Five ways colleges could course correct in 2024


End grade inflation, obey the law, freeze hiring of critical studies professors, and more

Maggie Kelly - Assistant Editor

January 2, 2024 


American colleges and universities are among the world’s richest and most powerful institutions. They can afford to do what they want, even if it violates common sense, standards of excellence, or even sometimes the law.


But legislators, donors, and alumni can still make a difference, and students and their families can vote with their wallets and feet — they could support schools that have made common-sense reforms toward restoring their status as centers of learning and scholarship.


Here are five improvements higher education institutions should make in 2024:


Put a freeze on hiring critical ‘studies’ professors 


Race, class and gender are important but often reductive ways of understanding the world. Academia’s emphasis on politicized views of these topics isn’t doing much good for their students or the general public.


More than 400 colleges in the United States offer a major in ethnic, cultural minority, gender, or group studies, according to U.S. News and World Report.

According to a 2017 academic journal article by Boston University religion Professor Anthony Petro, the identity politics of the 1960s and later “informed” the new “studies” departments like “ethnic studies” and “gender studies.”


This prompted a boom in hiring professors devoted to those topics, as John Ellis, professor emeritus of German literature at the University of California, Santa Cruz, wrote in his 2020 book, “The Breakdown of Higher Education.”


Due to these departments’ roots in political activism, their students are encouraged to think of race, class, gender and related topics in political terms as a clash between the oppressors and the oppressed.


For example, ethnic and Middle Eastern studies departments taught students to think of Israel as a colonial oppressor, Steven Hayward wrote in October in The New York Post.

The academic institutionalization of identity politics is linked to its tendency to see sexism and racism everywhere. On Dec. 26, The College Fix collected 72 things higher ed declared racist in 2023, and there were no doubt many more.


Ellis wrote that identity politics has a “habitual focus on grievance rather than knowledge.”


Schools should hire scholars, not activists.


Stop preaching on public affairs


Universities are not churches; they do not need to pontificate on affairs that don’t directly concern them.


Colleges faced widespread criticism for their initial non-response to the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel, and rightly so. Yet they wouldn’t be hypocrites if they hadn’t issued so many self-righteous pronouncements on topics such as Donald Trump’s election or Black Lives Matter.


The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression wrote, “When colleges adopt official institutional positions on issues outside their mission, they risk establishing a campus orthodoxy that chills speech and undermines the knowledge-generating process.”


Universities should follow the University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven committee report on the university’s role in politics, which states that “the university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.”


Princeton political science Professor Greg Conti wrote correctly Dec. 28 in Compact that “university leaders must recognize that an organization that pontificates about everything can be trusted about nothing.”


Give students the grades they deserve


Nearly 80 percent of grades given at Yale University in 2022-23 were an A or an A-, according to a faculty report publicized Nov. 30 in the Yale Daily News. 


Yale is not unique. The Harvard Crimson reported in 2023 that most universities have inflated grades since the 1980s, according to retired Duke Professor Stuart Rojstaczer’s research at gradeinflation.com.


Ending grade inflation would require students to spend more time studying and less on uninformed activism. It also might require faculty to focus more on scholarship and less on politics.


It would also produce graduates more prepared for the demands of the workplace and the rest of adult life.


Giving students grades they deserve requires teaching them serious content. Colleges must return to basic subjects like English composition, science, math, and American history in their introductory and required courses. They should teach these classes as comprehensively as possible with minimal bias.


A good start would be mandating a course for college students on American institutions and ideals and requiring students to pass a civics literacy test as a graduation requirement, as recommended by a policy report from the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal. Colleges can make students pass the test required to become a citizen of the United States.


Setting high standards would also require colleges to uphold integrity throughout their institutions and especially at its highest levels, which Harvard for one has failed to do in the case of President Claudine Gay, now under fire for dozens of instances of plagiarism.


Talk less about diversity and more about excellence


Ellis wrote, “If you were to examine any speech made by a university president fifty years ago, you would find that the word ‘excellence’ occurs with great frequency.”

“If you made the same examination now, you’d find that ‘diversity’ had taken its place,” he wrote.


In the past several decades, administrative offices focused on “diversity, equity and inclusion” have proliferated, as The Fix has extensively documented. For example, in 2023, Oklahoma public universities were scrutinized for spending $83.4 million on DEI, The Fix reported.


In her 2018 book “The Diversity Delusion,” Heather Mac Donald lists all the diversity offices on the University of San Diego campus alone; the list takes up half a page.


However, excellence is the proper goal of the university. No other institutions have the same power to educate young adults without strong pressure to serve a cause or meet a bottom line. Higher education should cherish this opportunity, not exchange it for dubious political objectives.


Maintain order and obey the law


Colleges say they want to help students from difficult backgrounds, whose families may have sacrificed most for their education. Those students, as well as others, deserve to learn without frequent distractions by protesters and riots. They need a study space, not a battlefield.


Students have the right to protest in public forums, but colleges have the prerogative to prevent trespassing and enforce decorum rules for spaces like libraries and dorms.


The Fix reported in November that eight Harvard undergraduates face university-enforced consequences for occupying a campus building during a pro-Palestinian protest – even after a top administrator gave them Twizzlers and burritos while they camped inside. Disciplinary measures like these are a good start.


Universities also must follow this year’s Supreme Court rulings banning affirmative action, not least because violating the law destroys credibility.


In October, The Fix reported that Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine explored ways to “work around the [Supreme Court] ruling on affirmative action” while creating a scholarship program, according to public records documents obtained by anti-woke medical nonprofit Do No Harm.


Even more, universities in Florida and Texas must obey laws passed in 2023 to rein in DEI on public campuses and enact post-tenure review.


Universities’ wealth and power should not put them above the law.



https://www.thecollegefix.com/five-ways-colleges-could-course-correct-in-2024/


The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.



March 19, 2025
By Gabriel Russ-Nachamie ’27 and Stephen Walker ’26 The Davidsonian March 19, 2025 Davidson’s public commitment to free expression is admirable, but recent anti-speech actions by the College contradict its guarantees to students and set dangerous pro-censorship precedents. This paradox threatens to stifle the open discourse we as a community all grow and benefit from. For context, a 2021 press release announcing Davidson’s commitment to freedom of expression states the College intends “to build a culture where everyone can participate and be heard” and acknowledges that “freedom of expression can’t exist when some people are barred from the conversation” solely on account of allegations that their speech is seen as wrong or offensive. Davidson’s pledge in the free expression statement itself commits the College to upholding protections of student expression for all because “Dissenting voices cannot and should not be censored.” Recent actions against the College Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) chapter and its president, Cynthia Huang ‘25, threaten to undo these efforts in ways harmful to each and every one of us. In a letter published by YAF’s Davidson chapter, the College accused Huang of “Harassment” for publishing political content online and distributing pamphlets that “allegedly includes misinformation” promoting “Islamophobia” and “Transphobia” that made students report feeling “threatened and unsafe on campus.” Davidson offered to “resolve” the matter by forcing Huang to either admit responsibility for the alleged violation and agree to an “Accountability Plan” demanding action to avoid further sanction or a “Code of Responsibility Council Hearing,” which is reserved for actions constituting “serious prohibited conduct in a single incident or a persistent pattern of less severe prohibited conduct,” according to Davidson’s student handbook. The content that triggered this response was political material responding to ideas and policies the YAF chapter disagreed with. It is wrong to classify disagreement as harassment simply because the disagreement “offended” students. The content in question was meant to spark discourse surrounding certain political policies and ideologies. According to Davidson’s own standards, this content should be protected speech. The content that Huang faces potential sanctions for did not explicitly or implicitly promote any action against specific people or groups on account of their identities. For example, the pamphlet from YAF notes the link between Islamic fundamentalist theology and Hamas. However, this is not “Islamophobic” but a historical and scholarly argument about justifications of violence that rely upon religious interpretations. In fact, Hamas is an acronym that stands for the “Islamic Resistance Movement” and the group uses Islamic theology to justify their actions. Discussing the impact of religion on violence, whether it be Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, is protected speech and not bigotry. The club did not in any way target students and the material was freely available for anyone to engage with or ignore. Serious political disagreement on issues always has and will continue to offend individuals who dislike competing opinions. However, a small group of students being “offended” never justifies institutional backlash against political speech. We are not the only individuals or groups concerned about this restriction on speech. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a nonpartisan national organization dedicated to protecting free speech for all Americans, recently sent a letter to President Doug Hicks ‘90. FIRE urged Davidson to drop the charges against the YAF chapter and change its policies to align with the Chicago Principles of free speech, commonly known as the Chicago Statement which Davidson has allegedly committed to upholding. Adjudicative bodies should not base their decisions purely on perceptions motivated by personal feelings and biases. These actions by the college against YAF risk violating Davidson’s commitment to ensuring free speech and robust debate among students. No threats or harassment against students were included in YAF’s content, and anybody who does not like what they have to say is not being forced to engage with their content in any way. The only discernible motivation for going forward with sanctions is that YAF is a political minority that has questioned political orthodoxies in a way that is upsetting to others. The College’s Commitment to Freedom of Expression was made to protect this type of conduct. The Commitment directly states, “Davidson College’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate, discussion, and deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even most members of the college community to be offensive or unwise.” Sanctioning YAF for political arguments violates our rights as students and has dangerous implications. The aforementioned press release announcing Davidson’s commitment identifies “self-censorship” as a problem for Davidson and a motivator for its creation of the Commitment to Freedom of Expression statement. When students see that the only person who has spoken out against the majority in a political debate is facing sanctions because others did not like the content that student shared, said administrative action sends a message that dissent is unacceptable. This potentially triggers more self-censorship among all those who may disagree with this and countless other political ideas. As the presidents of the Davidson College Republicans and the Davidson College Libertarians, we stand for the free speech rights of all Davidson students. As a leading liberal arts school receiving taxpayer dollars, Davidson has publicly committed itself to upholding free speech rights for students and faculty. We call on the College to uphold its proclaimed principles and reject punishing students and political clubs for speech that some might disagree with or find offensive. We call on the College administration to change the Code of Responsibility to align with the Chicago Statement, as FIRE argued is crucial for Davidson in its letter to President Hicks. Finally, we firmly reject the anti-intellectual, adolescent mindset that has motivated the support for YAF’s censorship. Unwillingness to coexist with peers you may disagree with is unbecoming of students at such a prestigious institution like Davidson. You can’t take away your peers’ rights just because people’s feelings are hurt. Gabriel Russ-Nachamie ‘27 is an economics and mathematics double major from Lincolnton, NC and can be reached for comment at garussnachamie@davidson.edu. Stephen Walker ‘26 is a political science and English double major from Philadelphia, PA and can be reached for comment at stwalker@davidson.edu. https://thedavidsonian.news/1063/perspectives/davidson-college-republican-and-davidson-college-libertarian-presidents-we-stand-for-free-speech-at-david son/
February 26, 2025
"I shared this note with the Washington Post team this morning:"
February 26, 2025
By James (Jim) Martin '57 The Davidsonian February 26, 2025 As a loyal alumnus, I love Davidson College. There are few things here that I don’t love. Perhaps you feel the same, for similar or different reasons. While privileged to teach chemistry here for twelve years, I got into politics as a Mecklenburg County Commissioner. For five decades since retiring from the faculty to become a member of the US Congress, I followed Davidson mostly in passive ways. My annual giving was modest until I was in a position to increase my donation and deliver a significant gift from Duke Energy while on its Board. This and generous friends endowed Professor Malcolm Campbell’s multidisciplinary Genomics Program and a chair in chemistry honored to support Professor Erland Stevens. While Governor of North Carolina, I received an honorary degree and spoke at graduation. All this is a self-aggrandizing way to say I’m part of Davidson College and fully committed to helping it become the best it can be. This was tested when our Trustees decided that the President and the majority of Trustees need no longer be Christian. I joined eleven other former Trustees in a statement objecting to what we believed would undermine Davidson’s tradition and Statement of Purpose. This angered some alumni, especially recent graduates. You might be amused at how many defended the change simply by denouncing us as “old white men.” This trifling trifecta of accursed identity was true, but ignored thoughtful reasoning. This drew me to an even smaller, unofficial group of concerned alumni, Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse ( www.dftdunite.org ). Since 2018, its founders had petitioned Davidson College to adopt the Chicago Principles on Freedom of Expression. Pleading from a conservative viewpoint, they got little respect. Even with support from hundreds of alumni representing a wider range of interests, ages and viewpoints, DFTD continued to be disregarded. In 2021, President Carol Quillen heeded a similar appeal from several faculty members, whose interests weren’t aligned with ours. She appointed me to a group of six chaired by Professor Issac Bailey to compose a Davidson vision for academic freedom of expression reflecting Davidson’s commitment to ideals of diversity. The resulting document containing every element of the Chicago Principles was deferred until the arrival of new President Doug Hicks. With his calm inspiration, earnest discussions among faculty won growing acceptance. In early 2023, “Davidson’s Commitment to Freedom of Expression” was affirmed by a nearly unanimous vote. DFTD found ways to support greater diversity of viewpoints on campus. A student chapter of Free Speech Alliance was founded and DFTD was pleased to provide funding for their and others’ invited speakers. This led individual students to entrust us with suspected violations of their academic freedom. Most alarmingly, we heard about several dozen academic courses with syllabi requiring students to confess themselves “oppressors,” repent and atone . . . religious conditions irrelevant to the subject matter. Ironically, DEI is Latin for “gods.” We learned from other students about an astonishing “mandatory” order that all Davidson athletes attend a one-sided, provocative documentary entitled, “I’m not Racist…am I?” Its message? If you are white, you are racist. If you’re non-white, you can’t be racist. Melanin matters. While we don’t object to anyone studying such controversial notions, we protested the coercive way highly partisan objectives were imposed as a condition for participating. After several months with no assurance that our concerns were taken seriously, we reported this to our subscribers. Our purpose was to bring about a remedy, not punish or accuse any individual as was making national headlines at other schools. We figured some may have felt they were doing what was expected of them. One of us mentioned this campus issue in an interview on Fox News. This exploded into far wider circulation than we had foreseen or intended. Faculty and administration were flooded with vile communications from hundreds of anonymous individuals. At the time, this threatened to damage the reputation of Davidson College as well as DFTD, likely among opposing factions. I see no consequent injury against the College today, and DFTD’s standing has become more respected or tolerated even among some who dispute us. We made a point to welcome Dr. Chloe Poston as DEI Vice President at Davidson. She listened to our encouragement to explore ways to reform those abuses. Was it fair, in the cause of including diversity, to blame students for past discriminatory practices for which they bore no personal responsibility? We were pleased to discover, not long after the fall term began, that every course whose syllabus had defamed students as “oppressors” had dropped the insulting indoctrination. To us, this was good news, reflecting a less divisive and more welcoming attitude on campus. We commend those among faculty, administration, and students whose thoughtful contributions led to these corrections. Other reforms may need attention. Do any departments still require DEI allegiance in ways that filter out conservative scholars? Do students or faculty still feel intimidated to self-censor their thoughts and questions? Will Davidson adopt institutional neutrality for ideological controversies? There’s now the question whether Davidson‘s more welcoming, less doctrinaire approach to inclusion of a wider diversity of attributes, cultures and viewpoints will survive the national backlash against DEI. The federal government has declared a campaign to eradicate any trace of it. Among our DFTD membership we’ve learned to respect divergent views among friends, but I can tell you there is division over this. Some are convinced the same old divisive malpractices will simply be continued behind new titles, concealing the enforcement of identity politics. Others trust that Davidson’s new approach can be a positive model for others. Davidson can demonstrate a standard of healthier assurance that every student, without regard to their culture, religion, attitude, politics or appearance, will be genuinely welcomed and encouraged to grow intellectually, socially and spiritually. Large universities with massive DEI staffing must choose to fold or fight. If Davidson can restore diversity’s original ideals without the partisan excesses, other elite colleges might choose to defend this more sensible approach. The Davidsonian 2/26/25 by Davidsonian - Issuu
Show More