University of California at Berkeley Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education Christina Maslach has responded to NoIndoctrination.org's letter to Chancellor Robert Birgeneau regarding Cal's spring offering of Ethnic Studies 198: The Prop. 209 Project. The course struck Luann Wright of NoIndoctrination.org as a patent violation of Berkeley's policies regarding academic freedom and course content; she wrote to Chancellor Birgeneau to request an explanation for how Berkeley administrators could reconcile their stated policy that the university must "remain aloof from politics" with the course's stated intent, which was "to craft a political strategy for a successful 'pro-diversity' initiative in the State."

This is what Vice Provost Maslach--who, in an odd coincidence, taught the Psychology 1 course that I took as a Berkeley freshman in 1986--had to say:

I am responding on behalf of Chancellor Birgeneau to your email of April 27th concerning Ethnic Studies 198: The Prop 209 Project.

In Spring 2006, UC Berkeley offered two diversity research seminars for undergraduates: Education 198 "Exploring Transfer Student Success" and Ethnic Studies 198 "The Prop 209 Project." The purpose of the seminars was two-fold: (1) to equip students with a set of methodologically sound research skills and tools with which to approach issues of diversity and inclusion; and (2) to provide a structured educational exercise that would give them the opportunity to practice the real-world application of sound scholarship that many will use in their lives as professionals and citizens after they graduate from Cal. The seminars were open to all upper division students in any major, and lower division students upon request of the instructors. Participation in the seminars and the selection of research project topics in the seminars were voluntary. Neither course was a graduation requirement or a pre-requisite to any graduation requirement. Rather, the seminars were designed to provide a special enrichment opportunity for students to engage in faculty-mentored research in a small group setting.

The Prop 209 Project, co-taught by Professor David Montejano (Ethnic Studies) and Professor Taeku Lee (Political Science), used a case study of Proposition 209 in order to deepen students' understanding of how issues of race and ethnicity interact with the ballot initiative process in the State of California. Within the limits of a two-unit 198 course, students learned a good deal, substantively, about voting behavior, political participation and mobilization, ethnic/racial politics, the initiative/referendum process in California, media framing, and political persuasion. They also learned a good deal, methodologically, about precinct-level, county-level, and state-level data analysis, exit polling, and public opinion polling. By designing a course that required students to apply research findings to real-world problems, the instructors sought to impart substantive and methodological points about political science in a much deeper, more enduring way than would be possible using a more traditional teaching method. Students were never at any time asked to engage in political or partisan activity as part of the seminar.

Case studies (even those with a directed point of view or starting point) are frequently used as a learning exercise here and on campuses around the country. The pedagogical approach employed in the seminar is a sound one and is consistent with The Regents' Policy on Course Content "that no campus, no academic college, no department, and no instructor distort the instructional process in a manner which deviates from the responsibilities inherent in academic freedom."

Best,

Christina Maslach
Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education
and Professor of Psychology

Cc:
Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau
UC President Robert Dynes
The UC Board of Regents
Professor David Montejano
Professor Taeku Lee
Senator Jack Scott, Education Chair

On the one hand, it's clear enough that the course did not impose politics on anyone. But on the other hand, that isn't what I objected to about the course, and I don't think that's what NoIndoctrination.org objected to, either. My concern had to do with the openly political quality of the course--its stated objective to "craft a political strategy for a successful 'pro-diversity' initiative in the State," and its stated purpose, which was to do research that "will be presented to Chancellor Birgeneau, senior campus administrators, and other campus and community stakeholders at the end of the semester and will help inform campus policy decisions and initiatives regarding diversity and inclusion." WIthout imposing an agenda on students, the course nevertheless appears to be exploiting students--albeit willing ones--in the service of the university's own ideological ends. Regardless of students' own politics, it seems highly questionable whether their coursework should be so closely tied to the university's own political goals. It goes without saying that it is a problem for a state university to have partisan political goals; hence Cal's own directive that the university must "remain aloof from politics."

Some have suggested that what is valuable about this course is the way it allows students to apply what they are learning to real life situations. "There is a downside to suggesting this course should not be taught," wrote Timothy Burke. "I'm very interested in classes that have some kind of tangible project as part of the work for the course, that try to apply the knowledge they produce to the world." And that's a valid point. But what's also crucial to note here is that the university does not seem to be offering such hands-on courses across a range of political perspectives. If Berkeley were truly intellectually diverse, and if you could just as readily take a course on furthering, say, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative as you could on undoing Proposition 209, then it would be fair to argue that by enabling politically engaged students of all stripes to learn in an applied setting, the university is meeting its commitment to remain aloof from politics. But Berkeley isn't doing that. Opportunities to learn-by-doing appear to be strictly one-sided. That can't be right, and insofar as Maslach's letter evades that point by focussing on the fact that the course is not a requirement, the letter strikes me as disingenuous.

What is there really to 'discuss'? It's the kind of soft academic trash that many would cite as yet more evidence of the intellectual rot and/or liberal bias (apparently) so prevalent in academia these days. People who believe in the intrinsic value of "diversity" will not be swayed by any talk of that kind, however -- they'll find some sort of way to 'discuss', i.e. promote it, and eventually to shoehorn it.

Regarding UC's post 209 admissions behavior, readers may find this interesting.

I couldn't find a clearer example of the dangers of demanding "a range of political perspectives" in an open-ended manner if I tried to concoct it. I would love it if there was such a range, but here you really, really worry me. Please think about the burden you're putting on educational institutions. Think about the consequences of trying to legislate or construct iron-clad rules along these lines. When could you achieve a condition that satisfied the demand for a "range of political perspectives" in practice-based courses? Suppose there was a conservative version of the course you've criticized. I would love it if someone would step up to the plate for the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative course. But if you made them, or compelled such courses? Then what? Think of all the other constituencies that will feel appropriately licensed to ask for a course for them, too. The moment you enunciate this as a reasonable public expectation, even a public right, you cut yourself off from any possible way to stem the floodgates.

The only alternative is to trust in the professionalism of the people who have professional credentials. And if you're unhappy with those people, criticize them in specific cases and work for the transformation of the content and culture of professionalism. I'm totally happy when we stay on that level, when we ask, "What does it mean to be an academic?" I'm not happy when we start constructing a potentially crude demand for "balance" along the lines of the ABOR.

My problem with your views on these subjects, and sometimes those of Mark Bauerlein and KC Johnson, is that I feel you want to avoid the heavy lifting phase of really getting into the worlds academics actually inhabit, making persuasive arguments about professionalism within those contexts, and looking at practice as it is actually situated. You want to take the quick and easy route of getting public, political institutions to drop the hammer on people you don't like. You don't want to really look at what people are doing in a situated, sensitive way, just skim the surface of syllabi, public statements, and so on. It is MUCH HARDER to convice people to change within institutions, to plant your feet and persuade with nuance. The long-term possibilities of such an effort are much dimmer in a way. But it's the only way to accomplish anything of value, in my view.

The hammer-dropping is just going to install public orthodoxies of a different kind. If you want an example of that, look to public institutions in the US South. Under pressure of anti-segregation politicians, they created a crapload of positions in US Southern history. After the immediate crucible of the civil rights movement, those positions were inhabited by a pretty rich palette of people with a wide variety of views. But it's a quasi-permanent institutional structure invested in a very particular way at this point. Reinvesting those resources would be very difficult in anything approaching a short-term timeframe. So there's a case where if you hit public institutions, especially political ones, hard enough, they WILL shift priorities. As a command exercise, as a dictate from above.

I know none of you want to say you're conservatives, but in this respect, I'll say that I am. Not just for academia but in general. You do not change institutions with deep histories and embedded value by getting other institutions to hit them with a hammer. Not unless you either want to smash them into rubble entirely (which would be at least a legitimately argued objective: there are critics of academia who take this view whom I take seriously) or unless your ONLY objective is to change the balance of power from one orthodox group to another orthodox group.

If you want to reform academia, roll your sleeves up and stop playing to the political peanut galleries. Get in and talk about what the class on the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative would really look like and who might teach it. Stop reading a syllabus quickly and cherrypicking it out for blame. DESCRIBE the pedagogy you want to bring into being in such terms that someone else could do it. I have a much clearer idea of what you'd like to see in literary studies, and I think it's absolutely great, and we could use more courses like it. But I also think there are a decent number of courses like what you do, so the manifesto in these terms is less dramatic and more subtle than you sometimes make it out to be.

Timothy,

Actually you hit the nail on the head but not where you attempted to. We have seen what the professionalism of these professors leads to and we do not trust them and that is why there is so much complaining going on about courses like this one. It would be nice to be able to trust these people but when you see the speech codes they come up with and the professors leading their student in protest against initiatives and when you see the way that the courses are structured to paint a rosy picture of one political point of view and a very dark picture of the opposing point of view. When you have professors who insult veterans in their classes as baby-killers and when you have Jewish students who have served in the Israeli military insulted in class, when the law faculty tries to get the JAG recruiters kicked off campus. Then you tell us we should trust the judgment of these same professors. I really don't think so, not today or any day. That is why I think this course has no business on campus.

The problem is that if the class were just to come up with a plan and that is all, then there would be no point to the class using that subject or any other controversial subject. The subject could be some problem that has nothing to do with California. When you make it planning that is for an initiative that is on the ballot and then when you give credit for proving your plan, then you have stepped way over the bounds.

Timothy,

I often find your points to be well taken, but can't agree with you this time. Here's why.

"Think about the consequences of trying to legislate or construct iron-clad rules along these lines. When could you achieve a condition that satisfied the demand for a "range of political perspectives" in practice-based courses"

I think you missed Erin's point. Her comment about different political perspectives seemed to me to be addressed to debunking the rationale offered in the letter, and the fact that at Berkeley only one view is represented among the faculty.and the administration.

"You want to take the quick and easy route of getting public, political institutions to drop the hammer on people you don't like. "

Can't agree with you on that either. t's not a question of who she likes. It's what they do. Besides what's wrong with airing something like this in public. That's drooping a hammer?

"The hammer-dropping is just going to install public orthodoxies of a different kind"

Again with the hammer dropping? All we're talking about here is airing it in public and calling the nstitution to account when courses get co-o[ted for political agendas.

"I know none of you want to say you're conservative. . . "

On this blog? Nope. You must have confused the commentators here with someone else.

"You do not change institutions with deep histories and embedded value by getting other institutions to hit them with a hammer. Not unless you either want to smash them into rubble entirely (which would be at least a legitimately argued objective: there are critics of academia who take this view whom I take seriously) or unless your ONLY objective is to change the balance of power from one orthodox group to another orthodox group. "

That's not what Erin was talking about. Besides the deep histories to which you refer are from about 20 years ago. And what orthodoxy do you thnk she's trying to further? I see her as wanting a spirit of free inquiry, adherence to universtiy policy, and de-politicalization. That's an orthodoxy?

"If you want to reform academia, roll your sleeves up and stop playing to the political peanut galleries. "

Wasn't it bad enough about the hammer dropping? Now we have "political peanut galleries?"

Anyway I thought it was the professors who were teaching this course who were playing to the political galleries. Erin certainly wasn't doing that Of course since the University has a Board of Regents,and should be accountable to the public, there wouldn't be much wrong in doing that,

"I know none of you want to say you're conservatives...." I caught that too.

By that, I mean Erin, KC Johnson and Mark Bauerlein. KC is very specific that he does not see his critiques of academia as motivated by conservative political loyalties, and Mark has said the same on several occasions. My sense is that Erin would also say that her views are non-partisan.

And largely, I read them in that spirit. But I think then that those views have to lead somewhere further than where they do, that Erin sometimes stops short, satisfied with essentially anecdotal critique. I see a bit of that in Dick's comment here: the assemblage of many disparate kinds of incidents to form a whole, but one that doesn't really make clear what it is that ought to be done about the whole, or for what reason.

What is at stake in debate over academic practices? What do we want that we do not presently have, and why should we want it? What are the best practices we're advocating, as opposed to the things we dislike? I ask this of Dick. I ask it of Allan. I ask it of Erin. Dick, do you think that American higher education is on balance more bad than good at the moment? Despite its overwhelming success by most measures? Do you have an alternative system in mind, on that you can describe in a comprehensive way? If so, can you tell me how to get there short of completely tearing down what exists? I'm even prepared to hear that such creative destruction is necessary, but I'm not writing it a blank check based on a laundry list of fairly disparate complaints, some of them relatively trivial, others profound. I'm also concerned that we recognize where academia's dilemmas are the dilemmas of modern institutions in general, and where they are specific to academia. All modern institutions have a problem with maintaining a balance between leadership and the autonomy of workers within the institution, with motivating creativity and professionalism, with top-heavy bureaucracies and groupthink.

Or do you just want to see academics live up more consistently to the standards they uphold? I think that's reasonable. But how do you get to that? By compulsion from outside forces? One thing I really think that American conservatism has been largely convincing about over the last twenty years is that such solutions generally do NOT WORK if your goal is to achieve essentially modest reforms to the way people behave and think. If it's not compulsion, it's got to be persuasion. If it's persuasion, then Erin and KC Johnson and Mark Bauerlein are in some respects talking to or writing to the wrong people: they're constructing a bill of prosecutorial particulars for skeptical outsiders.

I would like Erin to consider what it would take to convince the people who taught the Prop 209 class to "fix" their offering so that it retained the practical, hands-on character but was less (in Erin's judgement) problematically "political". That would take thinking about the course in specific, rolling up sleeves and thinking about what best practices look like at the level of the concrete. How do you oppose the course that Erin is writing about here without opposing many similar courses that would in fact be a positive corrective to the over-intellectualized, over-abstracted, ethereal nature of some academic instruction?

You also have to think about when you'd feel that reform had been in some sense accomplished. In a system as big, varied and energetic as American higher education, there's always going to be outliers, failures, people who break their implied ethical covenants, unprofessional fools and so on. There were such in the 1950s, in the 1920s, and indeed all the way back to medieval Oxford. When would we know we were just dealing with isolates rather than confronting patterns and tendencies? If what you want is people to behave more professionally, what are the standards for relative success?

Timothy, I don't see anyone here knocking persuasion as a tool. What happened in connection with this class was that someone simply called attention trhrough internal channels that a policy wasn't followed, and then publicizing the response of the administration. What's wrong with that? And why do we need to address the bigger issues before we can point out that a class was overtly politicized and that the adminstration was fine with it?
A little sunlight can sometimes do wonders. Even if it doesn't it at least tells the administration that the public is watching. That's what happened here.

Timothy,

For the reasons you state, the university *wisely* has a policy *against* such a course as the one Erin highlights here. I don't think she's actually recommending a "conservative" course; rather she said that such a course would at least help shield the university from the hypocrisy that it now displays by violating its own policy.

"You do not change institutions with deep histories and embedded value by getting other institutions to hit them with a hammer"...how about institutions such as General Motors, General Electric, and Exxon? Should institutions such as the Securities and Exchange Commission be able to "hit them with a hammer" if the "professionalism of people who have professional credentials" (MBAs, CPA certificates) turns out to be not quite so professional after all? Or is academia alone to be independent of review by the people who pay the bills and use the services?

David:

If you think a given university is the equivalent of Enron, by all means hit it with a hammer. And certainly, oversight of various kinds is welcome. Parents are already welcome to review what a given university is before they send their children to it. There is accreditation as a kind of check on quality. And there is public scrutiny of various kinds, including the sort Erin provides. All these things could be strengthened or made more useful in various ways: information to parents could be richer and more diverse; accreditation could be made more meaningful and national in its standards; many kinds of scrutiny could be increased.

But at the end of the day, there is still a big difference between approaching professionals as professionals and trying to persuade them to make a change in the way they do business and striking a posture that takes no interest in doing so--much as a strong leftist might approach Exxon, to use your example. If this is about persuasion, at some point a conversation about best practices needs to develop a proportionality and subtlety.

Timothy,

"much as a strong leftist might approach Exxon, to use your example"...nice extension of the analogy. But I don't think Erin's original post is at all like a strong leftist might approach Enron: the strong leftist probably does not think profit-seeking corporations should exist at all, whle I don't hear Erin questioning the existence of universities! I read her post (and her other writing on universities) as being more analogous to the way some experienced businesspeople responded to the more extreme dot-com business plans: these critics were all for capitalism and for people making money, but thought these entities were going about it in a way that was not very productive.

My point was that if the class were to take a subject that was not current and had the students create a plan to promote that subject, then I would not have a problem with the class. That is not what was done. The school took a subject that was current and was being decided by the electorate and then set the goal for the students to make a plan to seel the pro point of view. The school then gave credit for the students who proved their plan worked. How can you prove it works? The only way to prove it works and get credit was to implement and the only way to implement it was to get involved in the political battle being decided by the electorate. That was explicitly forbidden by the charter of the University of California Board of Regents. That is my problem with the course.

I do wonder what would have happened if the class had been set up to oppose the liberal point of view on this matter and the students had to make up a plan and prove it worked. Would the school have given extra credit for that working? I would sincerely doubt it based on the way this course was set up. A course to promote a conservative point of view would be just as forbidden as a course to promote a liberal point of view. Neither course should have been offered. That was why I suggested a subject that was not currently being fought over in the electorate.

"The only alternative is to trust in the professionalism of the people who have professional credentials."

YIKES! Such strange faith is about the most dangerous faith imaginable.

I'm sorry, but I thought that universities were about intellectual excellence. So, please remind me again why it's necessary -- other than for political correctness and potential revenue -- to elevate 'diversity' above that essential standard?