Some Shrinking Violets Among College Presidents

[Cross-Posted on College Insurrection]

Inside Higher Ed reports this morning, unsurprisingly, that college presidents “have been in virtual lockstep — through legal briefs filed by scores of groups and associations, newspaper op-eds by individual presidents, and the like — in asserting that curtailing affirmative action would hurt the quality of the education students receive.” Imagine its surprise, therefore, when its own new survey survey of “841 college presidents, 27 percent of those invited to participate,” revealed that not to be the case.

As unified as they have been in their public stances, college leaders do not hold uniformly positive views on affirmative action, especially when it comes to the question at the core of the Fisher v. Texas…. Only 70 percent of campus leaders agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that consideration of race in admissions has had a “mostly positive effect on higher education generally,” and only 58 percent said the use of race in admissions has had “a mostly positive effect on education” at their institutions.

Too bad we haven’t heard more from these timid shrinking violets. Perhaps they lack a “critical mass” of supporters among their faculties — most of which no doubt also “have been in virtual lockstep” support of racial preferences — that would give them the courage to voice their opinions in public.

Say What? (3)

  1. Robin March 1, 2013 at 1:44 pm | | Reply

    The way accreditation works and the fact that it has been the higher ed accreditation standards driving mandated diversity approaches and curricular reforms and now the use of residential life programs as socialization exercises in desired values limits any college leaders ability to speak up.

    Arne Duncan has now given the accreditors and their Dewey-inspired noetic transformation agenda the leverage of participation in the federal student loan program as a hammer to keep leaders in line. To follow how accreditation standards drive change you have to read several different changes to them. Diversity was prominent before and keeping up commitment then gets subsumed in less obvious language that the initial mandate. Plus at many colleges and universities, accreditation is no longer about periodic inspections ten years apart. Many are now under continuous scrutiny.

  2. CaptDMO March 2, 2013 at 3:20 pm | | Reply

    Maybe if the memes “Affirmative Action” and “Diversity” were deemed forbidden language, when unlike the SCOTUS language, are actually refering to forced racism/sexism/”social” promotion/and other Useful Idiot “discounts”, financed with someone elses um…progressively assessed, and sequestered, money?

    Wait! Could that justifiably be defended as Fascist (or Communist-let alone Socialist) in an “Economics”, “Sociology”, or “Psychology” Masters Thesis or Doctorate?

  3. CaptDMO March 2, 2013 at 3:24 pm | | Reply

    What if a recognised “institution” declines to be officially “accredited”(beyond ACTUAL academic results of course) by their um…peers?
    Oh, right, someone elses money.

Say What?