"The federal government and some state governments are now wanting to dictate to American colleges and universities what can and can't be said on campus, what must and must not be taught in the curriculum, which students to admit and which to expel, which faculty to hire and which to fire, and what subjects to research and how. Part of this effort at ideological capture of American higher education has been to try to redefine the role of trustees at our institutions,"
"Trustees are framed as accountable to "the public." They should be. The problem is that in this context, what is meant by "the public" is only that portion of it that agrees with government officials in charge at the moment, not the broader citizenry. Why is this a bad idea? Shouldn't elected officeholders have some influence on the public campuses that their governments help fund?"
Federal and some state governments are seeking to control speech, curriculum, admissions, faculty hiring and firing, and research at American colleges and universities. Part of the effort aims to recast trustees, particularly at public institutions, as partisan operatives accountable to current officeholders rather than the broader citizenry. Some governmental influence is reasonable when public funds and research support intersect with campuses, but influence becomes harmful when it turns into direct intervention and heavy-handed management. The American model favors institutional independence without a centralized Ministry of Education to preserve credible, independent sources of information and democratic accountability.
Read at Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]