Stefanik, in “Poisoned Ivies”, provides a recount of the hearing of College Presidents regarding the antisemitic riots on campuses and the suppression of free speech. Regrettably, that is about all; it is detailed and limited to the confines of the testimonies with some minor examinations of causes and remedies. She examines several major universities and then summarily discusses what went wrong and what to fix. I think, from personal experience over the past sixty plus years, that her depth of coverage is a bit shallow. The book does help to understand what happened in the hearings but it fails to understand what were the deep causes of these situations. In my opinion and in my experience, this change for the worse in universities has been building for quite a while.
The book is divided into three sections. First a long recitation of the events surrounding multiple universities and their clumsy if not outright incompetent defense of their dealings with the Hammas slaughter aftermath in 2023. Second a limited analysis of what went wrong. Third, in my opinion, a rather weak assessment and sets of recommendations on what should be fixed and how. Overall, however, the author is facing a much more complex issue and the 2023 issues were but the tip of an iceberg regarding cultural changes in US universities.
I have personal experience with three of the institutions examined by Stefanik. Stefanik provides a twenty year view, mine is over sixty five years.
First is MIT, where I was a student, faculty and researcher over the period of the 60s until the early 2010s. I chose MIT based upon my collecting trash in a janitor job at a public school in New York. The trash contained a bunch of old MIT catalogs. I took them home and spent hours reading these catalogs, seeing labs, reading course materials. In those days all you needed was great SATs and good grades. In New York Regents exams proffered grades and SATs I garnered from some friends at the Jewish Community Center, could be mastered by attending a prep course and studying the exam book, that led to 1700+ grades. Then just fill out the application, no essay, no interview, and get accepted. Never even visited! Think of the days of Richard Feynman from Rockaway Beach! Tuition at MIT in 1960 was $750 per year. Room and board the same but if you managed to live off campus with some colleagues it could even be less.
Then, over the past 60 plus years, things changed, but for the worse. The most recent example was when some administrator put gates at all the entrances of MIT. That was more symbolic than the actual physical gates. Then they went and put DEI officers in every department to ensure compliance. Then the administration became a mess of non-alumni bringing in their view of what students should look like and should believe. The quintessential example was the statements of the MIT President at Stefanik’s committee.
From a historical perspective. an interesting observation at MIT is the experience of the Presidents[1]. Until 1990, Presidents had close ties to MIT before taking office. They had studied there and taught there. Then came the outsiders with their ideas and truly gross misunderstanding of what MIT meant. I believe that this change was critical to the problems that occurred. These 36 years have been the seeding ground for the deprecation of quality education.
Consider MIT Lincoln Lab, a major Federal Research Lab, has a multibillion dollar budget funded by the US Government. It is a singular research facility primarily for the Air Force but also the FAA and intelligence community. However its management continues to display statements such as:
… is invested in cultivating a strong culture of innovation and is deeply committed to diversity and inclusion across the Laboratory… currently serves as the Executive Sponsor for the Lincoln Laboratory Hispanic/Latinx Network employee resource group.
Clearly the DEI culture still not only survives but prospers. Apparently managers select employees based upon these cultural imperatives. I spent three years working with Lincoln Lab and was highly impressed by its competence. Selection or members of the staff was based upon accomplishment. My wife also worked at Lincoln, so the employment was not DEI but competence.
One should then ask who was in charge of this change? We see that the number of graduate students from abroad, and especially the PRC! 30+% are from there and these students are supported on Government contracts. We are educating our adversaries on our tax dollars. Are US students that stupid? Hardly, it is a political ploy by the administrations to appear global, globalization of education. When these PRC students complete degrees with no debt they go back to PRC! Will we see them again as we saw Admiral Yamamoto ate Pearl Harbor?
Now Columbia is another interesting case. I had been a Professor in the Business School and on Boards at the Medical Facilities. But the best part was when I applied as an undergrad, I was denied admission in writing because I was a Catholic! A long letter from a Dean (a Donald Barr, yes the father of) accompanied my denial. Thus clearly Columbia was anti-Catholic, exemplified by Professor Hofstetter who was a highly aggressive anti Catholic. Yet none spoke of this issue 60+ years ago. But that was Columbia, in the 1930s a den of Communists. During Viet Nam it was a collection of violent protesters.
As for Harvard, I have some experience there as well but most on the medical side, which is great, and not much on the other side of the river. Medicine is simple, save a life and do so the best you can while having dignity for the patient.
What Stefanik seems to miss is how did these institutions get this way. She is just seeing the current issues. Harvard has always been a bit antisemitic, think Lowell. Columbia has always be extreme left wing, so no surprise there. But MIT? An institution which was critical in WW II, which just got a $12 B 5 year contract from the Air Force at Lincoln Lab. Yet, as I noted, when you examine the CVs of the Lincoln Management one see massive DEI efforts! If I am spending $12 billion perhaps I want the best workers not those filtered by DEI!
Finally, and most importantly, there is the issue of the institutions Governing Boards, such as the MIT Corporation[2]. It is these shadow players, often self-selected based on donations and commonality of political views that are often the buffers in retaining the new world views and degradation of the institutions. It was this Board that rid Harvard of its President but on the other side supported MIT’s President for comparable behavior. Stefanik should be examining them and not just Presidents.
Thus, Stefanik seems to miss the steps in evolution. Some steps were there before but others, such as MIT, have ruptured forth in just the past two or three decades. How did this happen? That is more important than just what is happening now.
As to what is to be done; simple, provide opportunities for American students. Feynman types should be admitted and supported. Essays and interns are useless. One never knows who writes and who reads essays. Also interning is a façade of the wealth and well connected. The Government can provide scholarships and fellowships only to American students. What counts is prior performance, not gilded credentials of no true merit. But Stefanik proposes a massive list of Government controls. The worst problem is that these institutions are not creating American students of excellence. Preference for admission should be given to American students. Perhaps the problem is mostly in American secondary education, and its failures to teach adequately which place American students at a disadvantage.
I would like to have seen Stefanik address these issues but she lightly covered them; what caused this and what can be done. The answer is not Government controls, God knows what that would lead to, the US Postal Service. The answer is university administrations and presidents who are leaders of excellence not administrators of social policy.
Posts
