Clarion Call | 2005 Archive

The holiday season is full of traditions. Reporters scour stores looking for toys that could kill your kids. Lawyers' offices fill with activist atheists upset that some poor soul wishes them "Merry Christmas." And the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy compiles its annual top 10 list.

A new study released by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) shows that colleges and universities are not taking an active role in improving intellectual diversity on campus. It also found that 49 percent of college students surveyed say that professors inject their political views into the classroom. The findings are part of the report “Intellectual Diversity: Time for Action” that was released this month by ACTA and authored by Dr. Barry Latzer and Dr. Jerry Martin. In it, the authors look at the intellectual diversity climate in American higher education today. They also examine the perception students have about teachers who attempt to discuss politics in courses other than political science or government where they might be appropriate. ACTA’s study comes just a few months after 30 institutions and organizations signed a statement on academic freedom issued by the American Council on Education. That statement indicated a commitment to principles of intellectual diversity and academic freedom should be welcomed on college campuses.

The fall semester has recently concluded at many colleges and universities. Some students have now completed the necessary credit hours and received their diplomas. That is the tangible evidence of having gone to college and for most it serves the purpose of satisfying the B.A. degree requirement that so many employers now insist upon. Has the college experience, however, given the students more than just a piece of paper attesting to their having completed enough credits to qualify for a degree? Are they better at thinking and writing than when they entered? Unfortunately, we don’t really know. Former college president Richard Hersh writes in the afterword to his recent book (co-edited with John Merrow) Declining by Degrees, “to date, we have no measures of the cumulative result of an undergraduate education.” While it may seem to be perfectly clear that some graduates (for example, the kid who knocks himself out in a pre-med curriculum) derive an enormous benefit from their studies and others (for example, the scholarship athlete who never takes a remotely challenging course) are educationally no different than on their first day as freshmen, we just don’t know.

Evan Coyne Maloney experienced academic biases in higher education first hand as a student at Bucknell University in Pennsylvania. At the time, he thought the bias problem might be limited just to Bucknell. That was until he read Illiberal Education by Dinesh D’Souza and heard about how students at other colleges faced similar situations of academic bias in the classroom. Now, 11 years after Maloney graduated from Bucknell, he is educating others on the problem of academic bias through a series of video documentaries that have received critical acclaim. Maloney’s video documentary series on higher education is entitled “Brainwashing.” There have been two installments “Brainwashing 101,” and “Brainwashing 201: The Second Semester.” “Brainwashing 201” recently won Best Short Film at the Liberty Film Festival in October.

Most people don’t like to be compelled to pay for things they don’t want. Taxpayers rarely think, “The government sure is taking a lot of the money I earn, but I trust that in the wise judgment of the politicians, the money is being spent for the greatest overall good, so I’m content.” Quite a few revolts in history have been sparked by the perception that taxation was mostly funding high living for the favored few. Mandatory student fee systems are a sub-species of the taxation beast. Most colleges and universities these days have established a policy of adding on to the tuition, room and board, and other education-related fees, a “student fee” that provides the school with a substantial pot of money which is then doled out among various student groups on campus. Exactly how the money is divvied up varies, but the principle is the same as taxation: We’ll take your money, then other people will decide how it’s spent.

Advancing technology has brought about dramatic change in many industries. The transportation industry today looks nothing like the transportation industry of a century ago. The same is true of medical science, communications, the production of food, and so on. But what about higher education? For the most part, college teaching today is done in pretty much the same way it was done a century ago. Indeed, it’s done in pretty much the same way as in the day when Socrates taught. Sure, technology has made some inroads at the margins – professors today are apt to use power point presentations rather than blackboards, and if a student loses his syllabus, he can get the information online – but nothing essential has changed. If Yale computer science professor David Gelernter is correct, however, a technological revolution is just around the corner, a revolution that may bring about a sea change in the way the higher education industry works. Writing in the November 28 issue of Forbes Professor Gelernter entitles his piece “Who Needs a College Campus?” It is a thought-provoking piece that everyone concerned with education should read.

Consider, if you will, the virtue of simple rules. The First Amendment to the Constitution is a simple rule. It says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Although the government hasn’t always followed it, having a sharp constitutional line has undoubtedly spared the country a great deal of meddling with free speech. With a simple rule, violations are readily apparent. Now imagine that the First Amendment instead went like this: “Congress shouldn’t enact laws that abridge the freedom of speech unless it thinks that there is a pretty good reason to do so.” If the Founders had given us so vague and equivocal a rule, there would probably be much less freedom to speak without fear of legal repercussions today.

H.L. Mencken once wrote of Puritans that they had the "haunting fear that someone, somewhere is happy." If Mencken were around today, he'd probably want to include college administrators and their haunted Internet jaunts. The kernel of Mencken's criticism is an unhealthy obsession with someone else's private conduct – sex and beer, for example. University bureaucrats have been snooping through students' personal Internet pages looking for evidence of un-Puritanical behavior, as well as that hobgoblin "hate speech," of course. Earlier this month, the North Carolina State University bureaucracy was in high dudgeon over "FACEBOOK VIOLATIONS" and held a rush "town hall meeting to discuss recent alcohol violations found on The Facebook. Testimonies from the students involved and presentations from key administrators will begin the meeting." It seems that an overzealous Resident Advisor went poking through her residents' photos on the "Facebook" online looking for violations of the alcohol policy (and goodness knows what else), then squealed to the authorities with her findings. The Facebook is a private, online community specifically geared for college students. Through it, they post information about themselves, link to their friends' Facebook pages, meet and greet friends' friends and others online, join groups of like-minded peers worldwide, and so forth. They can also post photos. Facebook is an innovating an exciting way to connect with other people. It's wildly popular among students. And it's apparently an irresistible tool to be abused by the campus neo-Puritans, the Facebook Police and their student stoolies. NCSU's student newspaper, Technician, reported on the "Facebook Violations" meeting. One "Paul Cousins from the Office of Student Conduct" was particularly incensed. According to Technician, Cousins "began by outlining his perception of the issues at hand, [which] dealt with the issue of alcohol, having photos taken as evidence and personal grievances felt by some of the students involved." In his words: "Either you drank or you didn't, it's pretty damn simple." He then "recommended the students take responsibility and admit either guilt or innocence when faced with their interviews," warning students, "We've been using photos for years -- evidence is evidence" and "I can access your unity account under the right circumstances." NCSU is usually not the first mover in academic Orwellianism, and it isn't so now. At UNC-Greensboro, according to columnist Luke McIntyre of the UNCG student newspaper, the Carolinian, "Recently in Cone Hall a resident was charged with drinking in the dorm [after] the resident in question took pictures of herself drinking and posted them online, conveniently linked to her Facebook account. From there her Community Advisor (UNCG's phrase for RA) saw them and she was written up." Students in Kentucky and elsewhere have been brought up before student courts for the crime of Drinking in Facebook Photographs. The coordinator of student conduct at Missouri University told the Columbia Missourian, "Any time I discover that a student is violating the code of conduct, I will send a letter and have them meet with me for that violation." Those are, however, small potatoes to the Facebook Police nationwide. Consider: • Fisher College in Boston expelled sophomore Cameron Walker for his Facebook comments about a campus police officer. Walker wrote that the officer "loves to antagonize students … and needs to be eliminated" and tried to get student interest in a petition against the officer or try to "set him up." • A judicial affairs panel at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, Penn., found sophomore Ryan Miner guilty of "'sexual orientation' harassment" for comments he wrote on his Facebook page. Miner was objecting to a gay-straight student alliance at the Catholic College, and referred to homosexuality as "subhuman." • Three University of Mississippi students were brought up on student judicial charges for joining a Facebook group based on their desire to have sex with a particular professor. Like Mencken's Puritans, apparently it has never occurred to the Facebook Police that students might not be entirely serious with everything they post. Even when they are, is it worth all the anguish? At NCSU's town hall meeting, per Technician, Cousins "repeatedly referenced postings on The Wolf Web [another private student forum online] as disturbing him more than any other aspect of the case." "One user posted that the resident adviser should be crucified and burned at the stake," Technician reported. "[Cousins] said this is going under investigation, and he intends to find the student who posted the threats." (Raleigh readers, be on the lookout for suspicious person or persons carrying around six-foot-tall cruciforms, yardarms or railroad ties, and rope and torches.) Don't try to imagine the kind of personality who scours students' personal web pages for niggling "offenses." It's creepy. But it's to be expected of the "socialist microstates" that academic leftists have made of their campuses. That observation is Darío Fernandez-Moréra's, from his book American Academia and the Survival of Marxist Ideas. Fernandez-Moréra cited admission preferences, students' socialized medical care, public housing and student meal tickets as examples in favor of his proposition. The haunted diary-readers in the ivory towers today certainly offer nothing to disprove it.

Throughout their history, college newspapers have mostly enjoyed the same rights under the First Amendment as have other newspapers. A recent decision by a federal appellate court, however, jeopardizes their freedom. Here are the facts. In 2000, Margaret Hosty was the editor of The Innovator, the student newspaper of Governors State University (GSU), located just west of Chicago. Like many student newspapers, The Innovator was supported mainly by student fees. That fall, Patricia Carter, the university’s Dean of Student Affairs, told the company that printed the paper that in the future, school officials would review each issue before it could be printed. She took this action despite written GSU policy stating that the student staff of the paper would “determine content and format of their publications without censorship or advance approval.”

Last April, UNC released its “Chancellor’s Task Force on Diversity” report, 58 pages in length and loaded with eight big recommendations for making the Chapel Hill campus more diverse. And in his State of the University speech, Chancellor Moeser devoted several paragraphs to this subject, saying that “Diversity is a key component of our academic plan,” and lauding “improvement in the diversity of our full-time permanent faculty.” Alas, UNC is not yet diverse enough. The Task Force report recommends, for example, that the university increase the number of “minorities” in executive, administrative and managerial positions. That might be accomplished through a heavier emphasis on “diversity” in hiring and promotion.

The UNC presidential search committee has done its work and the new president of the UNC system will be Erskine Bowles. Although the North Carolina Press Association has said that it may challenge the legality of the selection process under the Open Meetings Act, no one doubts that Mr. Bowles will succeed Molly Broad in this important position. An accomplished, multi-talented man, Mr. Bowles will take the UNC helm with this notable advantage -- he isn’t an education “insider.” People who have been immersed in higher education administration for most if not all of their careers tend to uncritically accept most of the “conventional wisdom” about how our colleges and universities supposedly need to function. That fact produces tunnel vision much like a horse with blinders. Bowles doesn’t appear to be wearing them.

It’s October, in case you haven’t noticed by the cooler temperatures and the leaves changing colors. You can also tell that fall is here by the way college administrators have begun the traditional fall march of chasing the pipe dream of increased college revenue through athletics. Locally, two colleges have hung the athletics carrot over the heads of their alumni and supporters with big dreams of new athletics venues and playing against bigger competition. At North Carolina Central University, school officials want to move from Division II athletics to Division I in all sports except for football, where the school would compete in Division I-AA. At North Carolina State, the school is raising money to construct an Arnold Palmer designed golf course.

In the great majority of courses at UNC-Chapel Hill, the average gradepoint is above 3.0 and in a few, it is 4.0, meaning that every student received an A. The question is whether that is a problem. Evidently, some people at the university believe that it is a problem because the Educational Policy Committee, a subcommittee of the Faculty Council is going to address the matter of grade inflation. Said Professor Peter Gordon, who chairs the committee, “We have begun to explore techniques that give an alternative to the traditional grade point average.”

A recent decision by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has given the green light to the formation of a faculty union at a private, church-affiliated college in Wisconsin. The case is important not only because it may stimulate unionization drives at colleges and universities around the nation, but also because it highlights some of the glaring problems in the law governing labor relations for all kinds of workers. Carroll College is a liberal arts college located in Waukesha, WI. While nominally affiliated with the Presbyterian Church, its religious ties are not much in evidence. An administrative decision in 2001 to divide the college into schools of liberal arts and professional studies led to considerable faculty dissension and ultimately a drive for unionization. Some professors felt that their interests would be better represented by a union, specifically the United Auto Workers.

One of my favorite movie lines occurs when Clint Eastwood ("Dirty Harry" Callahan) says to a criminal he has just subdued, "A man has got to know his own limitations." Knowing one's limitations is a good idea for institutions as well as individuals, but for some years now, it's been evident that UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor James Moeser doesn't recognize any limits on his university. His September 15 "State of the University Address" shows that he believes the university to have a far wider range of capabilities than it actually does. One example is the Chancellor's statement that "North Carolina must compete in this global economy, so it is absolutely critical that its flagship university be a player on the world stage." That's why UNC is building a new Global Education Center.

College professors and administrators are supposed to be dedicated to liberty to challenge ideas, to argue, to dissent. They often say that they are. But when they have the power to punish someone for deviating from one of their cherished notions, do they stick to the principles of academic freedom, or do they fall into Lord Acton's famous statement about the corrupting nature of power? A recent case involving a respected history professor shows that some academics love academic freedom, but only for those who agree with them. Slowly gathering momentum within the education establishment is the idea that students and faculty members should not just be evaluated on the basis of their objective performance – their knowledge of the subject matter and their ability to teach it – but also on their acceptance of certain philosophical views having nothing to do with that subject matter.

Fifty years ago, college education was sold to students as a way of broadening their intellectual horizons. The curriculum was filled with courses in literature, philosophy, history and so on. If you were looking for job training, that was mostly found in the job market itself, or at technical institutes and community colleges. Strangely, the situation has changed almost 180 degrees. Today most people look to higher education for job training (or at least preparation) and great numbers of students believe that without a college degree, they will be unemployable in all but menial labor. At the same time, the old idea that the purpose of a college education is to broaden one's intellectual horizons has been largely relegated to the broom closet. True, quite a few institutions still pay lip service to the importance of a liberal education, but in fact it is quite easy for students at most of them to earn a BA without taking any of the kind of courses that used to be the pillars of the curriculum. Students who want to learn about, say, philosophy or history would be better off looking for a good lecture series on tape than looking through the course catalogue.

INDIANAPOLIS - A NCAA committee has issued new demands to several colleges and universities across the nation seeking justification for their continued use of offensive mascots, NCAA officials announced today. At issue is enforcement of the NCAA's new edict against "hostile and abusive racial/ethnic/national origin mascots, nicknames or imagery," with which schools must abide in order to have eligibility to participate in NCAA postseason events. The Executive Committee on Making Foolish Pronouncements During the Off-Season, reputed to be the NCAA's busiest committee, initiated the latest spate of demands. Their purpose is to clarify and expand the NCAA's position on offensive mascots, said committee head Giselda Knickertwist.

As college students begin a new academic year, many parents are reeling from tuition fees. This fall's probable average 8% increase at public universities, added onto double-digit hikes in the two previous years, means tuition at a typical state university is up 36% over 2002 - at a time when consumer prices in general rose less than 9%. In inflation-adjusted terms, tuition today is roughly triple what it was when parents of today's college students attended school in the '70s. Tuition charges are rising faster than family incomes, an unsustainable trend in the long run. This holds true even when scholarships and financial aid are considered. One consequence of rising costs is that college enrollments are no longer increasing as much as before. Price-sensitive groups like low-income students and minorities are missing out. A smaller proportion of Hispanics between 18 and 24 attend college today than in 1976. The U.S. is beginning to fall below some other industrial nations in population-adjusted college attendance.

In one of the strangest state budget provisions in years, if a student from Ohio (or any other state or even a foreign country) is awarded a full scholarship to attend one of the campuses of the UNC system, then that student can be officially counted as being a North Carolina resident. What is going on? Why say that a kid with a New Jersey driver's license is a North Carolinian? The answer is that this bit of definitional legerdemain is designed to evade the long-standing cap on out-of-state residents who may enroll in the state university system. Under state law, UNC campuses cannot enroll more than 18 percent of their students from non-residents. Since the taxpayers of the state put up most of the money to operate the UNC system, the argument goes, most of the places for students ought to be reserved for students whose parents pay taxes into the state treasury.

RALEIGH – Two months into the 2006 fiscal year, lawmakers finally reached a consensus and approved a budget plan that will increase spending within the UNC system by 11 percent. UNC's appropriation for the 2005-06 fiscal year is $2.086 billion, representing 12.1 percent of the $17.2 billion budget, which was approved by the state House on Wednesday. Senate members are expected to give final approval today. A stopgap spending plan to keep state government running during the negotiations expires later today. The budget for the 2006-07 fiscal year further increases UNC spending to $2.12 billion.

While browsing in a book store recently, I happened to notice a slim volume entitled University of North Carolina: Off the Record. It's a student's eye view to life at UNC-Chapel Hill. What particularly caught my attention as I flipped through the book were lists of the ten best and ten worst things about the university. Making the Ten Worst list were predictable complaints about inconveniences such as the terrible parking situation, the misery of the registration system, and the extraordinary difficulty of getting tickets for the Duke game. Also making the list was a pet peeve of mine, one that has a direct and serious effect on the quality of education students receive – Teaching Assistants.

There's an old North Carolina joke about bad ideas in California taking 10 years to arrive here. But one seems to be making record time. Exponential salary growth for public-university executives has the UNC president search committee California dreamin'. Readers will recall that last year Marye Anne Fox, then chancellor of North Carolina State University, left Raleigh to take the same position at the University of California at San Diego. The West Coast school had offered Fox $102,000 a year more than N.C. State paid her. Fox was making $248,000 a year here; she picked up $350,000 in San Diego.

Every two years, members of the General Assembly are responsible for choosing half of the 32-member University of North Carolina Board of Governors (BOG). The BOG members make important decisions on issues such as tuition, and later this year they'll select a new president for the system. This year's action by the General Assembly has, however, led to controversy, with some members asking whether legislative leaders followed the law. Elections to the BOG are governed by General Statute 116-6. It outlines two requirements for the election procedure, one covering nominees and balloting, and the other specifying when the vote must occur. According to the statute, nomination ballots should include "at least twice the number of candidates for the total seats open" and that "each house shall hold their elections within 30 legislative days after appointments to their education committees are complete."

In the sports world, Title IX brings about various sets of emotions. There are those who believe the 1972 legislation – which bars discrimination based on sex at institutions receiving federal funding – has greatly increased the number of opportunities for female athletes. Others say the regulation has mostly decreased the number of opportunities for males, because schools have often dropped men's sports to achieve equality. It is instructive to look at the experience of one college that doesn't have to abide by Title IX's mandates. Grove City College, a private college in northwest Pennsylvania, does not accept federal funding therefore is exempt from federal regulations. Nevertheless, the school provides ample opportunities for men and women to compete in NCAA Division III level sports. The story begins with the decision of Grove City's administration to challenge the applicability of Title IX and its burdensome reporting requirements in the early 1980s. When the school failed to supply the documents demanded by the Department of Education, the DOE filed suit to stop Grove City students from receiving federal financial aid (Basic Education Opportunity Grants).

Just for fun, imagine how the academic Left would react if dozens of colleges incorporated patriotism into their guiding principles and evaluated people according to their "patriotic dispositions." Then think how they'd respond to a plan to "Develop Patriotism" among university faculty that would: "Revise 3rd year, tenure, and post-tenure evaluation criteria to assess ongoing skill building and demonstrable commitment to patriotism." "Tie evaluation of patriotism to raises, promotions, etc." "Recommend that all instructional faculties participate in ongoing patriotism professional development, including a module from the Patriotism Project. "Include meaningful emphasis on patriotism development in orientation programming."

Last week the American Council on Education released a "Statement on Academic Rights and Responsibilities," endorsed by dozens of affiliated groups, including the American Association of University Professors, Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, and others.

Last week, a federal court in Kansas ruled that the administration at Kansas State University did not violate the First Amendment rights of a journalism professor who was fired from his position as adviser to the school's student newspaper. It's an amazing case that shows the extent to which school administrators will go in order to appease the campus diversity crowd once it decides to feel aggrieved. Professor Ron Johnson had for many years been the faculty adviser to the Kansas State Collegian, a student newspaper that had received an award in 2004 as the best daily college newspaper in a national competition. Alas, he and the students committed an unpardonable sin of omission. The paper failed to cover an event on campus. Of course, there are lots of events at a large university like K-State, so what's the big deal about failing to write about one of them?

For half a century, Master of Business Administration (MBA) programs have been a growth industry in the U.S. In 1955-56, only 3,200 MBA degrees were awarded. But in the 1960s, the numbers started to climb; in 1998, more than 102,000 MBA degrees were awarded. MBA programs have sprouted up in colleges and universities great and small as administrators sought to cash in on the increasingly prevalent idea that MBA studies were very useful if not essential for success in many business fields. The trouble is that in trying to cater to a mass market, many programs offer an education that is of little practical value. In a September 2002 article in the Academy of Management Learning & Education, authors Jeffrey Pfeffer and Christina Fong observe that “possessing an MBA neither guarantees business success nor prevents business failure” and point out that the nation’s top business consulting firms often hire people who have degrees other than an MBA. They quote a Stanford MBA who regards the curriculum as “irrelevant” and believes that students get “a pedigree rather than learning.”

RALEIGH – A newly-released study commissioned by the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy and undertaken by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni recommends several key changes in the way the UNC system is governed. The two foremost recommendations are that the governor should appoint members to the UNC Board of Governors and that the Board should be reduced from 32 members to 15. The study, entitled "Governance in the Public Interest: A Case Study of the University of North Carolina system" and was researched and written by Phyllis Palmiero, an education consultant who previously served as the executive director of Virginia's higher education system.

All right, you skeptics, just why is it so hard to believe that John Edwards' center at UNC Law isn't really about solving poverty? Why don't you believe all those statements about how Edwards' interest in the center is not political? Why do you continue to think it's simply about giving Carolina publicity and Edwards an issue for 2008? Is it because of the timing of the center's creation? Is it because no one'd heard a peep out of Chapel Hill about a poverty center until the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity was announced in early February? Does it have anything to do with the fact that shortly after Edwards lost in November, UNC Law School Dean Gene Nichol openly talked about his desire to get Edwards into UNC Law? Could it be that you're suspicious over the center's whirlwind creation in a matter of weeks without input from lawmakers or the public? Did all that make you think UNC's real interest was in rescuing a darling of a desperate politician on the brink of political irrelevancy?

East Carolina University recently announced the hiring of a new administrator with the title Assistant to the Chancellor for Institutional Diversity. ECU's choice, Sallye McKee, currently associate vice provost for urban and educational outreach at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, begins her duties at ECU July 1. According to ECU, the Assistant to the Chancellor for Institutional Diversity "will play a principal role in crafting and articulating a vision of East Carolina University as a diverse and inclusive institution of higher learning." More specifically, this administrator "will contribute to the institution's diversity efforts through honest, open dialogue and collaborative networking with administrative, faculty, staff and student colleagues in the development and evaluation of campus diversity programs, policies, and practices."

The University of North Carolina system is hunting for a new president. Molly C. Broad, the current president, has announced her resignation and a committee of 13 distinguished individuals has been given the task of selecting her successor. Perhaps it's just public relations, but the committee has scheduled "town hall" meetings around the state this month to hear from people who have ideas on this matter. I have some definite ideas about the characteristics of the person the search committee should choose.

Every state has a state university system, although that was not always the case. (New York didn’t begin the SUNY system until after World War II, a fact that did not impede the state’s growth and prosperity.) Looking at the financing of those university systems, however, you find great differences in the degree to which they depend on government appropriations. Some states rely heavily on state funding, whereas others have chosen to constrict the money pipeline from the state capital to the universities and depend more on voluntary support. I was interested in knowing just where North Carolina stands, so the Pope Center did an analysis of the financial data for each state found in the 2004 Almanac Issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education.

RALEIGH – North Carolina has often been considered as the furniture capital of the world, with distinctive markets in Hickory, High Point, and Thomasville filled with a multitude of furniture factories and stores. It’s a typical sight to see consumers drive hours to those communities to purchase factory-direct furniture at relatively low prices. Consumers are looking for the best value for their money. The same cannot be said of state university personnel who chose to spend taxpayer money on custom made furniture instead of opting to save taxpayer money on commercial furniture.

Paul Krugman is a columnist who never passes up an opportunity to throw jabs at those Americans whom he dislikes, a set that comprises anyone who doesn’t accept his big-government philosophy. All the jabbing would be fine if Krugman limited himself to serious arguments, but serious arguments might be too boring for his New York Times editors, so he often resorts to cheap shots and fallacious reasoning. His April 5, 2005 column “An Academic Question” is a case in point. (Site requires registration.)

RALEIGH – Daniel Klein is a distinct minority in academia. Sure, he’s open about his beliefs and is not afraid to tell you what they are. The thing is his belief system runs counter to the vast majority of professors in academia today. Klein, currently an economics professor at the University of Santa Clara who will move to George Mason University in the fall, is one of the few in academia who do not subscribe to liberal ideology. He is a libertarian in a profession filled with leftist professors and administrations.

For decades, higher education institutions have utilized racial preferences and quota programs, euphemistically called “affirmative action” in their admission policies. At least one member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights would like to see that practice come to an end. Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights who was appointed by President Bush, spoke to students Tuesday at UNC-Chapel Hill where he focused on ending the victim grievance model of civil rights. He also argued that the focus on civil rights activism should be on looking towards the future rather than to the past. In an interview prior to his speech, Kirsanow explained that higher education is focused too much on racial policies that were effective in the 1960s, but are now unnecessary and even counterproductive.

“No one spends other people’s money as carefully as he spends his own.” So says Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman. Let’s keep that in mind as we consider a new spending proposal being pushed by one of the schools in the UNC system. The University of North Carolina at Pembroke (UNC-P) has advanced a plan to build a new school of optometry at the geographically remote campus. The budget contains $10 million for the initial planning and development of the project, but no funds can be expended until the UNC president’s office gives approval. A meeting to decide on the plan is scheduled for later this month.

A recent report on the Women’s Studies Departments in North Carolina state universities by Melana Zyla Vickers asks the question: Do students want Women Studies? When reading over Vickers’ report and contemplating this question, I couldn’t help but ask myself an equally important question: Do Women’s Studies want students? I think perhaps the department would rather have protégées to train so that one day they might teach in the Women’s Studies Department and thus keep their room in the ivory tower. Otherwise, what good is the Women’s Studies program? What are they preparing students for? Now, I have never taken a Women Studies’ course at UNC-Chapel Hill; I’ve been too busy filling the requirements for an education major to spend time learning about “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” (to note just one course), but I have had several friends who have taken Women’s Studies courses -- and have all regretted it. I hope to take a course next year, just for the sake of having done it, but until then, I’m currently occupied fighting feminists and liberals outside of the classroom, let alone take them on in a “comfortable learning zone.”

A recently released clarification by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights makes it easier for college and universities to comply with Title IX regulations regarding athletics. The March 17 clarification, signed by Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights James F. Manning, specifically deals with the “fully and effectively” test, the third of three prongs to determine if a school is in compliance with the 1972 regulation that bans discrimination on the basis of sex from institutions that receive federal funding. The clarification was published on the Office of Civil Right’s Web site.

Colleges and universities are supposed to teach students, opening their minds and getting them to think critically about the world around them. Often they do, but not always. A recent case is illustrative of the problem of thought control masquerading as education.

RALEIGH – University, community college, and state budget office officials have spent part of the week lobbying state legislators for more funding for higher education, while arguing against proposed line-item budget cuts. University of North Carolina President Molly Broad, UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor James Moeser, and North Carolina A&T Chancellor James Renick have been among those making presentations to members of the Joint Appropriations Subcommittee on Education. The presentations, including those made by representatives from the community college system, focused on the theme of making college more affordable while increasing funding for university and community colleges needs.

RALEIGH – Gov. Mike Easley’s proposed budget would give substantial increases in funding to the state’s public universities, as well as the community college system. Easley’s proposed budget was released Wednesday during a presentation with members of the Joint Appropriations Committee. Funding for the University of North Carolina represents 8.7 percent of the proposed $16.9 billion general fund budget.

One of the most important lessons anyone can learn about politics is that when government sets out to accomplish some objective, it often winds up doing the opposite. Rent control laws, for example, are supposed to help the non-wealthy who want urban housing, but the effect of rent control is to diminish both the quantity and quality of rental housing available. With that point in mind, let’s consider federal student aid programs. Congress has established a variety of grant and loan programs (budgeted this year at some $73 billion) which were supposed to help make college more affordable to millions of non-wealthy families. As the cost of attending college has risen, politicians have increased the amount of aid available. The trouble is that by doing so, the government gives colleges an incentive to further increase tuition charges.

Just three months after his campaign to become the Vice President of the United States ended, former Senator John Edwards has been given a new job that seems designed to keep him, at least occasionally, in the public eye. Edwards is going to become the Director of a new organization called the Center on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity (CPWO for short) that will officially be a part of the Law School at UNC-Chapel Hill. His title will be University Professor. He will give occasional guest lectures and do whatever directing the CPWO entails. For that work, he’ll be paid $40,000 annually. That’s a lot less than a senator is paid, but money is really no object for the millionaire lawyer.

Critics of higher education often write about leftist bias in the classroom, barely literate students who somehow gain admission, dumbing down of course content, and academically disengaged students. Sometimes, however, those problems write themselves.

Near the very end of the 2003 legislative session, the General Assembly passed a new law that gives to all graduates of the North Carolina School for Science and Mathematics (NCSSM) a tuition waiver if they enroll in any of the campuses of the UNC system. With tuition charges going as high as $4,400 (at Chapel Hill), this policy is a substantial yearly saving for those families whose children graduate from NCSSM and then choose one of the UNC campuses.

RALEIGH -- In June 2003, the Supreme Court heard two cases concerning racial preferences in Michigan higher education, Gratz v. Bollinger (on preferences used by the University of Michigan) and Grutter v. Bollinger (on preferences used by its Law School). The Court ruling against outright racial preferences in admissions while ruling in favor of considering race in admissions so long as it is used as only one of "pertinent elements of diversity."

For more than 30 years, Title IX of the Education Amendments has been heralded as the reason for the increase in the number of women’s athletic programs across the country and providing opportunities for women like Mia Hamm to compete on the college level. While Title IX has provided more opportunities in athletics for women, it has done the opposite for men. A federal guideline intended to prevent discrimination among the sexes in education has done just the opposite in college athletics. Title IX requirements have been used to cut athletic opportunities for men, while at the same time increasing opportunities for women.

RALEIGH -- The new year has presented "academic freedom" with a grave new threat. The Foundation for Individual Liberty has published its Guide to Free Speech on Campus. The guide gives a shot in the arm, however, to academic freedom.