ProfessorBainbridge.com

New Governor Gavin Newsom screws University of California Faculty

UCLA Faculty Association:

The largest of the Governor’s proposed augmentations for the California State University (CSU) and University of California (UC) are increases in employee salaries and benefits. The Governor’s budget, however, supports increases for all CSU employees whereas it supports increases only for represented employees at UC.

Most UC faculty (including yours truly) are not represented by a union, which means we could be looking at yet another year with no cost of living adjustment.

Organized anti-Israel protestors who broke up a meeting at UCLA to get mere slap on the wrist

From UCLA Faculty Association's blog:

Organized disruptors — both students and non-students — who shut down a pro-Israel gathering at University of California Los Angeles in May 2018 might not be prosecuted, according to information from LA City Attorney Mike Feuer’s office. Instead, they will be called to a confidential but mandatory proceeding called a “City Attorney Hearing,” an alternative to prosecution that can be described as a “warning” not to repeat the conduct in question.

One legal expert compared it a “deferred prosecution,” but stressed that a full trial could still result. Victims generally do not appear at such a hearing, the City Attorney’s office explained, and usually no criminal record is attached. Still, the prosecutor retains the right to issue charges later if he feels the illegal conduct has recurred or may recur.

Michigan to close its Confucius Institute; UCLA's remains open

Inside Higher Ed via The UCLA Faculty Association:

The University of Michigan will close its Confucius Institute next year when the current agreement governing the institute expires. ...

he Confucius Institutes -- Chinese-government funded centers of language and cultural education housed on about 100 U.S. university campuses -- have come under increased scrutiny over the last few years as a number of political figures have called for their closure. Chief among the critics is U.S. senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, who has characterized the institutes as part of a broader effort by the Chinese government to influence American academia and stifle critical analysis of China's history and politics.

Criticism has also come from within academe. The American Association of University Professors has recommended that universities should renegotiate their agreements to ensure academic control of the institutes and academic freedom for all instructors or otherwise cease their involvement. The National Association of Scholars published a report last year recommending closure of the institutes and finding that in hosting them "universities have made improper concessions that jeopardize academic freedom and institutional autonomy."

This has been a longstanding concern here at UCLA (see my 2015 blog post) but the administration seems uninterested in the problem.

John O McGinnis on "The University of California’s New Loyalty Oath"

On Tuesday, he visited some of the same issues I discussed yesterday, making a nice point:

Let’s substitute a statement that would require all applicants to tell the university how they had and how they would promote patriotism, perhaps further defined as the notion that Americans are held together by their participation in an exceptional nation. One can imagine the howls of protest that the University has no business in judging professors’ adherence to a political mission that may be in tension with their beliefs. But I have not heard of any complaint from University of California law professors, some of whom claim to civil libertarians.

 

Diversity Efforts at the University of California III: Screening Out Conservatives via the Loyalty Oath

Once upon a time, there was a great controversy at the University of California over requiring faculty to take an oath of loyalty to the United States. Now, with very little controversy, the UC effectively requires new faculty to take an oath of loyalty to diversity. The UC's latest Annual Accountability Sub-Report on Diversity explains:

Nearly all UC campuses now require that job applicants submit a“contributions to diversity” statement as a part of their application materials through UC Recruit. Campuses have refined their evaluation of such statements through the use of rubrics. Several of the Advancing Faculty Diversity programs have prioritized “contributions to diversity”credentials of candidates earlier in the search process and modeled evaluation processes that integrate this information into review of candidates’ skills, experience, expertise, and promise. ...

Nearly all campuses require applicants to submit a“Contributions to Diversity” statement. UC Berkeley has piloted new guidelines for using these statements to evaluate candidates at all levels of decision-making. ...

UC Irvine is ensuring that Contributions to Diversity statements are standard in merit reviews of established faculty.

That these statements are intended to elicit that candidate's commitment to the politically correct definitions of diversity is confirmed by a more elaborate set of instructions explaining the University of California San Diego's faculty appointment process:

The Contributions to Diversity Statement should describe your past efforts, as well as future plans to advance diversity, equity and inclusion. It should also demonstrate an understanding of the barriers facing women and underrepresented minorities and of UC San Diego’s mission to meet the educational needs of our diverse student population.

Some faculty candidates may not have substantial past activities. If such cases, we recommend focusing on future plans in your statement. However, please note that a demonstrated record of past effort is given greater weight than articulating awareness of barriers or stating future plans. A more developed and substantial plan is expected for senior candidates.

In effect, this is a loyalty oath requirement. Why? Because, as I observed previously, "I suspect 'none' would not be an acceptable answer. I also expect a detailed discussion of how one has tried to promote intellectual diversity within the academy by resisting the left-liberal hegemony would be even less acceptable." Good luck hiring anybody right of center with that screening system in place. Indeed, as Heather MacDonad observed, good luck hiring anybody apolitical:

If Albert Einstein applied for a professorship at UCLA today, would he be hired? The answer is not clear. Starting this fall, all faculty applicants to UCLA must document their contributions to “equity, diversity and inclusion.” (Next year, existing UCLA faculty will also have to submit an “equity, diversity and inclusion statement” in order to be considered for promotion, following the lead of five other UC campuses.) The mandatory statements will be credited in the same manner as the rest of an applicant’s portfolio, according to UCLA’s equity, diversity and inclusion office.

A contemporary Einstein may not meet the suggested evaluation criteria. Would his “job talk” — a presentation of one’s scholarly accomplishments — reflect his contributions to equity, diversity and inclusion? Unlikely. Would his research show, in the words of the evaluation template, the “potential to understand the barriers facing women and racial/ethnic minorities?” Also unlikely. Would he have participated in “service that applies up-to-date knowledge to problems, issues and concerns of groups historically underrepresented in higher education?” Sadly, he may have been focusing on the theory of general relativity instead. What about “utilizing pedagogies addressing different learning styles” or demonstrating the ability to “effectively teach and attract students from underrepresented communities”? Again, not at all guaranteed.

The UC-Irvine approach--apparently soon t be extended to UCLA--of requiring these statements from existing faculty is particularly troubling, at least as far as those of us who already have jobs at the UC are concerned. I am reminded of the Struggle Sessions so common in Communist China during the Cultural revolution, in which the slightest deviation from approved discourse and belief required intense self-flagellation. There is an implicit threat that failing to espouse the correct values and to implement them in some comprehensive form would result in an adverse outcome.

Diversity Efforts at the University of California II: End-running Proposition 209

The University of California's latest Annual Accountability Sub-Report on Diversity contains a rather interesting statement:

California State law states that a candidate's race, gender, ethnicity, or certain other personal characteristics may not be considered in the evaluation of academic appointments. Through its policies, UC has adopted a strategy for recruiting and retaining a diverse faculty by recognizing and rewarding faculty contributions to diversity and equal opportunity through their teaching, research, outreach, and service. In 2006, UC faculty and administration approved new language in the Academic Personnel Manual (APM) specifying the importance of “contributions to diversity” in faculty recruitment, review,and advancement. APM 210 1-d contains this notable language, first added in 2006 and updated after vigorous engagement by faculty in 2015:

The University of California is committed to excellence and equity in every facet of its mission. Contributions in all areas of faculty achievement that promote equal opportunity and diversity should be given due recognition in the academic personnel process, and they should be evaluated and credited in the same way as other faculty achievements. These contributions to diversity and equal opportunity can take a variety of forms including efforts to advance equitable access to education, public service that addresses the needs of California’s diverse population, or research in a scholar’s area of expertise that highlights inequalities. Mentoring and advising of students and faculty members, particularly from underrepresented and underserved populations, should be given due recognition in the teaching or service categories of the academic personnel process.

I don't think I'm being unreasonable in reading that statement as basically saying "the law doesn't let us consider certain personal characteristics, but this is how we end run that prohibition."

It's pretty much the same thing the University does with the "holistic admissions" process. 

Diversity Efforts at the University of California I: The Lack of Concern for Intellectual and Ideological Diversity

From University of California President's Janet Napolitano latest state of the university memo:

UC recently announced a commitment of more than $7 million annually to increase faculty diversity. We know that students’ academic performance and career aspirations are enhanced when faculty of similar backgrounds serve as role models, and we will be building on existing programs that help to ensure students on all 10 UC campuses benefit from a faculty that better reflects California’s diversity.

The funding will also support new programs and a sustained, ongoing approach to identify and cultivate talent and offer instructional programs, services and incentives that recognize the ways underrepresented groups make decisions about whether to pursue faculty careers.

Our faculty diversity efforts were part of the discussion with UC regentsduring a meeting last month of the Academic and Student Affairs Committee that explored data contained in UC’s Annual Accountability Sub-Report on Diversity.

You'll notice the lack of any reference to intellectual and ideological diversity. The absence of such references becomes even more pronounced when one looks at the Annual Accountability Sub-Report on Diversity. In a 20 page report, there are no references to intellectual and ideological diversity. None. 

Law School Hiring and the Bias Against Conservative Candidates

“comparing conservative/libertarian law professors hired from 2001-2010 with equally-credentialed liberal law professors, conservatives/libertarians end up, on average, at a law school ranked 12-13 spots lower” But there’s no bias in law school hiring, right? https://t.co/bgU9JZRoyR

— Professor Bainbridge (@ProfBainbridge) August 2, 2018

@UCLA @UCLA_Law makes faculty go through anti-bias/pro-diversity training before serving on hiring committees. In light of this study, that training ought to include promoting intellectual diversity and identifying anti-conservative bias. https://t.co/OZ2OZd5Aqd

— Professor Bainbridge (@ProfBainbridge) August 2, 2018

Should you ask a question at a faculty meeting?

I am debating whether I should email this to all of my @UCLA_Law colleagues. I think most will get the joke. https://t.co/7QCoHAYeHZ

— Professor Bainbridge (@ProfBainbridge) July 26, 2018

University Boardrooms Need Corporate Governance-Style Reform

Universities are in many ways the worst run institutions in our society, with basically lousy governance.We see this in the way administrative bloat drives university tuition increases at well above inflation rates. We see it in the way the inmates are all too often allowed to run the asylum. We see it in how hiring emphasizes every kind of diversity except for ideological and intellectual diversity.

Maybe the answer has been staring us in the face; namely, bringing corporate governance reform to the university.

In today's Wall Street Journal, Paul S. Ivey explains that he resigned from the University of Pennsylvania's board of trustees mainly because it turned out that the board was a powerless, toothless watchdog. It sounds like administrators treated Penn's board the way farmers treat mushrooms (keep them in the dark and covered with manure).

Trustees and donors candidly admit in private that they do not want to jeopardize their children’s chances for admission. Many serve out of genuine interest and affection for their alma mater, although they also enjoy the prestige, influence and perks, like access to the university’s medical system, that go with the positions. There’s no incentive to rock the boat, and universities make sure they don’t get much opportunity. At the trustee level, the board is large and its formal meetings are entirely show and tell, with discussion severely limited and vote outcomes never in doubt. Penn Law overseers do not vote on anything. One Penn medical school board member told me he was dropped because he had asked too many questions.

The corporate world offers a parallel to trustees’ abdication of their fiduciary duties. Reformers of the 1980s argued correctly that the interests of shareholders were too often subjugated to personal interest and small-group social dynamics on boards that compel unanimity. Just as the resulting realignment of interests between corporate boards and shareholders unleashed spectacular value for American investors, an activist response by the governing bodies of America’s universities is now essential.

The problem is pervasive, as Michael DeBow explains:

On August 19 [2014] the intrepid American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) released a timely report on the governance of colleges and universities.  “Governance for a New Era: A Blueprint for Higher Education Trustees” was the work of a blue-chip 22-member committee chaired by Benno Schmidt, a former president of Yale.

The 16-page report is available online, and deserves a wide readership, since most Americans have some stake in higher ed – as taxpayers, even if not as parents or students or employers.

As a matter of legal formality, the ultimate responsibility for a college or university is almost always in the hands of a board of trustees, responsible for selecting the institution’s president, monitoring his or her performance, and making broad policy decisions.  As a practical matter, however, the trustees’ actual input into university governance is usually much less than that of the faculty – who call the shots as to the curriculum and other matters of academic policy, and the president and senior administrators – who run virtually everything else.  This status quo is sometimes referred to, approvingly, as “shared governance.”

Obviously, I'm not calling for the sort of Wild West activism we see in the corporate world. All I am saying is that higher education reform really ought to start with reforming the board of trustees so as to give them real power:

• New board members should be selected by a committee of independent board members.
• Board members should have the power to hire and fire the University President.
• The University President's compensation should be set by the board.
• Board members should be subject to term limits.
• Board members should be committed to fostering a learning environment rather than safe spaces.
• Board members should meet in executive session periodically without the presence of any university employees.
• If the board chairman is a university employee, the board should appoint a lead independent member with power to call board meetings.
• It should be made clear that the university's outside auditors work for the Board not the President.

Some of these reforms go beyond what I think is appropriate for corporations, but the reason should be obvious. Firms operate in host of markets that constrain managers and discipline poor ones. Imperfectly, to be sure, which is why governance is important, but surely better than the virtual absence of market constraints on universities.

Does the anti-conservative bias in higher education matter?

From the Washington Times:

Mitchell Langbert, an associate professor of business management at Brooklyn College, reviewed the party affiliations of 8,688 tenure-track, Ph.D.-holding professors at 51 of the top 60 liberal arts colleges listed in U.S. News and World Report’s 2017 rankings.

Nearly 60 percent of all faculty members were registered as either a Republican or a Democrat, and of that sample, there were 10.4 times as many Democrats as Republicans. ...

Studies show that academic psychologists are more likely to study the attitudes and behaviors of conservatives than liberals. They are also more likely to view conservative beliefs as deviant.

Sociologists prefer not to work with fundamentalists, evangelicals, National Rifle Association members and Republicans, according to another study cited by Mr. Langbert. 

Another item in the "I probably couldn't get a job as an academic these days" file

As an addition to the "I probably couldn't get a job as an academic these days" file comes this link (via @roddreher) to a University of California San Diego document requiring a written statement from faculty applicants:

The Contributions to Diversity Statement should describe your past efforts, as well as future plans to advance diversity, equity and inclusion. It should also demonstrate an understanding of the barriers facing women and underrepresented minorities and of UC San Diego’s mission to meet the educational needs of our diverse student population.

Some faculty candidates may not have substantial past activities. If such cases, we recommend focusing on future plans in your statement. However, please note that a demonstrated record of past effort is given greater weight than articulating awareness of barriers or stating future plans. A more developed and substantial plan is expected for senior candidates.

I suspect "none" would not be an acceptable answer. I also expect a detailed discussion of how one has tried to promote intellectual diversity within the academy by resisting the left-liberal hegemony would be even less acceptable. Just as well I'm not trying to get a job at UCSD. 

Student evaluations

Maybe the whole idea of student evaluations is a stupid leftover of the 60s. When I was in law school at @UVALaw there were no student evaluations. Prof Mike Dooley told me as long as the students weren't burning him in effigy outside the Dean's office, all was well. https://t.co/EAQYddVbYc

— Professor Bainbridge (@ProfBainbridge) March 19, 2018

I cite some clear thinking on student evaluations here; https://t.co/s6TGydc5Cm

— Professor Bainbridge (@ProfBainbridge) March 19, 2018

Has UCLA Weaponized Title IX to silence conservatives and whistleblowers?

I find this case extremely troubling.

From the "It's not Paranoia if They're Really Out to Get You" File, Screwed by the University of California ... Again

I suppose we all have our gripes about healthcare these days, so I hope you'll pardon me for venting about mine. The University of California keeps making health care changes and every single time it makes my healthcare situation worse. A few years ago, they dropped my then primary care provider as an in-network provider. I changed primary care providers to a doctor who took UC Care Blue Shield plan. The University then switched to Anthem (possibly the worst health insurer in the world). My primary care provider refuses to accept Anthem--and who can blame him?--so I'm out of network ... again.

Starting this year the University has also switched to Anthem as its prescription benefits manager and, as you will doubtless have foreseen, my preferred pharmacy--Costco by mail--is out of network.

As a result, both my preferred primary care provider and pharmacy are now out of network.

I suppose I shall now have to switch pharmacies, with probably doesn’t seem all that big an issue in the scheme of things. But I continue to wonder what the University will do next to make my healthcare more costly and less functional.