In Hamilton's case
“In Hamilton’s case, she [Inzer] said, the college was doing a better job of attracting the kinds of applicants it wanted without merit aid…” source: Doing the Right Thing – and Thriving
Kind of begs the question: what kind of students does Hamilton want? Merit is no longer in the calculus, and in fact it seems by implication to be the wrong thing.
Anyone with exposure to Hamilton’s students gets the sense that, in the main, they are of extraordinary quality…perhaps more resistant to what many suspect is growing flaw in process. The students attending the AHI’s colliquium did not hesitate to vigorously and effectively defend Prof. Ambrose from the challenges of the Harvard students. That said, anyone with any exposure to Hamilton’s students also knows they increasingly are dealing with something most alumni never had to and would not tolerate: explicit politicization of the classrooms on the Hill.
We hope that a Command Turnover Review would accompany the ascension of a new Chairman. It’s been painfully obvious that President Stewart didn’t bother with one at inception, primarily because the board didn’t want or expect one.
This one should include a broad, confidential survey of students’ on the Hill in this regard. It’s needed.
hb
This month, Oxford University Press will publish Stanley Fish’s long anticipated new book, Save the World on Your Own Time. The title says it all — this book represents the culmination of Fish’s evolving thinking about what professors should (and should not) be doing in the classroom. Once a leader in the move to politicize humanities departments — during the 1990s Fish transformed the Duke University English department into a top-tier, cutting-edge center of politically motivated teaching and research — Fish has since recognized that many college teachers go too far. He has posted eloquently on what academic freedom is and isn’t at his New York Times blog, and now he has developed his thoughts into a book. The timing is vital: In an interview with Inside Higher Ed, Fish estimates that around 5 to 10 percent of college faculty “are always imposing their loyalties on the students in an attempt…to recruit students into a political agenda.” Given that the American professoriate numbers about 1.7 million, that’s somewhere between 85,000 and 170,000 professors who are abusing their positions in unconscionable ways. If Fish is anywhere near correct, that’s a pressing problem that requires immediate attention.
Fish’s estimate tallies with figures ACTA uncovered in Politics in the Classroom, a 2004 survey of college students done by the University of Connecticut. Politics in the Classroom revealed that 46 percent of respondents said “some professors use the classroom to present their personal political views;” 49 percent said “that professors frequently comment on politics in class even when it has nothing to do with the course.” When both students and experienced faculty members are reporting the same problem, there’s reason to believe it’s real — and there’s reason for trustees to initiate institutional self-studies to identify and address problems on their campuses.
———-
Hamilton is not immune.
27 Comments
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (27)
Congrats, Bob!
You've got it right (again).
wtf,
fssw has a valid point. Giving of your time is extremely important. Volunteer Weekend and Fallcoming, the campus is loaded with alumni volunteers giving more of their time.
And you know that they eliminated those election restrictions, upon reconsidering.
About Mr. Menges: That whole situation is unfortunate for both sides, but it is obvious from the outcome that there was an insurmountable divide in making a meeting of the minds at the board level. Given the size and composition of the Board, the chasm had to have been very deep indeed for them to have accepted his resignation.
While we may never know the whole story from both sides, I still hold to the theory that ultimately the College (i.e., Board) was uncomfortable with the governance structure. Is not allowing the AHC/I to be established on campus [without having to comply with the Board's requirements (assuming they were laid out)] what you mean by "restricting the academic freedom of senior professors"?
Congratulations to Professor Paquette!
Do you mean the governance structure that was laid out in exact detail in the AHC charter signed by President and Dean?
Curious
"While we may never know the whole story from both sides, I still hold to the theory that ultimately the College (i.e., Board) was uncomfortable with the governance structure. Is not allowing the AHC/I to be established on campus [without having to comply with the Board's requirements (assuming they were laid out)] what you mean by "restricting the academic freedom of senior professors"?"
Why are the alumni left to wonder whether the board laid out requirements or not?
Why would the trustees or the administration withold facts of this story from the alumni?
In the context of subsequent economic reprisals taken against Paquette, seemingly in violation of academic freedom, ...this would seem no small matter.
The reality is that the alumni can know the facts of what happened: it is a simple matter of disclosure. The other reality is that they won't do it. Perhaps the volunteers at alumni weekend might ponder why?
................................
And please show me where the college even mentions Paquette's nomination?
What I was “possibly thinking” was self-explanatory.
With respect to your first two “whys”: I am not privy to any more information than any other alum in these matters. But I have been around the block a few times, and I can connect-the-dots, and by posting here can show that those educated on the Hill can reach an alternative viewpoint, given the same facts.
With respect to Professor Paquette and what I believe is your reference to his “zero”: I don’t see how that (coming years later) illuminates what went on at the Hamilton Board level with respect to the Alexander Hamilton Center/Institute.
“The reality is” that many alumni who volunteer were indeed disappointed about the outcome of the AHC/I, but continue to work for the good of Hamilton in a very real and tangible way. We may not know all that went on, nor may we all agree with everything that has transpired, but those of us who gather on the Hill to work are much rewarded for our efforts – it is very satisfying.
I am not in charge of HOLAC, so again, why the snide comment?
With the exception of hb (and Prof. Paquette), most of the critics of Hamilton who post here choose to remain anonymous. Why is that, wtf?
That's precisely what's wrong. The alumni should know and should demand to know what's going on at their school.
Anonymous posters have concerns about retribution from trustees & administrators. The denial of Paquette's raise is a case in point.