#AACU16 Thoughts and Reflections
Great insights on the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges and Universities from Bryan Alexander here.
Bryan nicely documents the various threads/themes running through the conference. It is always an intriguing mixture of discussions concerning:
challenges to the liberal model of higher education
the democratizing role of technology in education (and the perceived threat it poses to the liberal model)
study abroad
new/innovative pedagogy
As always, Bryan offers some great food for thought. More to come in response to his posting. For now, I’m happy to publicize his thoughts.
Goldman Sachs and Higher Education’s democratic dilemma
I wrote a comment on the report and the ongoing debate about cost/value in higher education on our other site, Liberal Ed Crisis. The post is here.
The real issue at stake is not necessarily the cost of higher education. If we want to maintain the residential model of higher education, costs will rise as maintaining the physical plant and keeping the student-faculty ratio as low as possible remain expensive.
What is especially troubling is that apologists for the cost of the American model of higher education equate liberal education with a model of teaching that is expensive. They rebel against the notion that liberal education can be conveyed effectively through MOOCs, blended learning or other online educational models. So, as costs increase, critics suggest that the well-to-do will get a “brick-based” education while the 99% will get more of a “click-based” education.
If we continue to resist technological advancement, we then doom the 99% to what seems to be an inferior educational model that will not convey the benefits of liberal learning because it does not entail classrooms, residential campuses, etc. The traditional, increasingly expensive model of education remains an ideal. But, it is clear that if educators do believe that liberal education does convey a package of learning skills and democratic, civic values that are vital to the health of a society, then they have a responsibility to find a way to convey those values through more advanced technological means. If they do not, they undermine the symbiotic connection between liberal education and liberal democracy that organizations such as the AACU celebrate.
If we look beyond the confines of American higher education, we see that technology is driving the democratization of access to education. This TED Talk by Daphne Koller is an especially powerful statement to this effect. It would indeed be paradoxical if, in the name of preserving the means of conveying liberal democratic values, liberal educators made those values less democratically accessible.
The challenge for our educators today is to find a way to put liberal learning to work embrace technology so that we can ensure that access to education, knowledge liberal learning and democratic values is democratized.
Challenges to the West from the Rest–Ross Douthat
Here is a post from our other blog on the crisis in liberal education. It responds to a great piece by Ross Douthat in the 26 December NYT.
We need more judicial activism
I published this piece–In Praise of Judicial Activism–in the Richmond Times here. It received limited feedback. But, it also represents a great change in my opinion. Earlier in my career, I believed that courts should defer to the elected branches and let them take their time to deliberate. Alas, the vision of democracy that underpins that vision is somewhat quixotic. Democracy is quite bogged down by lilliputian interests as Jonathan Rauch and Mancur Olsen have demonstrated. If we wait for vested or entrenched interests to deliberate, minorities may suffer. Besides, if courts really outrage the majority, it still has the power to pass laws in response to court decisions.
The 2016 Democratic Ticket? Clinton/Warren= #RIPGOP?
A suggestion to the Democrats and to the nation. Are we ready for this? The Democrats are poised to make history–if they can shed their history of in-fighting. Place your bets? Thanks to the Richmond Times for Publishing.
2014: An Election about Nothing
The election postmortems all suggest that 2014 is the year of the Republican resurgence, backlash against the President and a rejection of politics as usual in Washington. Maybe the next two years—the last of the Obama administration—will confirm this. But, for now, the election data reveal that this was an election that tells us very little about political change in the United States.
The Democrats should have done much better. Historically, a good economy works in favor of the President’s party. Sure, there are many economic indicators out there. But, those that appeal to folks should have resulted in a much better showing for the Democrats. Gas prices are low and continue to fall. The Dow and S&P 500 are up nearly 100% over the last 5 years. Unemployment has dropped from about 8 to about 6%. The positive economic data abound. But, the Democrats suffered huge losses.
Instead, polls consistently indicate that voters are preoccupied with economic fears. They distrust government and want change. Yet, they voted in record low numbers. Current estimates suggest that turnout nationwide will be about 37%. That’s low even for a midterm election—and the lowest since the Second World War. While ushering Republicans into governors’ seats and state legislatures across the nation, voters wasted their time in congressional races where pundits ranging from Charlie Cook to the Center for Voting and Democracy estimated that some 370 seats (85%) in the House were either completely safe for the incumbent or, worse blowouts. In Virginia, turnout matched the national average of about 37% and the winners in congressional elections in the commonwealth all polled about 60% or better. This is hardly the stuff of competitive democracy.
As pundits and pollsters now turn to focus on who will run for president in 2016, we see the indicators of the political disarray that has characterized the nation for some time. Polls suggest that nearly a dozen Republicans are viable contenders for the party’s nomination. Some would say this is a good thing—a triumph of democracy. It’s also a manifestation of a lack of focus and the absence of a political center for the party. If we look at the heirs to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, the list includes names such as McCain, Palin, Romney, Huckaby, Ryan, Christie, Paul…. Plot those characters on a partisan map and see if you can find a point that represents a coherent ideological center. It is not there.
Looking then, towards 2016, we see that 2014 is much ado about very little. Low turnout and voter malaise hardly translate into an endorsement of a coherent GOP agenda or response to the President. The GOP ran a brilliant campaign against an unpopular president on a district-by-district level. But, this is easy compared to the challenge of mounting a coordinated, coherent national campaign in support of one political standard bearer for a party that suffers from deep divisions.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is the clear favorite to win the Democratic nomination.
Looking to an election between Hillary Clinton and the standard bearer for a very divided Republican party, it is difficult to discern the issues over which the campaign will be fought. Neither party offers a coherent message to the voters. The Democrats, under Obama, took back the presidency under banners of “hope” and “yes we can”. The GOP mounted an opposition that responds, essentially, with assertions of “no you won’t” in the absence of any other coherent vision of proactive governing.
One wonders why such a system fails to beget meaningful political change. Perhaps America really is too big to fail and, as a result, a politics of unbeatable incumbents and voter frustration will continue to characterize the nation. The rules governing campaign spending, the gerrymandering of legislative districts and the costs of running for office all erect tremendous hurdles to those who would look to bring about systematic change. That’s why we can have an election in which 85% of the Congress is returned to office unscathed and, yet, polls indicate that voters want change in Washington.
Technology, Democracy and Liberal Education
Bryan Alexander and I in the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot on how these three go hand in hand.
Revisiting Boston Sports Agony: Hope, Glory, Satan, the Babe and the Civil War
Sometimes a Super Bowl victory is not enough.
From the ROANOKE TIMES, 12 February 2002
IT’S A BOSTON THING – YOU WOULDN’T UNDERSTAND NORTHERNERS AND SOUTHERNERS
USUALLY, I write opinion pieces on political issues. This is no exception. The New England Patriots’ Super Bowl victory Feb. 3 got me thinking about one of the most important aspects of American politics: the enduring divide between North and South.
I got back to the old Bostonian roots that night as the Patriots won the most exciting Super Bowl ever. I ran outside, bellowed to the moon, called my dad, my brother, my buddy in the upper peninsula of Michigan, my college roommate and just yelled for joy. Called my brother back and barked some more. But it was not good enough (talk about pathetic).
If you find a native Bostonian (or New Englander) nearby, look him or her in the eye. You’ll see that this Super Bowl victory was magnificent, fantastic, blessed, just, awesome (uh, for you New Englanders, that would be wicked), incredible, redeeming and absolutely not enough in the face of the Curse of the Bambino.
Yup. That’s it. It does not matter what happens. Boston bleeds for the Red Sox. Until Tom Brady suits up for the Sox, and pitches their way to a World Series victory (only after beating the Yankees in the playoffs), no true Bostonian (or New Englander for that matter) will be able to sleep at night, shave or walk out to get the paper in the morning without getting irritated.
To the gentle Southern reader, this may seem incomprehensible. How much do you Bostonians want? How could the Sox get me down when the Patriots won the Super Bowl?
What do Northerners know about pain? When I first came to teach at Washington and Lee, it was pointed out to me that the difference between a Southerner and everyone else is that everyone else can go 10 minutes without feeling pained about the Civil War. Every Southern boy, it was explained to me, shares the same passion that rose with Pickett’s charge on the way to the high point of the Confederacy at Gettysburg.
Well, I’ve been to the high point at Gettysburg and it does not compare to the spirit of agony that haunts Fenway Park. The Patriots’ victory proves the one fact that will horrify Southerners and Bostonians alike: They are equally tormented.
Dallas has won a couple of Super Bowls, and the Atlanta Braves have won the World Series. Did this make up for coming in second in the recent unpleasantness? Apparently no. So there.
This apparent bond is bound to cause consternation in Dixie: The torment suffered by Red Sox fans is actually worse than that suffered by the South. The South came in second only once. The torment of the South is finite. Boston agony renews itself annually.
The difference between a Red Sox fan and the rest of the world is that the rest of the world can go 10 minutes without being ticked off about the curse of the Babe, the 1946 World Series, Bucky Dent, Bill Buckner, etc. (Note to the reader: There is a dark religious significance in this. BUCKy Dent. Bill BUCKner. B, U, C and K are the second, 21st, third and 11th letters in the alphabet. Add them up and that comes to 37. Divide 37 into 666 and you get 18. That’s three sixes. If this curse is not satanic, nothing is.)
The South came in second to the likes of Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman. How many Confederate generals (or, for that manner, self-respecting privates) were called Bucky? Buddy, maybe. Bubba, possibly. But Bucky? There is no dignity losing to a Bucky.
It’s not as if the South is going to wake up this spring with hopes of winning the war this year. It’s not as if Birmingham goes to bed at the beginning of October saying, “Oh, shucks. We’ll win the war next year.”
Bostonians suffer the sort of ongoing torment that is nurtured by hope. As long as baseball seasons begin after they end, there remains the hope that this year we can win the Series. Bostonians know real pain. We are the sports Prometheus. Every year, the Red Sox buzzard comes back and takes another bite out of us. We are the sports Tantalus. Just when we think we’ll drink the World Series water, it disappears from our lips.
So, the Patriots won the Super Bowl and the Red Sox still have not delivered. But at least Boston provides solace to those achy Southerners. No matter how bad their pain is, Bostonians suffer worse.
The last time the Sox won the World Series was against the Chicago Cubs. Their fans have suffered longer than those of the Sox! We are saved. Go Patriots! – and take the Curse of the Babe with you.
Sam Rasoul on Gerrymandering in Virginia
In a recent piece in the Roanoke times, delegate Sam Rasoul finished his call for redistricting reform with the following statement: “ Redistricting reform can stop the unethical practice of politicians drawing their own district lines, and reform can help our great commonwealth create a political atmosphere that encourages more solution-centered dialogue. Our futures depend on it.”
Gerrymandering has been a pox on American politics for more than a century. In the wake of the Voting Rights Act, it has become even more pernicious. Sticking to the letter of the law, state legislators and members of Congress have worked together to draw districts that will ensure the election of minority legislators as effectively as they used to be drawn to prevent this. Thus, in the wake of the VRA, “electoral reform” has resulted in the diversification of the class of unbeatable incumbent legislators.
Granted, this is, indeed progress. Minority political aspirants now can run for office and minority voters can now actually register and vote without being subjected to the various forms of heinous disenfranchisement that characterized U.S. politics before the passage of the VRA.
Nonetheless, if the fallout of the VRA has been to enable incumbents who are racial minorities to gerrymander themselves into office as permanently as those who are white, then it is clear that our incumbents have settled for some pretty low hanging political fruit. So, we now have more racially and ethnically diverse legislatures. But, incumbents remain unbeatable, elections remain generally uncompetitive and turnout in legislative elections is embarrassingly low. It seems that we’ve forgotten that voters—not incumbents—were the intended beneficiaries of the VRA.
Redistricting reform would be an important step to improving the conduct of elections and promoting the aspirations of the Voting Rights Act. Alas, only our incumbent legislators can pass the laws necessary to bring about the necessary reforms. But, it is unlikely that legislators will pass laws that will take away their control over the districting process that enables them to gerrymander district lines. Sadly, this process is absolutely undemocratic: it enables legislators to choose their voters—instead of the other way around.
We should heed Rasoul’s call for electoral reform. Legislators should not be allowed to draw legislative districts. It’s a conflict of interest. As well, we should look to simplify the political map of Virginia: use multimember districts in and around our cities so their citizens can vote together instead of having their interests divided. There is lots that can be done. Check out the Center for Voting and Democracy. They have a wealth of information on this topic. For now, though, sent a tweet of support to @Sam_R
Democracy and ISIS in Tunisia.
The New York Times ran this article by David Kirkpatrick, “New Freedoms in Tunisia Drive Support for ISIS,” on 22 October on the Arab Spring in Tunisia. In it, we see some of the subplots that were in operation throughout the movement. From the “western” perspective, this is a pro-democracy movement. This is inaccurate. While people across the Arab world do seek freedoms, they seek, more importantly, better lives. They will settle for a UAE-style illiberal state if life is good and sufficiently free. They do not seek western, liberal democracy.
Democracy does cater to the organized. Everyone from James Madison to Mancur Olson to Jonathan Rauch tells us that. In the Arab world, desires for freedom and better economic conditions were and remain tempered by the fear that democracy and elections will lead to rule by the Muslim Brotherhood or, now, ISIS.
Oscar Wilde said that the problem with socialism is that it takes up too many evenings. This concern was palpable during my time in the Middle East and remains so today. If democratic freedom means that one is now free to spend all of one’s free time combatting the political power of the Brotherhood or ISIS, many across the Arab world would settle for a much less liberal version of democracy than that to which westerners are accustomed. Granted, this is a much easier tonic for folks living in oil-rich, stable states such as the UAE.
Nevertheless, it’s instructive to note that the circumstances under which democracy flourished in North America in the late 18th and early 19th centuries were a far cry from those across the globe today. The spread of democracy across the North American continent was neither bloodless nor always peaceful. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the spread of democracy in the wake of the Arab Spring is following a well-trodden path similar to paths it has taken across the world and throughout history.
Tags: Arab Spring, Democracy, Tunisia, Oscar Wilde
Mark Rush 