The race is between the two nations competing for global dominance, the US and China. This post is triggered by an unnamed editorial in today’s Washington Post (probably authored by Fred Hiatt) criticizing China for imposing ideological limits on Chinese universities. Since the recent party congress, 40 universities have set up centers for studyiing Xi Jinping Thought. 14 universities have come under attack for being “ideologically weak.” Joint operations between US and Chinese universities must appoint a party secretary as a vice chancellor. There have also been restrictions on the internet and other matters. Without doubt, putting restrictions on higher education will make it harder for China to move into a position of full global leadership.
Of course, the WaPo editorial did not notice trends in US academia that also may lead to suppression of research activity and threaten the current leading position of US higher ed in the world, although there have been reports and columns commenting on these trends. Among them are the push for political correctness coming from students, but probably more important is the assault on higher ed coming from the Trump administration. This is seen in the attack on tax breaks for students but also the push to distort funding for research on certain topics. While not directly on higher ed, probably the most damaging has been the attack on science in government agencies, especially the EPA, with such nonsense as banning scientists who have received funding from the agencies on their scientific advisory boards, even as those receiving funding from corporations at odds with goals of these agencies are allowed to be on those boards.
Really, it looks that the two most powerful nations on the planet are having a race to suppress academic freedom and suppress the free development of knowledge in this world at a time when we need more of that.
Barkley Rosser
Barkley,
Ignoring my comment on econospeak I see, but be that as it may,
I’m pretty sure you don’t care too much in fact how China indoctrinates it’s population as long as it isn’t directly against the U.S..
So that leaves your supposition about U.S. university academic freedom being the point of your post rather than WaPo’s editorial criticism of China.
Then in your post, after I omit our (mine and your) outrage regarding Trump’s gov’t policies of purging gov’t institutions of objective scientists — which is also an implementation of ideology — just that it’s one we oppose — , the remainder of your post on U.S. academic freedom under assault comes down to:
1. Political Correctness having influence on reducing academic freedom,
2. Trump tax policies on student loans reducing student attendance or indebtedness.
Item 2) has no relation to academic freedom that I’m aware and you have provided no evidence of it in your post… so you concocted it out of thin air with zero to support it.
Regards item 1) student Political Correctness demonstrations influence on academic freedom this has been almost exclusively related to racism or the perceptions of it as best I am aware, including suppression of free speech by student group and university administration invited speakers.
In that regard, it’s hard to find a relationship to academic freedom of the teaching staff (which is what academic freedom means) or university suppression of hiring staff in the racism related and alt-right speaker suppressions of note. One or two instances in the last year does not constitute an assault on academic freedom by any stretch of the imagination.
So your post is tilting at the windmills of your imagination.
If you want to make a case for gov’t spending at universities being used to influence what or who teaches what at various universities to influence or restrict academic freedom that’s a subject you didn’t address and would have to make the case to support it in any event.
I’m far more concerned with the primary and secondary schools that teach creationism, distort history to produced a white nationalist point of view, and promote the values of individualism in our textbooks such as putting the gilded age oligarchs on a pedestal as examples of virtue and “entrepreneurs”, and the use of public funds to support attendance at private schools, most of which are run by religious organizations or their indirect affiliates.
I don’t believe it is of any value what-so-ever for our nation when universities support or give space and opportunities for alt-right white supremacists speakers or laissez-fair, racist ideologists (Ann Coulter comes to immediate mind, pretty much akin to David Duke) as a soap-box for their free-speech rights, though I’m equally sure the alt-right and Coulter’s of the nation think otherwise. Their speech isn’t suppressed as much as it is just not providing them a soap-box.. let them get on their own soap-box in Times-Square (if they can get a permit), or hire speaker vehicles to cruise the neighborhoods and shopping malls to get their speech to the public.
Nobody said anybody has to provide equal time & facilities to zealots who espouse extremist views of either side of the political spectrum. They can hire their own halls and auditoriums at their own our their supporters expense…. so their speech is no more restricted than mine is.
LT:
No one is under an obligation to answer you and often times I do not myself. You are long-winded in your comments which requires more then should be required in response. I have mentioned before, brevity in comment can be helpful to you in getting your point across. Your missive(s) while interesting, wear people out at times.
Longtooth,
I did reply to you on Econospeak. You just did not like what I said. Let me add one item here I added over there. While it has not yet hit academia too directly, another bad portent in the US is the Trump admin push to control scientific research about topics they care about, with the removal of real climate scientists from EPA boards one manifestation. I grant they have not yet gotten to firing professors over such stuff, but there is a bad trend going on from several directions in the US that put a chill in academic freedom.
Run,
Of course nobody’s obligated to respond, it’s only telling me something about the basis of thinking when a direct question is posed as argument and not answered.
Brevity is a relative measure — Twitter uses brevity as its cause celebre’. The topic determines of discussion or post decides whether brevity is long or short. Most substantive topics on AB are those for which volumes have been written and studied .. I only barely touch the surface in a few short paragraphs… not even long enough for an answer to a short college quiz.
If the purpose of comments is to simply register assent or dissent to a post or comment without a substantiated reasoning for same, then there’s little and even no value to making comments (that’s no different that “likes” and “dislikes” votes). Therefore I assume comments are to inform just as the posted author’s assumption is to inform of a point of view or issue or belief. I also assume that if the author can record long posts, then there’s no reason a comment can’t do so as well in response.
Those who want to read my comments will do so and those that don’t won’t.. that’s not my choice.