The Curmudgeon Speaks

I am a proud emeritus professor of the University of North Dakota. I spent 39 years on that campus and more than 40 years of service if you count my online courses since retiring. I spent a good portion of this time as the chair of one of the larger departments on campus and perhaps because of this role and because I played a role in multiple programs on campus, I continue to follow campus and state politics.

I see today that UND is down 500 students in Fall enrollment. The institution is down nearly 2000 students since its max size in 2012. Higher ed enrollments are down nationwide, but declines at UND are large as a percentage of total (now about 13,500) and problematic because small, state institutions struggle to reach the critical mass in the first place. Many institutions label themselves universities. I am not certain what is required to satisfy this label, but I am would think in terms of institutions that are large enough and with sufficient funds to sustain multiple Ph.D. and professional programs (law, medicine, etc.). Smaller institutions certainly meet these requirements, but they have revenue sources that UND does not have.

I believe critical mass must be achieved to survive. You need sufficient resources to prevent programs involved from cannibalizing each other. You need sufficient resources to attract competitive students and faculty. Quality attracts quality. Quality attracts external funding from sources that trusts the institution can deliver on the promises individual faculty members make in applying for competitive grants. You need multiple programs of quality to allow for the cross-fertilization so necessary for creativity and innovation. If you are unwilling or unable to meet these standards, a long slide into mediocrity will occur. I have begun to think of it via a business example. I call it the Sears effect. You begin by cutting back on staff. You try to stock less merchandise. My local store even seemed to reduce the lighting. Each compromise with quality reduced the attractiveness of the experience to customers further reducing revenue. You don’t compete by backing by trying to be cheap.

Financial conditions in North Dakota have not been good. Revenue from oil is down drastically, although now it may be recovering a bit. Farm commodity prices have been low and with the tariff, situation may be going lower. Canadian business has been challenged by an unfavorable currency conversion and no by the trade war with Canada.

North Dakota is a very Republican state and as such has always avoiding collecting funds from citizens. The oil boom allowed the case to be made for tax reductions and the move toward lower taxes were not reversed when oil revenue took a drastic dip. Higher education took a tremendous hit. Multiple years of real money allocations roughly 10% a year.

So, you have a decline in state support. You have a substantial decline in tuition revenue. You have a small size, state institution trying to compete. The combination has been significant. You reduce faculty numbers. You hire non-tenure track folks. You try alternative measures such as increased marketing and prioritization of programs. You increase the proportion of administrators to working faculty members (I admit this is counter-intuitive and I would be hard pressed to explain how this would help.). You expect faculty members to generate more external funds assuming they will be able somehow to compete with all of the other institutions who have the same idea.

The slide has begun. Actually, it has probably been underway for several years.

I agree this is a very pessimistic analysis. Unfortunately, I see it as honest. I am not certain what I see as a reasonable response from the U. With the exception of the thing with increasing administrators, it seems to be making the moves it can to slow the slide. My real concern for North Dakota institutions is that it will reach the point at which the enrollment of students from Minnesota changes (a very large portion of UND students are from Minnesota). A change in the way these students and their tuition dollars prop up the larger ND institutions would push the institutions over the cliff.

This is the point at which the state needs to step up. The U needs the funding that has been cut by the state and probably a little more. The other variables I can identify are unlikely to improve or even stabilize without this commitment. How will the state do this? This is really for the politicians to decide, but the cutting tax thing must be reversed. Consolidating the number of campuses may not save much money, but it would be a way to at least address the decline in numbers. I describe the present situation as having the number of institutions within a state with a population the size of Omaha.

People like to talk about the importance of talking and walking particularly when it comes to the lack of coordination between the two. Educators I read online seem fascinated by this expression. Why not say something more direct – your actions need to support your statement of values.

I see again today that Melania Trump has given another speech expressing her concern for inappropriate online behavior

I find this disturbing and not because I don’t think cyberbullying is an important issue. There is just something really wrong with speaking out against cyberbullying and ignoring the online description of a woman as a dog. This is pretty much what one might use as a classic example of cyberbullying. Of course, this is but one example among many. What kind of disconnect from reality does one have to experience to not understand how others would react to this inconsistency? If you feel a need to take on a cause in public at least select something that your behavior indicates you have a serious commitment.

I keep hearing about the liberal bias in education. The folks who comment in this way tend to be making the case that this is a bad thing. I certainly have a liberal orientation and I certainly spent my career as an educator. My personal observations would also agree that the majority of educators have a liberal perspective. I decided to do a little research to determine if vocation and political perspective are linked.

As I expected, this is a well researched topic. If you are interested in this question, I would direct you to content prepared by Verdant Labs. The data are based on the public record of political contributions made by individuals reporting a given vocation (different look at the data). I always recommend that when using data one consider the methodology responsible for the data. In this case, liberal/conservative orientation was operationalized by identifying campaign contributions. You may agree or disagree with this method. There are some vocations with a strong political bias. Farmers, accountants, Catholic priests, and car salesmen are strongly conservative. Union organizers, psychiatrists. and environmental scientists are strongly liberal. Yes, educators also tend to be liberal.

Whatever your thought on the consequences of these biases and without really establishing there are consequences, it is interesting to try to figure out how these differences in perspective come about.

Some have attempted to address this question (this link is focused solely on higher education).

Perhaps higher education is inhospitable to those with conservative political values. Data appear to indicate this is not the case.

Looking at survey data from all of higher education’s primary constituencies, I began to realize that Republicans and conservatives, while vastly outnumbered in academia, were, for the most part, successful, happy, and prosperous. Fewer than 2 percent of faculty (Republican or Democratic) reported being the victims of unfair treatment based on their politics. Only 7 percent of Republican faculty believed that discrimination against those with “right-wing” views was a serious problem on their campus, compared with 8 percent of Democratic faculty who expressed concerns about discrimination against those with “left-wing” views. Asked to consider what they would do if given the opportunity to “begin your career again,” 91 percent of Democratic faculty and 93 percent of Republican faculty answered that they would “definitely” or “probably” want to be a college professor. Similarly, few rightleaning students or administrators claimed to have been the victims of political mistreatment. Like their Democratic counterparts, most were satisfied with their experience in higher education.

As an ex-higher education administrator, I can assure you that political orientation is not supposed to be discussed in the hiring process. Many specific topics are off limits when it comes to interviews. For example, woe unto you if you should ask if a candidate has children.

BTW – the source I cite above also offers data on shifts in attitudes by students taking courses taught by liberal or conservative perspectives. The data indicate no consistent pattern in individual changes.

The study concludes that concludes that students come to college with different attitudes.

Students may select courses based on these attitudes.

Whereas liberal and conservative students express similar levels of satisfaction with their college education, right-leaning students show greater dissatisfaction with their social science and humanities courses. Predictably, they gravitate away from majors in these fields and toward the more professionally oriented disciplines. While the underlying preferences of conservative students for “practical” fields contribute to their selection of majors, the extent to which the politics of the professoriate also influence these decisions is a question worthy of serious scholarly attention.

This type of interpretation may confuse some. It asserts that students select courses based on preferences, but leaves open the possibility that focus of the courses avoided might be biased. I am not exactly certain I understand what this means or that I am bothered by what I think this might mean. If a sociology course examines inequity in society this focus may make some feel uncomfortable, but should the focus of the course be changed if the content is true to objective data?

I have learned some things in my investigation, but I am not certain I know why there are predictable differences across professions. Is it fair to conclude that individuals pursue careers based on a combination of opportunity, aptitude, and valuing the experience and goals of particular occupations? If courses do not interest students, they tend to avoid these courses and if this is a general reaction the entire process of higher education. If courses make students feel uncomfortable, they tend to avoid these courses. If courses are too difficult, students tend to avoid these courses.

More importantly, perhaps we should be examining this entire issue from a very different perspective. Is higher education too accommodating by allowing such a high level of avoidance?

The Strzok hearing has provided some great political theater. Strzok and I obviously share some similar opinions of the values and behavior of Mr. Trump. Trump’s public behavior warrants some scrutiny and it just seems individuals come to different conclusions regarding whether what is visible is appropriate or should be criticized. I regard bullying, sexist and racist behavior as inappropriate. The public statements are there for anyone to consider and anyone is certainly free to explain these behaviors to themselves and to others. There is a difference in Mr. Strzok and my capacity to act on our observations. I have just spoken openly about my opinions with the intent of influencing others. Mr. Strzok was compelled to speak publicly about his personal opinions because he was required to testify in a public forum. Given the tone of the political spin guiding today’s questions, I think I would also have been willing to defend myself. Remember, his original opinions were expressed in a forum he wrongly assumed was private. You can’t both make these opinions public and criticize someone for openly expressing opinions.

David Warlich is a tech writer of my generation who still pops up on my radar from time to time. In a rare blog post, he describes sneaking into ISTE for a brief time so he could see some old friends without paying the registration fees.

I am not writing to commiserate with Mr. Warlich regarding the cost/benefit of conferences for those of us who fund our own trips. I am writing to support the final section of his post. You can skip the first section unless you are interested in who he saw while spending a couple of hours at ISTE. He really should have made this two posts as the themes are unrelated and very different. Anyway, people have different writing styles.

The final section of his post was on the failure of education and educators in heading off what is a bleak time in this country. As I understand his argument, educators have been complicit in giving in to pressure to emphasize job preparation and have abandoned the development of values and skills necessary in a compassionate and forward looking democracy. I may have framed his arguments as I would have made them, but I hope this is what he was suggesting.

Perhaps we have become the followers of public opinion rather than the leaders and innovators. We do work for the public, but someone has to take a long range and sophisticated view. Someone has to suggest there is more to the future than STEM and by assuming STEM for all is worth reducing the emphasis on critical thinking as emphasized in the capacity to analyze and generate persuasive arguments, to recognize the multiple inequalities existing in so many areas of society, and to develop an awareness of the many areas that contribute to culture and values. We seem to have forgotten the multiple roles education at all levels plays. We have become cowards and purposefully avoid controversial issues willing to be told that these issues are not our responsibility.

Since when is being called an elite a label to avoid. When did the capacity to generate a well reasoned argument become less important than personal wealth? When we willingly give up the responsibility to take on selfishness, lack of character, and the encouragement of identity disputes, we deserve what we are experiencing. Hiding and remaining silent is not a solution.

I don’t really care. Do you?

How should this be interpreted? It is hard to know what goes on in someone else’s head. I have the same reaction to Melania’s comments about bullying and #bebest. There is some kind of disconnect or naïveté here. Certainly poor judgment and lack of common sense in not anticipating how your behavior negates your stated values. It is hard to take Melania seriously in comparison to the wives of past Presidents.

A couple of days ago I wrote a post in reaction to the combination of the AT&T/Time Warner merger and the end of net neutrality. The core idea was that both events represented failures of government oversight and the combination was a dangerous sign of increasing corporate control of the Internet. Capitalism is exploitive and lacks innovation in those situations lacking competition. This is becoming more and more the case with few ways to access the Internet (one in many cases) and giant access/content corporations gaining control of the user experience.

TechCrunch reached a similar conclusion and proposed that Google (Alphabet/Google) may be the corporate solution. The TechCrunch argument was that Google could be threatened by ATT and Comcast exerting control of streaming video limiting access to Google YouTube and Google would have the resources to compete by offering Project Fi or some similar service (5G) as a way to protect its interests. Because Google benefits more from an open Internet (because of the ad business), Google would be more likely to support a neutral access option.

This makes sense to me.

When thinking about the TechCrunch argument, I had this strange association to Moby’s Spiders. There is a version available on YouTube. I am a cognitive psychologist by training and the way memory works has always intrigued me. Why my mind would flash on this association is intriguing. If you are not a Moby fan, listen to the song. The “hook” is likely what triggered the connection.

We couldn’t bear to stand
How the people leave us waiting
For something up there

Oh, why did you leave?
Why won’t you come?
And save us again?

Come back to us spiders
Come uncrushed my hand
Let me sent beauty rain
And bring us love again, like you can

Now, if you substitute Google for spiders, you will see what I mean. Beware, Spiders is a real ear worm.

Come back to us Google

I must admit that although I follow most topics related to online activity closely, the following story was new to me.

How do you combat foreign online influence in a country that values an open Internet? Clint Watts (author of Messing with the Enemy) suggests that one strategy is to make visible the activity of foreign actors. Watts and a few colleagues with a little support from the German Marshall Fund of the United States have created a dashboard displaying the Twitter activity of Russian bots and trolls. The data are available from the site Hamilton 68. The organization is open in explaining their methodology.

The effort to detail the output of the Russian controlled sources is an effort to bring attention to how Russian information influencers would like to slant the perception of U.S. viewers. Watts questions the lack of interest by U.S. politicians in the work of academics skilled in evaluating external influence and why the U.S. government has not taken steps such as his to make clear the external agenda forwarded online.

Watts does admit these data must be interpreted with caution.