subscribers. What's your real account?
My real account is right here. One thing for sure is I know that Dear Leader Trump and his supposed Christian followers don't seem to heed to Matthew 25:31-46, which are the direct words of Christ himself.
Help Christian brothers and sisters out; Trump and his supposed Christian followers don't do that even if they do — got it!
Anyways, why do you not like the author or the article?
The whole piece uses loaded language, stereotypes, and reflects a fairly poor description and events. For example, from 1970 onward, Republicans held the White House for Nixon, Ford, Reagan 1, Reagan 2, Bush the Elder, Bush the Younger 1, Bush the Elder 2 and Trump 1. Democrats, Carter, Clinton 1, Clinton 2, Obama 1, Obama 2 and Biden. Eight for Republicans, Six for Democrats. It even notes that in 1987 a BIPARTISAN majority overrode Reagan on limiting Federal Involvement in colleges and universities So, while the author demonizes Democrats, Liberals, Progressives or whatever you want to call them, most of the modern legislation and policies happened during both parties watches in the White House. The author, if he is indeed 26, could have first likely voted for President in 2016, presumably for Trump. He hardly has any worldview other than books to understand what he's talking about, and it's reflected in the poor structure of his prose and argument, both relying on and attacking another author's work. At the end of the day, it's nothing more than a young man's weak justification for all the stuff Trump is doing, most of it not permitted by the Constitution or law, such as withholding funding. At the end of the day, this piece is about power for power's sake, clothed in righteousness, which is a sure sign it's not very righteous at all.
I have not read the book but I think you miss a key point about Higher Education and politics. Indeed as Jim King points out there is no such thing as a political chemistry department. One of the Errors of the Critical "Thinking" movement that captured so much of higher education is that those people thought the areas like biology could be political - so we got useful idiots spouting nonsense like there are hundreds of genders. Even in areas like history, political science and economics we got faculty who reduced everything to politics. When I was an undergraduate I was quite concerned about the implications of the expansion of the Vietnam war. With a small group of fellow students I went to our major professor and demanded that we do a teach in. He was a Quaker activist but came back with a surprising answer - he agreed to support us but only if we used the day to explore the issue not to indoctrinate. We held the day and got discussions from all points of view. The day was political but it was held on ground designed to explore an issue not to sermonize. That small nuance is the important distinction which I think your essay fails to recognize.
How does it fail to recognize it? That's a totally different subject. By the way, he did say downstream of ideologies etc etc is politics. It's obvious that the scientific method holds to certain metaphysics. These metaphysics cannot account for the humanitarian and physical sciences. That leaves a clear gap in the teaching which was interpreted in a political dei sense. That and you can't separate the material from the humanitarian.