A PRO-WRESTLING PROMOTER AS SECRETARY OF EDUCATION? sure, it fits

The position of Secretary of Education is  commonly filled with the secular equivalent of scamming televangelists. Such individuals lack the training, experience, common sense and moral virtue to do the job right. The majority, however, do possess two crucial skills. They are tub thumping bullshit artists and masters of fakery. So who better to be Trump's second term Secretary of Education than the queen of pro-wrestling promotion, Linda McMahon!

This sort of appointment is an honored tradition. The Reagan administration provides a particularly good example. Like Trump, Reagan promised to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education. Once in office, though, he quietly dropped that when education unexpectedly gained national attention.  

He still cut education spending by half. But despite this major cut, Reagan wanted to look like he supported public education. So he appointed William F. Bennett, a huckster blowhard of considerable skill, as Secretary of Education.  Bennett was a carnival barker in both style and effectiveness. His unrestrained exaggerations and gross over-simplifications repeatedly made the news. And as they did, gullible Americans came to believe that much was wrong with America's schools. And that the Reagan administration was working hard to fix them.

This is not the place to detail Bennett's demagoguery.  Let's just recount an incident that captures the noxious essence of his humbug. This Secretary of Education wrote an article that appeared in the November 1988 Readers Digest. In it he praised a school principal's extraordinary method of "reforming a troubled inner-city Washington, D. C. school." "On the very first day," wrote Bennett, "this remarkable educational leader," this "no-nonsense principal, assembled the student body and ... with practiced eye, chose 20 chronic troublemakers to enforce order and put an end to chaos." And, according to Bennett, putting the school's miscreants in charge worked like magic! Order was restored and education proceeded!

Can you imagine? The school is chaotic and the principal's solution is to put the trouble-makers in charge! Even a Secretary of Education should recognize that such a policy is just plain nuts. But Bennett was not interested in the multifaceted and highly complex nature of actual reform. He was shoveling bullshit for political purposes.  Simple solutions for the simple minded. 

This is  a sample of how he politicized his position with carnival-barker effectiveness. He repeatedly beat up on the National Education Association  — still a relatively innocuous organization back then. Charging that it was a major cause of what he alleged to be national school decline. He repeatedly pointed to it as the chief villain.  But why did Bennett attack the NEA when school problems were so clearly linked to far more complex problems? He trashed it because the union favored the Democrats and, ineffectually, opposed the Reagan administration's education policies.  Bennett's job was to confirm the biases of Reagan voters and he did that well. What he failed to do was offer genuine leadership.

Enough about Bennett. Let's turn to Arnie Duncan, President Obama's Secretary of Education. Unlike Reagan, Obama increased Federal education funding by an extra $100 billion. But his selection of Mr. Duncan was similar to Reagan's choice of Bennett in that Arnie's chief skill was bullshitting. He lacked any knowledge of education policy, curriculum design, research on learning, human growth and development etc.. He had never even taught. Yet despite his utter lack of qualifications, he had previously been appointed CEO of the Chicago public school system from 2001 - 2008. How did he get such a job job with zero qualifications? Can you spell P O L I T I C S? 

Yes, like Bennett, Arnie was utterly unqualified. But he did have that one skill that serves any Secretary of Education. He really could dish out the shit. He was skilled at looking like he knew what he was talking about.  (He also provided the President with an excellent basketball buddy. An ex-professional hoopster, Arnie played a mean game of one on one.)  

During the Bush administration "No Child Left Behind" had been signed into law. It stipulated that in the future only "highly qualified" teachers would be permitted to teach." In fact it specifically ordained that "to teach math, science, social studies, the arts, reading or languages, candidates must have obtained a long-term teaching certificate, and demonstrate subject matter knowledge by either obtaining a college major in the subject, by passing a test in the subject taught." 

That's got teeth, right?  Ah, but wait! The lawmakers also inserted the following at the very end: "...or by some other means established by the state." This was nothing less than a last second castration! It allowed states to dodge all of the supposed rigor. They could substitute whatever feeble humbug that suited them. And, of course, that's exactly what they did. 

Were federal legislators surprised? Hardly! They wanted to look tough, while simultaneously allowing the same laxity that has characterized teacher education since its inception. Tougher standards means you have to pay more to entering teachers. Otherwise fewer aspirants will invest in meeting more stringent standards. You have to pay more to get more. And raising taxes to increase teacher pay is politically unpalatable

California initially failed to take advantage of the No Child Left Behind escape clause. Consequently, the state faced an immediate shortage of highly qualified teachers. But President Obama came to the rescue. He waived his executive order magic wand and declared that wanna-be teachers still in training were, in fact, "highly qualified?" At that time many such people were filling in as full-time teachers in California. Now, thanks to Obama, rank amateurs were instantly transformed into masters of the art. California's shortage of "highly qualified" teachers was over. 

Did Secretary Duncan complain when Obama transformed apprentices to master craftsmen with the stroke of a pen! Nope, not a whimper came from Arnie. Apparently he had changed his mind about inadequate teacher preparation. Now they could be as unqualified as he was.

Eventually a federal judge ruled that Obama's evasion violated the No Child Left Behind "highly qualified" requirement, Congress quickly corrected that. With a straight face they piously legislated that the classification "highly qualified" included those who weren't. Arnie went along with that too. By then his expressed concern about inadequate teacher preparation had totally evaporated.

Then there is Betsy DeVoss, Secretary of Education during Trump's first term. How much training in education did she have? Zero. How much teaching experience? Zero. How much education in public school where 90% of Americans send their children? Zero. How much had she and the rest of her family donated to Republican causes? Forbes reports about $200 million dollars in 2017.  That's 200 million reasons why, having always attended private conservative Christian schools, having long demanded deep cuts in federal education spending, having enthusiastically championed privatizing public schools through vouchers, and after boldly boosting the for-profit college industry despite their student loan default rate being 6 times higher, she still ended up U.S. Secretary of Education. 

Was Ms. DeVoss a bullshitter similar to the two cited above? Possibly not. She may just have been manifesting true belief in the religious fundamentalism that requires its acolytes to give up critical thinking. Perhaps that is how she could be a passionate free market advocate of unrestrained materialism, while simultaneously worshipping the anti-materialist Christ Jesus, In any case Ms. DeVoss was clearly out of her league as Secretary of Education. That's why, for her to even get the job, Vice President Pence had to cast the deciding vote, given the 50-50 tie in the Senate. Perhaps I should add, however, that she did somewhat redeem herself by summarily quitting the Trump circus after the Capital riot.

That gets us to Linda McMahon, President Trump's present Secretary of Education. Yes, she is non-other than the pro-wrestling promotor who, with her husband Vince, made multiple millions making a vulgar farce even more so. What are her educational qualifications? Pretty much the same as Betsy De Voss's. That is, donating a big gob of money, in this case more than $10 million, to elect Mr. Trump. To be fair, though, selling crudity,  floating on a sea of bullshit is well within the range of skills commonly expected of a Secretary of Education.

Of course she doesn't know much of anything about education. But Trump may even have been attracted by Ms. McMahon's pedagogical ignorance. He apparently profited from it. After all, he founded and presided over his very own phony institution of higher education. He modestly called this film-flam: "Trump University." 

This so-called university had a short life. And its governmentally forced closure was punctuated by a court-ordered $25 million settlement reimbursing over 6,000 former students who paid up to $35,000 for instruction Trump's "university" failed to deliver. Trump also paid a $1 million settlement to New York State for operating an unlicensed educational institution. Clearly, Trump knows a talented pedagogical bullshitter when he sees one. And if he needs a reminder, he can just look in the mirror. 

Why this series of pedagogical incompetents being appointed to what might be viewed the top educational job in the nation? Well, for one thing the U.S. Department of Education is largely unnecessary. Most of what really matters can be better handled by other federal agencies, the states and local school districts. These feds generally impede instruction by requiring reams of paperwork. In short, their chief accomplishment is getting in the way. That means an incompetent bullshitter filling the top executive position compliments the character of the organization.

Here's a key factor in all of this. Most alleged "education" problems have their origin far outside of schools. Take, for instance, the frighteningly large number of parents who are unqualified for the job. That fact is plain to even casual observers.Of course, no politician in their right mind will acknowledge this reality. The common pretense is that parents know what's best. Some, of course, do. But others are too stupid, imbalanced, busy, selfish, sick or distracted to do the job. Still others are unloving, neglectful, or abusive. But acknowledging this reality takes politicians where they do not want to go. 

Even the very best teachers cannot cancel out the deep personal and social problems spawned by parental incompetence and/or neglect. But from a typical politician's point of view, it's far better to pretend this political third rail doesn't exist. That's why approving a series of no-nothing bullshitters and political hacks as Secretary of Education isn't that big a problem. In fact most are hoping he or she will set smoke screens of simple-minded panaceas and misplaced blame for a problematic situation that defies remedy. 

Of course, if some pedagogical ignoramus  is chosen for the job, so much the better. So long as he or she naively but sincerely embraces panaceas and misplaces blame the charade can persist. In fact, misguided sincerity might make a simple-minded "leader" all the more convincing.

 

LEARNING WHAT THEY LIVE: the hidden curriculum

Years ago John Dewey tellingly observed that children "learn what they live." Teachers can gabble on and on about democracy, for instance. But if they run a despotic classroom, the kids learn to adjust to despotism. Possibly they even learn to need big brother. Dewey was precisely right. Children learn what they live. 

 

It's hard to overemphasize the importance of this "hidden curriculum." It is powerful yet often overlooked. Lessons unintentionally taught in this way can last a lifetime. For instance, the person who taught me the most about tyranny and abuse of power was my fourth grade teacher, Miss Weast . (Behind her back kids called her: "Miss Weast, the big fat beast.") Feared by all, this angry woman extorted compliance by means of threats and violence. A ruler across the knuckles of an out-stretched hand, for example. 

Eventually, she went too far. As punishment she held a youngster against a hot steam radiator. His relatively minor burns did not get her fired, as you might expect. She was quickly transferred to another school. But not before she had unintentionally taught me about the abuse of power. I learned this lesson many years ago. But it remains vivid.

Here's another example. This one concerning some Catholic parish schools of the 1950's. In that era, a number of overworked and under appreciated nuns bullied, slapped and otherwise mistreated the children. The little girl next door to me, even though she was never touched herself, developed severe school phobia in consequence. I'm not sure what these nuns thought they were doing. Making 'better' Catholics, perhaps. But they certainly weren't making better Christians. The kids actually learned that the sermonizing about love, mercy and forgiveness, was all talk. Plus they learned that it's not what people say, but what they do that counts. Valuable lessons, to be sure. But NOT part of the official curriculum.

Here's a final instance involving an entirely different circumstance than that which prevailed in Miss Weast's, classroom. I occasionally visited inner city schools that were chaotic. The turmoil was so bad it made learning impossible and safety doubtful. Those in charge evidently lacked the power and/or will to impose meaningful consequences for even the grossest misbehavior. As a result the bullies ran wild.

What did youngsters learn while enduring this chaos? That bullies rule? That might makes right? That there is no point in even trying to learn? Take your pick. Certainly, not much else.  Do children learn what they live? Count on it.  

To examine these and similar issues further, see articles at www.newfoundations.com 

AN "INDEX OF LEADING EDUCATIONAL INDICATORS"

Way too much is made of standardized test scores. The nation frets over them the way hypochondriacs fret over their bowel movements. Columnists and bloggers treat them as if they were Biblical. School officials anticipate their unveiling as a condemned man awaits execution. Parents hesitate to even look at their kid's results.Yet, even at their best,  standardized tests measure largely trivial things. They tell us nothing at all about schooling's actual impact on learning, about the ability to actually think critically, about what they are learning about a meaningful life, or even about the good, the true and the beautiful. 

Apologists say, standardized tests aren't perfect, but we need some measure of schooling's effectiveness.” Sure, but there already are readily available measures that offer a much better gauge. All we need do is summon up our courage and start identifying and monitoring them. Let's call these measures of schooling's success the "Index of Leading Educational Indicators." 

Here is a tentative list of such indicators. Keep in mind, it is provisional, requires development and is likely to step on a lot of sensitive toes.

• USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

Here is a powerful index of schooling's effectiveness. Count the number of adults who regularly use Facebook, X or Instagram, where there is no responsible editorial oversight, and yet feel fully informed, and you measure just how badly schooling has failed. The information they rely on is clearly based on half-baked personal beliefs, nutty conspiracy theories, the alleged influence of aliens, crackpot alternatives to accepted research, and the like. Using this sort of thing as a source of reliable information is another measure of schooling’s success. 

• THE POPULARITY OF SHLOCK TELEVISION SHOWS

Count the dedicated fans of shows like "Ancient Aliens," "The Jerry Springer Show'" "Jersey Shore," " or "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo?" and you also are counting educational failures. The more numerous the viewers of this low-brow trash, the gloomier we should be about the nation's schooling outcomes. 

• CULT MEMBERSHIP 

Every Jonestown resident who willingly swigged lethal 'Cool Aid' represents a schooling failure. So do the men in David Koresh's cult who permitted Dave to sexually service their wives and daughters because, as Koresh patiently explained to them, he was the only man pure enough for the job. And what about the schooling of that Heaven's Gate crowd who had themselves castrated to conform with "Bo" and "Peep's" teachings, then "left their bodily containers" to rendezvous with a space ship concealed behind the Hale-Bopp comet. Enumerating the followers of such movements is certainly a measure of educational failure.

• SUPERMARKET TABLOID SALES

The sales figures of these grotesque gazettes provide a far more valid measure of educational progress than anything ETS could dream up. I'm talking about those papers that headline things like "WOMEN COMMITS SUICIDE IN DISHWASHER!", or "HALF BOY, HALF DOLPHIN WASHES UP ON BEACH!" Tabloid sales figures are an inverse measure of educational progress.

•  THE POPULARITY OF FLIM-FLAM TELEVANGELISTS 

The income figures of bunko artist TV preachers, available from the IRS Tax Exempt Branch, are a sure measure of schooling's effectiveness. The more money Bible pounding bunko artists make, the less well our schools are doing. Consider the sacerdotal chap who supposedly lapses into "trances" while conducting worship services. The Holy Spirit then uses this pastor's vocal apparatus to speak directly to the congregation. The "Reverend" claims he has no idea what the Spirit says. He has to ask the congregation after he regains consciousness. The amount of money sent to guys like this should be monitored carefully, because it is an inverse measure of schooling effectiveness.

•  THE APPEAL OF FORTUNE TELLERS AND PSYCHICS

Imagine visiting a store-front psychic or fortune teller to decide who and when you should marry, if the one you love, loves you, or how to make a distant person think of you. People seriously do this. And it is a telling measure of schooling's ineffectiveness. Besides, if these individuals really can see into the future, why aren't they rich? Think of their unique  investment opportunities? 

• THE NEW YORK TIMES BEST SELLER LIST

It’s encouraging when people who have attended our schools read books at all. But the quality of the books on this best-seller list are a measure of  schooling's success or failure. A few years back, for example, millions of folks found it plausible to consider that God may have secretly constructed his own seek and find word game in the Holy Bible. For these folks, schooling was definitely a failure.

• THE QUALITY OF ELECTED OFFICIALS

Politicians in the mold of Marjorie Taylor Green provide irrefutable, if unintentional, proof that the schools, at least in their district, aren’t getting it done. We should keep tabs on this. When a majority of our politicians engage in logical reasoning, rely on factual  knowledge, are trustworthy, and unassociated with preposterous prevarications and posturing for the media, we’ll know our educational system is doing a better job.

WHAT ABOUT NON-SCHOOL FACTORS?

This Index of Leading Educational Indicators would be more powerful than anything the likes of the Educational Testing Service or Psychological Corporation could possibly contrive. But you are thinking that schools are not exclusively, even mainly, responsible for the presently dismal state of affairs that this index would probably reveal. You're reasoning that many people simply lack adequate intelligence; and that others are too lonely, angry, scared, or what have you, to learn much of anything worthwhile. 

To that I say, "so what?" Educators aren’t chiefly responsible for present-day standardized test scores either. All sorts of non-school factors interfere. Nevertheless, teachers still get blamed by everyone from pissed off parents to the U.S. Secretary of Education. The point is to blame someone. And it might as well be teachers because they haven’t shown either the ability or the inclination to fight back. They just cringe and take it. 

To examine these issues further, see articles at www.newfoundations.com 

WHAT IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT? focusing on schools

 

 

"Somebody must have been telling lies about Joseph K.; he knew he had done nothing wrong, yet he was arrested one fine morning."

                                                                                                                          Franz Kafka, THE TRIAL

If a woman wants to "get back" at some man, say a professor, she has a career-destroying weapon at her command. Simply falsely denounce him for sexual harassment. But what counts as sexual harassment? Defining it isn't easy. But this very vagueness makes it a handy weapon, for vengeance, or profit. 

Let's just look as the world of education. When, for instance, does a professor's or teacher's touching become sexual harassment? How differently may a teacher or professor treat female students before it morphs into sexual harassment? How about a professor having a framed photo of his bikini - clad wife on his desk? Is that sexual harassment? Is a college or university nurturing sexual harassment if their curriculum allegedly creates a "sexually hostile environment?" Is a college tolerating sexual harassment if a professor fails to stifle what some male student says about women in class?

For confusing input about these and similar issues, refer to:

• the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

• the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education
• federal and state case law
• state anti-discrimination agencies 
• criminal law enforcement agencies

Better check them all, though.  

At the local level, definitions and policies are commonly set out in some sort of Supervisory Guide. Here the details really matter. Especially if you are the accused. 

I have one such collegiate "Guide" in front of me. It looks like it was derived from boilerplate that must be widely used. Anyway, it defines sexual harassment as: "Any unwelcome sexual attention, sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and any other verbal, visual or physical conduct of a sexual nature whenever:

• a.) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly, or implicitly, a term or condition of an individual's continued employment: or
• b.) submission to, or rejection of, such conduct is used as the basis for employer decisions affecting such individual; or
• c.) such conduct is intended to, or has the effect of, unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance;
• d.) such conduct has the purpose, or effect, of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment."

This might sound okay at first. But the Guide deals with implicit behavior, judgements as to motivation, and judgements about reasonableness, determinations of purpose, etc. All are dangerously subjective. The Guide does elaborate somewhat. Comments like "you look nice today" are all right, if not repeated frequently. But what counts as "frequent?" That remains undefined. The Guide also notes that remarks like: "you look nice today in that tight or short (article of clothing" are generally inappropriate and "may be" sexual harassment." Then again, maybe not. It all depends on context and interpretation. 

And who does this interpretion For instance, who determine's that a glance was motivated by lascivious interest and using what criteria? And, more generally, who decides what is "sexually offensive" or "inappropriate" to begin with? In each and every instance it is the complainant, then the institution's equivalent of an Affirmative Action Officer.

This Guide advises, "If the conduct persists, or the harassed person is afraid for any reason to confront the harasser ... the individual should bring the problem confidentially to the attention of the Affirmative Action Officer. This officer ...will immediately investigate any such allegations of sexual harassment in as confidential a manner as possible."  

Secret denunciation followed by a "confidential" investigation? That's the same procedure employed by the Inquisition,  the KGB and the Gestapo!

To encourage covert denunciations, hesitant accusers are urged to "...bring the problem confidentially to the attention of the Affirmative Action Officer, without fear of any retaliation, humiliation or recrimination." The Guide even reassures those contemplating denunciation, "Retaliation in any form (emphasis added) against a complainant who has exercised his or her right to make a complaint under this policy is strictly prohibited, even if the investigation concludes that no sexual harassment has occurred, and will be cause for appropriate discipline, up to and including discharge."

 In other words, any vengeful and/or mentally imbalanced female can bring false charges and risk nothing. But anyone falsely accused risks dismissal if they don't take it lying down. This an incentive for evil doing if there ever was one.

Note the rights of the accused. The Guide advises: "The alleged harasser will be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations, but ordered not to confront or retaliate against the complaining person concerning the allegations. When possible, neutral witnesses will be interrogated [again, confidentially]." Is there a different tone here? The alleged victim is encouraged, even prompted to denounce anyone they please, while the accused only has "an opportunity to respond." But they have to make sure they take it lying down.

What is the accused permitted in making this "response?"Essentially what was permitted by Torquemada in one of his auto de fe's. Forbidden from confronting their accuser; never knowing what has been said about them, or by whom, during secret interrogations; not being permitted to question so-called "neutral witnesses;" being denied a record of the proceedings; the accused is permitted what? To deny the allegation — provided he's sufficiently docile and obliging while doing so.

And here's the worst of it. The accused is guilty if the investigator decides that guilt is "...more likely than not." How much "more likely" is sufficient? That depends on the investigator. Forget "beyond a reasonable doubt." And never mind that the investigator's job depends on unearthing a "harasser" now and again. 

By the way, the accuser is assured that all documents relating to her accusation(s) "will be expunged" from her record because they might have been "tainted" by the investigation. However, if the alleged harasser is found to be innocent enough, there are NO guarantees that his personnel file will be similarly "expunged." 

Secret denunciations, clandestine hearings, immunity for traducers, the trashing of reasonable doubt, all are judged necessary to offset the purported victim's fear of retaliation. Naturally, this encourages false charges from females bent on revenge, looking for other personal advantages, or who are just plain nuts. But the cause is thought to be so very urgent, that fairness and justice are needless encumbrances that must be discarded. What this all comes down to is egregious inequality pretending to be its opposite.

To further examine these and similar issues, see articles at www.newfoundations.com 

SCARCE ENROLLMENT EQUALS DIMINISHING STANDARDS: eroding collegiate quality

When I applied for college admission, way back in 1958, there were 3 applicants for every opening. That resulted in the school imposing seriously tough standards. To attain the rank of junior, for instance, sophomores had to pass the "Junior Standing Test." It measured their knowledge of the required subjects taken during their first two years. Fail and you remained a sophomore. To become a junior you had to retake the test until you passed. And remember, there were 3 applicants waiting to take your place. 

Imagine current administrators instituting a Junior Standing Test. More likely to find polar bears inhabiting the rain forest. Nope, today's acute shortage of applicants causes many administrators to quietly shelve meaningful standards and, instead, adopt a new guiding principle: "The customer is always right."

A new breed of alleged professors compound this slippage. These "woke," Neo-Marxist, true believers not only tolerate this decline in standards, they actually encourage it. Indeed, they reject the very idea of rigor, piously proclaiming it is just another form of white male oppression. They even denounce reason and logic, valuing right answers, the Enlightenment, and the whole of Western culture — asserting that no culture is better than any other. One wonders, given that questionable assertion, how they come to denounce the Western variety? 

If these dogmatic, true believing "professors" kept this nonsense to themselves, it might be merely amusing. But, like true believers everywhere, they insist on imposing, their beliefs on others. In consequence their lectures rival the sermonizing of Billy Graham. And they do this even though evangelization is most decidedly NOT in their job description. 

Professors communicate settled knowledge, pose intelligent questions, and lead penetrating discussions. In other words, they teach. These new-breed academics only preach, then preach some more. They lecture with the same one-sided bias Dr. Joseph Goebbels brought to the Nazi Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment. 

They function, in effect, as missionaries promoting a profane, destructive, illogical and self-loathing faith. They sermonize endlessly about the evils of capitalism and the West, while simultaneously perverting instruction, consigning scholarship to the dust bin and awarding passing grades to students who can barely read. Worse, they sell their goofy gospel to impressionable students who are still wet behind the ears. This is potentially dangerous.

However, their academic permissiveness keeps behinds in seats. That wins tacit, even active, administrative approval. Indeed, a distressing number of collegiate administrators actually add combustibles to this academic dumpster fire in order to retain as many tuition paying customers as possible. Preoccupied with meager enrollment and vanishing tuition revenue, they slyly promote slack standards and academic dereliction of duty under a variety of disguises. I know a college president, for example, who recently required professors to conduct "whole life," not merely academic, counseling. Besides scheduling classes and the like, they now are to inquire into each student's personal life. They are to ask things like: "Are you sleeping well?" "Are you suffering from digestive issues?" "Are you anxious?" "Is there recent traumas in your life?" 

Besides referring them to the Counseling Center, what is a professor supposed to do when a student's alleged difficulties are revealed? Awarding a passing grade for failing work is the most likely remedy. Of course in this environment, students quickly realize that faking trauma pays off. They know that whining could well get them a passing grade for failing work. And, from a tuition starved administrator's point of view, phony kvetching is acceptable so long as it's not too obvious.  Of course they never will will admit that.

The worst administrators even urge professors to "become the student's friend." Professors certainly owe each and every student fairness, courtesy and quality instruction. But they also have a non-negotiable obligation to sort the academic wheat from the chaff. That's why professors must NOT become a student's friend, unless and until they are no longer responsible for grading them.  

Sadly, professors also have a big stake in keeping seats full. Their job is at stake. So a lot of them are also cutting corners. And that is especially so if they teach a poorly subscribed major, and/or lack tenure, or seniority. No students, no job. 

I recall a professor of a meagerly attended Russian language program pacing anxiously outside his classroom door ten of so minutes after class was supposed to begin. He would glance at his watch, then look up and down the hall, hoping a latecomer or two might supplement his sparse attendance. Only a few ever did. But you can  bet those few who did could count on a passing grade even if they attended irregularly.

No one wants an ignorant, stupid, lazy, or otherwise incompetent individual building our bridges, doing our taxes, teaching our children, performing our surgeries, and so forth. But current higher education quality control  makes such incompetents ever more likely. 

No Whining

Professors are not qualified to pry into student's personal lives. Besides, focusing on an individual's limitations and difficulties, rather than strengths and possibilities, undermines their resilience. They should helped to understand that bad things happen. And, sooner or later, they happen to everybody. What matters is how you deal with them. So it is unwise to encourage students to wallow in their difficulties. ar better to urge these youngsters to suck it up and get on with their life.  Emphasizing grievances and personal difficulties fosters whining, quitting, self pity, blaming others, looking for excuses, etc.. Every one of which undermines their potential — should they have any to begin with.

And let's not forget that these new breed, woke "progressives" have redefined a broad range of normal stressors and perturbances as 'traumatic." And those who have experienced them are told they are "survivors." And, for good measure, minor slights, even unintended ones, have been transformed by the woke into "micro aggressions."

Rigor and student responsibility are what makes higher education "higher?" So earning a legitimate diploma requires students to perform at a legitamatly high level. Not just pay tuition. And it's a professor's non-negotiable responsibility to enforce high standards. When they fail to do so, diplomas become more and more worthless. Counterfeit might be a better word. 

This is a key reason why college degrees are losing credibility. As the new breed professors extend their influence, degrees grow even more valueless. Students trained by them have been lapping up the rhetoric of narcissism, entitlement and resentment and become certain of their own moral superiority. Consequently, they are not much good at anything that is worthy of effort.

And here's one more thing to keep in mind. There are increasing numbers of female professors. And research reveals a strong gender bias in student's reaction to females that enforce high standards. The reaction is hypercritical. Students generally expect females to be more solicitous and sympathetic. Motherly, if you will. And that means female professors have to have more guts to enforce high standards. How many actually have such fortitude? I suspect it isn't very many. Especially considering the general lack of backup from tuition starved administrators.

Sorting and Grading

Grading college students is very unappealing. Nevertheless, it is an absolutely vital responsibility. "Woke" professors are prone to evade that burden. I even know one individual who says he simply cannot fail anyone.  "I wouldn't be able to sleep at night!" he says. (This same individual has male genitalia, but sometimes wears dresses to work.) Such dereliction of duty should cost this ersatz "professor" his job. Instead, his permissiveness improves his "course" evaluations; and that helps him win both promotion and tenure. 

Such dereliction of duty is tolerated, even surreptitiously encouraged by administrators because they are more concerned about decreasing enrollment and unbalanced balance sheets than they are about quality education. Imagine suggesting to any of them, for example, that the school start requiring students to pass a final. summative test before granting them a diploma. You will have to give them CPR, should you suggest that! It's bad enough that some professors still require students to study, learn and attend class.

What has come to be called "political correctness" is at the heart of this malignant tactic to preserve budgetary soundness. It's financially convenient that many academics have become self-righteous converts to this faith. In fact, some go to astonishing lengths to equalize everyone, in a world where people are NOT equal in either ability or effort. Their loathing for the Western culture that separates their host society from barbarism is also remarkable. Remember, they assert with invincible assurance, that reason and logic are “white" and therefore bogus. So too are "objectivity" and" rationality," Even getting the right answer, is a "racist" aspect of "white identity culture," They even declare, with absolute confidence, mind you, that "it's time to decolonize the curriculum!" Of course, that curriculum supports and reflects the very culture surrounding and sustaining them.

This new breed even asserts, with a straight face mind you, that no culture is better than any other. The culture of Isis is equal to the culture of, let’s say, France.  Of course, if all cultures are equal, then it follows that no religion is better than any other. They are all relative. So now let's imagine these de-colonizers making such a claim in a theocratic Muslim society, Iran for instance, or ISIS controlled regions of the Muslim world. How long would it take before these fools were imprisoned; possibly even put to death? 

And so far as female professors who hold all cultures covalent are concerned, they must be particularly dense because they are underwriting cultures in which men routinely subjugate women and systematically deprive them of their most fundamental human rights. It’s titanicaly stupid for any woman to claim those cultures are equal to Western culture.

Winning Souls to Silliness

In this wacky world these folks inhabit, individual responsibility has virtually disappeared. Child molesters, for instance, are no longer perverted pederasts. They merely are "minor attracted persons." Worse, these academic preach their faith as objective truth to naive adolescents. And since many adolescents long for simple answers to complex questions, they win souls to this silliness. 

This quasi-religious indoctrination even emboldens some students to inquire into the political reliability of all their professors, searching for signs of damnable heresy. Should one of them even mention, say, David Hume, they noisily demand the offending devil be purged. After all, it is their faith conviction that the world is in the clutches of an all-powerful, neo-colonial white male hegemony that smothers all that is just, good, true and beautiful. And administrators, intensely preoccupied with balancing the budget and preserving their well-paying jobs, cower in the face of such outrageous student conduct, consign academic freedom and intellectual rigor to the dust bin and even pretend they too are true believers in this blighted orthodoxy when they're merely fellow travelers.

 

The "Woke" and Chairman Mao

For some time now “students” have become converts of thought-police professors. And they subsequently patrol the campus looking to be offended. They are, in effect, inquisitors, junior grade. Instead of using college to create themselves, they let political evangelists do it for them. To "convert them” so to speak. And as converts, they eagerly find any contravening researched knowledge so offensive, emotionally troubling and dangerously heretical that it must be expunged.

What disappears in all of this is individual student agency and responsibility. They've been taught to evade all that. To believe that it is never they who fail to think, who refuse to listen, who rule out being in the wrong. It is always the "other." That's who is to blame! It's not hard to see how poisonous this is. 

In truth, "woke" culture is little more than a watered down version of Mao's "cultural revolution." Professors aren't being beaten, imprisoned, or murdered as they were in Mao's China. But they are subjected to name-calling, public ridicule, administrative muzzling, censorship and job loss. Worse, this politically correct zealotry that provokes a right-wing backlash that also threatens academic freedom, but from the opposite direction.  And guess who's caught in the middle?  

Conclusion

Of course DEI is tangled up in all of this as one breed of “woke” professors continue to try to combat racism with racism, prejudice with more prejudice, inequality with more inequality, etc. Yes, Trump and his MAGA republicans are busily expunging D.E.I. from government. Corporate giants are also backing away. But  in academe “wokeness," performative virtue and identity politics remain firmly in place. Actual, as well as fellow traveling, true believers still successfully denounce non-conforming colleagues as homophobic, racist, reactionaries. They often even can block articles they deem 'heretical' from being published in professional journals. This is why professors willing to risk being labeled a heretic are as proportionaltely scarce as collegiate applicants.

Yes, in higher education the "woke" religion is now firmly in place. And, despite the impact of the Trump presidency, the zealotry of its true believers remains undiminished. In consequence the intellectual and marketplace worth of a "higher education," especially in non-STEM areas, is loosing value. What employer wants a blindly fanatic, judgmental college graduate, who knows little, can do less, and promises to be nothing but trouble?

 

In the final analysis, wokeness is having the same devitalizing impact on U.S. academic life that Marxism-Leninism had in the Soviet Union. And because it is coupled with the growing collegiate enrollment crisis, its impact is especially virulent. Worse, this quasi-religious zealotry and intellectual vacuity,  continues to coin new so-called "scholars" who substitute faith for reason and conviction for evidence. And they busily churn out ever more of the sort of pseudo-scholar evangelists who threaten higher education's very future. 

ARE PROFESSORS BEING NEUTERED?

 

I've been a day laborer, janitor, night watchman, store clerk, barber’s apprentice, U.S. Army officer, seventh-grade teacher and, for forty-six years, a professor. I was married for over half a century. Together my wife and I raised two children to happy, productive adulthood. Ultimately, she was torn from my side by 17 years of ever-progressing Parkinson's Disease. But despite my lifetime of experiences, years of advanced study, several books, almost a hundred articles, plus ofer 40 years of teaching, I was obliged to submit to anonymous "course" evaluations by puerile undergraduates, semester after semester. 

Had I been required to evaluate my professors as an undergraduate, I would have been certain someone had taken leave of their senses. Clearly, evaluation was the professor's job, NOT mine ! Nowadays, students are not asked, but required, to evaluate their betters! I can't imagine a better way to foster an ill-advised sense of entitlement.

The Barber's Cat

 Perhaps my sense of place was more well developed than most adolescents because I apprenticed in my Dad’s barbershop. It was in Altoona, Pennsylvania — then, one of the world's largest railroad centers. The shop was heavily populated by no-nonsense men who helped make the Pennsylvania the "Standard Railroad of the World." Many were also veterans of W.W. II and/or Korea. 

This was a demanding environment for a 14 year old and I soon learned to keep my opinions to myself. Early on I once chanced a remark, only to have a case-hardened customer say I reminded him of the barber's cat: "Full of piss and wind." That remark provoked shop-wide laughter. Thereafter, I kept my opinions to myself.

Now let's get back to these so-called "course" evaluations. When our college's administration imposed them, they claimed it would help them better measure course effectiveness. Previous administrations (dating back over a century) had never tried anything remotely like this. Probably because they thought students were generally incapable of delivering fair, mature, accurate appraisals — especially if they'd just earned a bad grade. 

The Provost foolishly tried to smooth our brows by pointing out that these "course" evaluations would also support fairer tenure and promotion decisions. This despite previously assuring us that this process was solely meant to evaluate courses, not professors. 

"Money Makes the World Go Around"  

I think introducing these "course" evaluations in college after college was not primarily inspired by a desire to measure course effectiveness, but to try to deal with a collegiate financial crises. For instance, like many colleges at that time, we were experiencing a shortage of applicants. That meant management was focused on the diminishing cash flow. And that required, among other things, keeping present "customers" satisfied. 

The most expeditious way to achieve that was grade inflation. Make grading easier and you retain more students. But that retention tactic could never be openly encouraged. But by introducing these so-called "course" evaluations, faculty could be coerced to cooperate for their own reasons. Chiefly, that inflating grades generally boosted the professor's "course" evaluation scores. 

Want "students" to rate you highly? Give them better grades than they deserve. So grade inflation was a win-win for spooked school administrators as well as professors who wanted good evaluations. What was lost in this Devil's bargain was fairness. Fairness for students who were actually doing quality work; and fairness for professors who stuck to reasonable standards. Both got screwed. Still another long term casualty was the value of the school's diplomas. Although that was less noticeable.

Anonymous Denunciation

"Course" evaluations were completly anonymous. Students were sternly instructed not to sign their names. This anonymity encouraged students to down-grade any professors who demanded diligence and the discomfort of serious thought.  

And students knew who graded them. Professors could only guess. So none of ever knew if a bad evaluation was retribution from some class-cutting dullard, or an honest evaluation from a student whose opinion mattered. 

A particularly humiliating finale topped off this process. On the last day of class, we professors were told to just distribute the evaluations, then leave the room.  Students might, or might, not collude once the professor we were gone. Anyway, when finished students placed their completed evaluations on the front desk to be collected by the last student finishing. He or she then sealed them in the provided envelope, and delivered the sealed packet to the department secretary. Professors were not to touch them until they were officially returned to us some months later. Clearly, we weren't to be trusted.

Excommunication

The collected evaluations were perused by a succession of administrators, then, months later, returned to us. We were to review them, benefit from the feedback, bind them for future reference, and record summative statistics on a spreadsheet. Those statistics would prove critical in any future tenure or promotion hearings.  They were the equivalent of our professorial batting average. Except hits can be reliably tabulated. They either are or they aren't. Our "hits" were recorded by dozens of self-interested umpires.

A "Tenure and Promotion Committee" conducted the inquisition ultimately determining a tenure or promotion candidate's fate. Chaired by the Provost, this committee was staffed by thoroughly house trained faculty, appointed by a similarly cooperative "Committee on Committees." I once asked the  Chair of the Committee on Committees why, in spite of my years of satisfactory service, I had never been selected to serve on this critical committee. She explained that I was "insufficiently attentive to administrative intent." This woman, by the way, was exquisitely sensitive to it. In consequence, she soon became Dean of Arts and Sciences.

Anyway, this Committee on Committees  was very powerful. They were, in effect, the Inquisitors. And the professor being examined was not even permitted to appear at his or her own inquisition. Representation was provided by their Department Chair who might or might not like the candidate.  Should a candidate have weak statistics, or should the Provost jesuitically hint disapproval, the candidate's chances were doomed. 

Predictably, professors were denied any opportunity to evaluate their chair, their dean, the provost, or the president. I once asked our new Dean, the same lady with remarkable sensitivity to administrative intent, if faculty would ever be afforded the opportunity to grade her and her superiors? I stressed that professors were obviously better qualified to evaluate administrators than immature. inexperienced youngsters were their professors. She muttered uncomfortably that this would be decided at some future date. That date, of course, turned out to be never. 

Administrators know allowing professors to evaluate them will result in their disempowerment in the same way "course" evaluations disempower faculty. Moreover, at least at my college, professors were also expressly forbidden from initiating any communications with members of the board of trustees.  

A Final Word 

"Course" evaluations effectively disempower professors. They commonly are introduced during times of low enrollment to keep bodies in seats and help balance the budget. In the short run, this buys time. In the long run, it is the road to ruin. 

How many institutions of higher education are doing this right now? Far, far too many. What will it yield? Inferior education and embarrassingly incompetent graduates. Is there any way to forestall it? Not really. The law of supply and demand is at work and the results are not happy ones. 

Enough said.