University of North Carolina at Wilmington professor Mike Adams is known as something of a campus gadfly. Adams' outspokenness--particularly his willingness to tell students exactly what he thinks--has gotten him into trouble with campus administrators in the past; those administrators have in turn gotten in trouble with FIRE, the law, and the media as a result.

Recently, Adams published a satirical letter informing his students that he is instituting an affirmative action grading policy. While some were not amused by Adams' announcement, others liked it so much they are following suit. George Mason University economics professor Walter Williams was so impressed by Adams' innovative approach to diversity that he has just announced his plans to implement a race-based grading plan next fall.

Meanwhile, Adams has taken on a new sacred cow: the offended student. In his latest contribution to townhall.com, Adams posts a copy of a letter he recently sent to the UNC-Wilmington Board of Trustees. It opens:

Dear UNC-Wilmington Board of Trustees:

It has recently come to my attention that a feminist student at UNCW has taken offense to a sticker on my office door which reads "So you're a feminist . . . Isn't that cute." I found this out after obtaining a copy of a letter her father wrote to you, the Board of Trustees. I could comment at some length on the obvious hypocrisy of this student's decision to ask her father to defend feminism for her, but I won't. Let me get straight to the point: I did not put that sticker on my office door.

This terrible misunderstanding is all the result of an experiment on diversity and tolerance that I decided to undertake several years ago. It all started when I noticed that a
colleague of mine had a "Mondale/Ferraro '84" sticker on the filing cabinet in her office. I also noticed that another colleague had one posted on the front of his office desk.

Remembering that the university has a provision specifically prohibiting faculty from using "University funds, services, supplies, vehicles, or other property to support or
oppose the candidacy of any person for elective public office . . ." I decided to initiate my experiment.

First, I placed a "Clinton/Gore '96" sticker prominently on my office door to see if anyone would take offense. After two years without any complaints, I decided to replace the sticker with one that said "George W. Bush for President." Within a few weeks I heard reports from two faculty members and one staff member saying that someone was preparing to file a complaint about the Bush sticker.

Since the faculty handbook specifies "appropriate disciplinary action, including discharge from employment" as one possible consequence of violating the aforementioned rule, I decided it was time to let the faculty in on my little experiment. I did this by sending an e-mail to everyone in the building which began as follows: "You have all been involved in an experiment in tolerance which, unfortunately, some of you have failed . . ."

This isn't the first time an offended woman student has tried to sic her daddy on Adams via university administrators. It probably won't be the last. But the good news is that Adams turns such episodes to account: by publicizing them, and by doing so in a manner that highlights their absurdity, he's creating what pedagogues like to call "teachable moments." Mockery, satire, and irony are all increasingly controversial modes for anyone--especially teachers--to adopt; rhetorical strategies that work by undercutting the dignity of the interlocutor's utterance don't play well in the era of sensitivity training and campus "safe zones." But they are perhaps all the more valuable for their increasing rarity. If people don't get it, or can't handle it, what they arguably need is exposure to more of it.

A recurring question posted by commenters on this site centers on the problem of what, if anything, can be done to rescue American higher education from its rapid descent into politicized vacuity. Some say abolish tenure, some say abolish second- and third-rate colleges, some say abolish racial and gender preferences, some say defend the First Amendment. All are, in my opinion, necessary; none, in my opinion, addresses more than a tiny corner of the larger mess. I don't have answers, but I have long noted with frustration that those who do, or think they do, those who write the books critical of contemporary academe, don't seem to be able to attract the sort of audience the issue ought to attract. There is a growing library of these books--but they are almost uniformly read by people who already agree with their basic premises. They preach to the choir. One reason is that they tend to be written from political perspectives that make their arguments about higher ed suspicious to readers who don't share the authors' views.

The problems facing American higher ed are problems we all face, regardless of how we vote. But that tends to get lost in the posturing and proselytizing. Another reason that books addressing the problems of contemporary academe get ignored, I am convinced, is that they are either hysterically shrill and humorless or ploddingly dull and humorless. Either way, the writing isn't terribly lively; either way, the authors miss the opportunity to use the galvanizing power of humor to reach readers and to bring those readers together in a shared, ultimately non-partisan, sense of purpose. Say what you will about Adams' politics, or about his rhetorical powers. I think he's onto something.

Can you post the link to the piece on Townhall.com within the body of your article?

It's here:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Adams20030527.shtml

There are several problems that I see with higher education, though two of the solutions Erin has proposed that I've agreed with include eliminating some number of institutions and doing something to radically reform tenure, if not abolish it. Erin says the problem is bigger, and I definitely agree.

So let's leave aside the market-driven solutions of closing institutions and reforming tenure.

Much of what I see on this site, mostly in the comments, though sometimes also on original posts, puts me in mind of Edmund Wilson's To the Finland Station, an underrated book that certainly needs to be revisited in light of the effective collapse of the world Marxist-Leninist movement. It documents the development of Marxism-Leninism, depicting a long line of feckless dreamers who did little more than damage their own cause until the arrival of a single ruthlessly effective leader, Lenin. The academic reformers within the academy are, quite simply, feckless dreamers of the pre-Leninist ilk.

Look at the posts on the new NAS blog: we quickly learn how the study of grammar has been neglected in composition courses and hear a clarion call for returning to diagramming sentences, or something like that. That'll fix things all right. (And this is all too often the subject matter right here.)

Nor should the fecklessness of academic reformers be a surprise. Ph.D.s who make it to tenure have gone through elaborate screenings from their undergraduate years onward, and those who have succeeded in the current careerist environment are by and large those who have the most to lose from any change in the system.

This feminism is awful, but if the solution is clear policies and due process, I'm not having any, because this reduces my own ability to manipulate the system and get what I want without cumbersome policies restricting me or those whose favor I work to gain.

The most clearly effective force for reform now is the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which is extra-academic both in its organization (not being a part of any campus) and in the remedies it brings to bear, law and publicity. The academy can't survive in its current form if it is forced to adhere to consistent, just policies that conform to modern ideas of accountability and transparency. This is clearly the most effective path an effective leader will need to follow to reform the system. It goes without saying that such a leader will probably need to come in some important way from outside the existing academic structure.

The universe of the humanities always overestimates the influence of theory and ideology. New theory and ideology will not change that universe. Technology will.

Feminism is a great example of this. Technology probably has had a far greater influence than feminism in making the world a place in which women can attain an education and have a working career. Washing machines and dryers, birth control pills, and the advent of a soft office economy explain the social changes of the past 100 years more effectively than feminism. Feminists often like to transform these changes into triumphs of ideology, because ideology is what feminists know how to do.

If you think the technological advances of the past 100 years were amazing, you ain't seen nothing yet. The upcoming technological changes will dramatically alter the educational landscape. Ideology and theory will have little to do with it. Ideology and theory are really ways of looking back at what has already happened.

I've often touted the Beckman Institute at the University of Illinois. Check out the faculty roster. You'll discover that Asians dominate the hard science applications, and that the American kids are all packed into the soft humanities. The reason is simple. American kids won't put in the hard rote work essential for work in the technological fields. Asian kids will. The humanities faces a future as an outsider looking in, unable even to understand the language of the engineers and programmers, and convinced that its essentially religious prattling about ideology and theory really matters.

I think that some real religion would be an improvement.

John B . . . I think you assessment of the value of "To the Finland Station" is accurate. It remains a remarkable piece of work both for the clarity of its writing and its comprehensive grasp of the subject matter.

I would argue that the work is not under rated certainly not by anyone that has read it - but would agree it has lapsed into an underserved obscurity. Two sides of the same coin I suppose.

As to Adams . . . I can see why so many people get pissed of at him. Assuming the Clinton/Bush sticker story is accurate . . . and I have no reason to believe otherwise . . . he managed to create a situation designed solely to expose those who complaints about a sticker were ideologically based. The fact that Adams accomplished his task so easily must really get these people steamed.

It reminds me of the corny little trick we used to play when we were kids - you place your finger gently on someones chest and when they look down - you raise your finger and tweak them on the chin. The reaction is generally - how could I be so stupid as to fall for the oldiest, corniest trick in the book. And yet, here is Adams pulling this trick time and time again. They really should know better.

I think Professor Adams needs to grow up. His antics strike me as sophomoric in the worst sense of that term. Mockery of students by professors is not, in my opinion, a laudable pedagogical strategy. This regardless of the ideological leanings of the professors or students in question (eg, a sticker that said, "So you're conservative...isn't that special" would be equally inappopriate.)

On the contrary, Professor Adams is the only grownup in the academic stew. He can administer lessons with neither whuppings nor the ghastly processes employed by the goodthinkers who invented identity politics. And mockery of students? He properly mocks professors, and exposes their flaws and biases and ideological leanings for the world to see and guffaw at. The university world needs a couple dozen more Professors Adams.

At this point I would say that we don't know enough about Professor Adams to say for sure what his use to the academy was.

I do look back, however, at Jeffrey Hart, now emeritus at Dartmouth, who was the "campus conservative" and something of a non-conformist. In his dealings with students he was completely professional, extremely patient, and extremely fair. If in extreme cases he felt some mild punch was unavoidable, he pulled it (as he did many times with me). I simply can't imagine him getting himself into a situation where he would need to publish open letters to the Board of Trustees, simply because he would never let a problem get to that point. He also would do things to align himself with students of any stripe, like wear a Budweiser tie (at a time when binge drinking police were less concerned about such things). There are approaches other than the direct ones that get results -- something figures like the Duke of Wellington also recognized in other contexts.

That would be the model to follow, I would think.

I do not think there is any proper "model" to follow. Prof Adams, in my view, is extremely effective in exposing the groupthink that is inherent in too many colleges today. Everyone is offended by something. There going to be real offended when they graduate and have to care for themselves. Prof Hart is also effective at what he does though in a more toned down manner. Not as "in your face." I don't think we should be trying to fit people into models.

Socrates had the annoying habit of pointing out the hypocrisy of his fellow Greeks and look where it got him.

"we don't know enough about Professor Adams to say for sure what his use to the academy was."

Great cliche. Works for any professor you want to denigrate. Can you imagine that there might be more than the One Right Model for professors advancing to Toe the Line so that we could Move Forward? Picture if you will a faculty with a diversity of ideas.

I don't quite understand. I'm saying, sincerely, that we don't have enough data to say for sure if Adams's approach is the right one. I then offer a clearly labeled opinion on an approach that might work, using the phrase "I would think", normally regarded as a mark of argumentative courtesy and moderation. This makes me some kind of intellectual drill instructor? Give me a break.

On the general subject of professors with new, or non-groupthink, or distinctive approaches to teaching and academic life, here is **an interesting profile of UC-Fresno prof Victor Davis Hanson** by Laura Secon, printed in last Sunday's (5/25/03) Boston Globe.

Hanson is a classicist who studies the civic and military life of ancient Greece. He is famous (or notorious) for his claims that his specialty offers clear guidance on the proper U.S. posture in the post 9/11 world. Specifically, he argues in the **National Review Online** and other places that terrorists, and nations such as Iraq, must be fought aggressively, and defeated by force of arms.

The profile paints a picture of an iconoclast, a farmer and academician who is passionate about bringing the ideals of Golden-Age Greece to the 21st century. There's an intriguing reference to his stance on that recurrent theme, affirmative action:

"For nearly twenty years, Hanson has taught as many as eight classes a year, cultivating minority and working-class students and aggressively lobbying for their entry into top-flight graduate schools."

Another academic figure to consider, along with Profs. Adams and Hart.

"we don't have enough data to say for sure if Adams's approach is the right one".

Well, this makes it appear that someone believes there's a right approach, and it should be identified and applied - to the exclusion of others? I submit that there is a vast number of right approaches, and that Adams has discovered a very effective one and applied it so well in the war of ideas (that's partly what a University is, right?) that he encourages the downtrodden and embarrasses the oppressors in one swell foop.

I think that Adams's approach is the correct one. It's humorous, and sharp, and defensive, yes; but its rather gentle, compared to my approach, which I stole from Dennis Leary. A humorous touch goes a long way, and I suspect that Adams's approach is very popular with the student body in general, and the student body is, after all, the intended audience.

Scipio, this goes to my earlier comments on fecklessness in approaches to academic reform. A word similar to fecklessness is the UK derogatory slang expression "wanking", which appears to this US observer to carry connotations of self-directed activity that accomplishes little in the world of action; the "human shields" who dispatched themselves to protect Iraqi anti-aircraft weapons were called "wankers" in and out of the blogosphere.

Now, it may be cute to entertain students -- you say the student body is the intended audience for the letter to the Board of Trustees. I would question whether spending credibility with a Board of Trustees (who might be swayed by a more serious-sounding discussion), using them as a straight foil to impress kids from the likes of New Bern or Morehead City, is much other than "wanking". Or fecklessness.

The history of the academic reform movement will likely be littered with the remains of sometimes lugubrious figures, many of whom have made an appearance in this blog (presumably not necessarily with Erin's full endorsement).

Successful leaders of the movement, it seems to me, will need to adhere to a discourse mostly suggesting high seriousness of purpose. How can it be otherwise? Cheap straight-man shots ain't gonna make it -- little could damage or delay the cause at this point, because it's in pretty bad shape. But they will never help.

JB - I don't see Adams' behavior as "feckless." I think he's doing what many people ask for in other contexts: show me, don't tell me. If someone is not willing to listen to an argument or be told that something really is bad, why not show them that it is bad. In the affirmative action context, Adams is saying, "look at what I am actually doing. This is unfair, people don't like it when they see what it's all about." It's poignant because the non-minority students in his class who may support AA haven't felt its affects: they got into the school.

In the context of selective enforcement of political endorsements, you can't just accuse someone of harboring prejudices and convict them on their likelihood of breaking policy. Adams needs to "catch them in the act."

Show me, don't tell me. It works for coach kids in sports, too.

Berkeley, I think what you're saying is that Adams in a certain way is asking people on campus to be consistent -- don't object to a bumper sticker promoting Flavor A if you have a bumper sticker promoting Flavor B, for instance.

That's a worthy objective. But here are problems that say wanking to me. First, the whole business is over bumper stickers -- out of date bumper stickers. Now, perhaps it's over other issue paraphernalia, but whether it's pro-choice vs pro-life or whatever else, it's tired, it's overdone, and it's trivial. This is the issue Erin raises in her original post.

I'm also concerned that, as insufficiently sees it, the point of this is to wow the yokels. If the issue of consistency in campus dialogue is important enough to involve the Board of Trustees, then I think the most mediocre rhetorician would suggest that you should address said Board in such a way that they will feel you take them seriously and value their opinion.

In a somewhat related situation where I had a dispute with a cnndo board, my attorney advised me to conduct all discussion with the board as though you take them seriously and value their opinion -- because if you have to sue them later on, the court isn't going to like it if you are coming off as a wise guy. How hard can this be?

You, Berkeley, and insufficient, are saying in various ways the point of this is to make the students laugh, or coach kids in sports. This is not the league we're trying to play in, guys.

John Bruce: I see your point about trying to set a serious tone, and yet I don't see how the point Adams was trying to make could have been made more effectively. You can't attack selective enforcement of any rule except by demonstrating it, and the best way to do that is to break the rule in a couple of different directions and see if they're equally enforced. I think it's brilliant, personally — but, then, I was the lone conservative in my own grad. department and perhaps am still grinding my ax.

John Bruce,

I see the point you're making, certainly, but I'm not sure that you have to refer to kids from Morehead City and New Bern as "yokels" to make it.

I believe I recall that you've indicated you went to Dartmouth. Where I'm from, people regard the entire state of New Hampshire as comprising yokels. Now, I don't believe that's entirely true.

On a related note, I am curious why no one has commented on Erin writing that shutting down "second- or third-rate schools" would be a good idea. I did some checking, and I think Adams got his PhD at the Univ. of Southern Miss. If you take her comment literally, we'd have to accept that neither institution should continue to exist. This would upset quite a few people, I'd wager, including quite possibly Adams himself.

"You, Berkeley, and insufficient, are saying in various ways the point of this is to make the students laugh, or coach kids in sports."

Far from it. The point of this is to demonstrate that some arbitrary ideological 'solution' to a racial imbalance is neither practical nor just. Said 'solution' plays a numbers game instead of providing certain minority populations with an education. Instead of treating a University as a country club in which membership is the only criterion to future success, the worthy devisers of such 'solutions' had better put their creative genius to work at ensuring that students of all colors arrive at the gates of learning prepared to comprehend and participate in an advanced learning process.

For Michelle, it's certainly possible that Adams couldn't have picked a better way to make his point -- but the bigger issue, one of my points in this thread, is that you have to choose your battles intelligently. Adams has, let's all agree, probably forestalled any further complaints from faculty who supported Mondale-Ferraro against any conceivable complaint at an equivalent manifestation of a Dole-Kemp bumper sticker. Or something like that.

This was lots of fun but does several things. First, as I've said above, it gives the impression that the whole idea of reforming the academy is just a prankish lark, and it lets those currently entrenched dismiss the movement that much more easily.

What Adams did was what the conservative student papers at places like Dartmouth, Yale, Amherst, Princeton, etc., routinely do -- sophomoric pranks thumbing their noses at the deans, a serendipitous merging of undergraduate instincts with political education.

If Adams liked this sort of strategy, it would be a much better idea to see what he could do to help start a student paper that would do these things. This would be much more appropriate. It would multiply Adams's efforts without getting him tarred with a sophomoric reputation of his own, and it would let Adams save his effort for bigger things,

which leads me to Berkeley's point. All Adams has done was swat a single mosquito. This gallant battle of the bumper stickers is not going to change anything. You don't get rid of yellow fever by swatting mosquitos; you do it by draining the swamp.

I've posted elsewhere that one effective strategy for closing some institutions would simply be a class-action suit to force US universities to treat teaching assistants as employees. The effort to do this would require far less effort than the effort to fight xyz number of Pyrrhic battles against bumper sticker discrimination and so forth at zyx number of campuses. The issue is to fight this kind of battle smart, not dumb.

For Dr. Lo, it is astonishing to me that the University of Southern Mississippi offers Ph.Ds. Are you sure? If it does, it should be stopped.

JB - I don't see my point as advocating swatting mosquitos. Adams is attacking two things at his university: AA and selective enforcement of rules and policy. We all wish we had our own TV shows with which to educate the world, but alas, too many of us have faces perfect for radio. Adams' fight is not at a huge and presitgious university, but it does address significant issues at his university. He is definitley doing more to change his little part of the world than I am doing here on these comment boards.

Again, I just want to stress that Adams' tactics may serve a purposes. Turning students and alumni against the Board can have a huge impact. In fact, many posters to this site have repeatedly called for more alumni awareness as a necessary solution to solving problems with university administrators.

Show me AA is unfair, don't tell me. Show me rules are selectively enforced, don't tell me.

Sometimes the only serious response to the ridiculous is ridicule. But even Adam doesn't go that far. By itself, Adam's proposal isn't funny at all. It is objectively as formal and as mechanical as any serious affirmative action policy in any university deeply committed to diversity. It is respectful, professional, and most of all consistent with what's already taking place. That is why Adam's method is so effective and so serious. It's power to ridicule isn't in Adam's language nor in his defiance, not even in the method itself. In fact his method conforms to the idea of AA in all its ways - in it's language and in its implementation. Adams doesn't introduce anything new, but merely takes advantage of what's already working. That is why Adams is unassailable. He hasn't been disrespectful in his words and in his actions - in any tangible sense, really. But his non-attack is so humiliating to some because they find themselves defending themselves against thier own words and good intentions with the words and intentions of their critics. That is where Adams' ridicule comes from - the sight of AA supporters recoiling from thier own reflection and explaining why something that looks and sounds exactly like them isn't them.

Adams' language is serious. His approach is serious. What isn't serious is his commitment to AA. Ironically, his insincerity, shows a sincere picture of AA and leaves AA defenseless without the protection of good intentions which tend to insulate AA policies from criticisms. To the extent that Adams' goal is to separate AA from real intentions and real effects, Adams' method is not only legitimate, it is necessary and it is the most effective.

Ooops!!! Sorry about bungling the nominative Adams and its the possessive. I sometimes missed the s in Adams too.

If the professor doesn't understand the difference between a polite but political bumper sticker and a snide comment (how about: "so you're a negro, huh?") he understands the obligations of pedagogy no better than his knee jerk liberal competition.

There's a difference between discussing obscenity and a shouting "fuck you, asshole!" at a student.

As far as PC crap is concerned, I'm more concerned with the way the professoriat and its student/subjects treat the people who clean up after them at night. Liberals, in their guilt and insecurity, are worse, if only because condescension is worse than obliviousness.
The entire discussion here is self serving and lazy