We noted this embarrassment previously (here and here), and now CHE has an article:
An early draft of the statement, which would commit the university to becoming “an anti-racist and health-promoting institution that honors and uplifts the cultural wealth of our students,” has drawn sharp criticism both on and off campus, even as some applaud the effort.
As of March 11, some 75 faculty members at the university had signed an open letter of opposition written by some colleagues from the College of Science and Mathematics, which called the draft statement “deeply flawed in content, direction, and representation.” The letter argues that “the fundamental role of the public university can neither be political nor ideological activism.” A growing number of supporters from other colleges have also signed the letter of opposition online. A Boston Globe column characterizing the draft as reeking of “woke indoctrination,” has added fuel to the conflict.
The controversy comes at a time when many colleges are grappling with critical questions about race, taking steps such as adding diversity and anti-bias training, reviewing classes and curricula with an eye toward identifying and reducing racial bias, and declaring that their institutions will strive to become anti-racist. Those steps have highlighted the inherent tensions that some see between committing to anti-racism and preserving academic freedom or intellectual diversity.
Adán Colón-Carmona , a biology professor who co-chaired the committee working on the mission and vision statement, said the university takes pride in being the most ethnically diverse public university in New England. According to the university, 59 percent of undergraduates are first-generation college students, and 62 percent identify as members of a minority group. Colón-Carmona said that to be able to say that the university strives to become anti-racist “makes a statement to students that … you’re welcome here and we’re going to work to get better at this and we value you.”
But critics say that the draft — which has not yet been presented to university leaders — goes too far.
“We want to further all the important goals and directions of our society but through what we are,” said a faculty member who signed the opposition letter. “We are a teaching and research institution, and through that, we try to advance all those causes.” He spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying that he feared potential repercussions. Several other faculty members who signed the letter declined to comment.
This is not a hard issue, and reveals something very worrisome about U Mass/Boston. Universities exist to educate students in the various scholarly disciplines that have expanded our knowledge of history, language, individual psychology, living organisms, physical and chemical phenomena, and so on. Many of them aspire also to contribute to that knowledge. We can all thank Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835) for coming up with the theory of why universities should exist. It, of course, helped that Germany was one of the two premier capitalist powers in the world at the time, but that means they had the resources to establish the modern idea of a university. Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Chicago quickly adopted that ideal during the 19th-century, and embrace them to the present.
Hospitals contribute to the health of their patients. Universities contribute to the knowledge of their students through teaching and to the knowledge of the world through their research. Neither institution has as its purpose anti-racism. Both institutions must comply with laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex or race, as well they should! But that is not why the exist. They exist to promote the missions that justify their existence in the first place. (As an aside, let me suggest that Jordan Peterson and Ibram Kendi should found their own "university," since both are utterly ignorant of what universities are about.)
I conclude with a story, that I have probably told before. The late Bill Powers told me this story--he was Dean of the Law School at the University of Texas at Austin, and then President of the University. The "Commission of 125" of the University of Texas convened in the early 2000s, it was made up of academics and alumni, who issued a report about the University's future. The academics thought the mission of the university should be the good of the community and society, and blather like that--the analogue of today's anti-racism blather. It was the alumni, the business leaders and the like, who had to push back and say: no, the goal of the university is to be a great university, great at teaching and research. In fact, the University of Texas at Austin is now an even better university than it was in 2004. It has improved the undergraduate experience and enhanced the status of its graduate programs and faculty. It focused on the goals for a university.
If U Mass/Boston is a university, it will reject this ephemeral nonsense, just as UT Austin rejected the idea that its purpose was to serve society. Universities serve society by being excellent in teaching and research--just like hospitals serve society by being excellent at caring for health. This isn't hard. That it's even under discussion is alarming.
Recent Comments