![[Critical Mass]](/archives/cmlogo.gif)
![[dot]](/archives/cmdot.gif){kind=small}
May 23, 2008
![[feather]](/archives/feather.gif){kind=small}
Sunk cost
The University of Delaware has approved a new, not very improved version of its ideologically challenged residential life program--and it looks like it's going to cost students a bundle. FIRE's Adam Kissel suggests that Delaware's "sustainability" curriculum is, ironically, not looking terribly sustainable:
The University of Delaware has promised a great deal more oversight over the Office of Residence Life as it implements its controversial 2008-2009 educational program for students in the residence halls in the wake of last year's version of the program, which required students to undergo ideological reeducation.One of the promises of oversight is that a new position at the Vice President level under Vice President for Student Life Michael Gilbert will have ResLife oversight as a primary duty.
How is UD paying for it? Budget monies are fungible, so one never can really tell. But I can report that on Monday, the Board of Trustees also (quoting http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2008/may/resolutions052108.html):
--Increased residence hall rates by an average of 8 percent ... with the cost for a traditional double room increasing by $380 to $5,128;
--Increased dining plan rates by an average of 4.7 percent ... with the fall semester, with the 19-meals-per-week plan increasing by $150 to $3,350;
--Increased the Student Health Service fee by [6 percent,] increased the Comprehensive Fee by [15 percent,] and increased the Student Center Fee by [3 percent].
Are its environmental sustainability initiatives really saving UD money? If so, the savings are not being passed along to students. Instead, the increased administration is costing the students even more money.
Defenders of Delaware's program perversely present it as a question of academic freedom: Opponents of the program, they suggest, are hypocritical censors who, in the name of individual rights, wish to shut down views they dislike. But students are hardly free to opt in--or out--when they are always already paying for a politicized bureaucracy that explicitly aims to convert them to a particular worldview.
Trackback Pings:
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.erinoconnor.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1469
Comments:
I have to wonder why the trustees at Delaware voted to allow this to go on -- this is my understanding. What on earth are they thinking?
Good question. The facts--and the problems with them--were certainly brought to the trustees' attention in great detail, on more than one occasion and by more than one group. FIRE, ACTA, and NAS were all involved at different phases. So they can't claim ignorance. It must be that they either do not take seriously their fiduciary roles, or that they believe it is acceptable for public universities to allocate major funds and hire entire staffs for the purpose of attempting to impose a doctrinaire viewpoint on students. In one sense, that's contemptible. But when you look at what's already happening in much of the academic humanities, perhaps it makes sense.
Here's a depressing thought. I would guess the Delaware trustees are probably well-established business, labor, nonprofit types. Perhaps the Delaware dorm programs aren't as far outside the mainstream as we might think, and the Delaware board simply doesn't find them that objectionable.
In the state where I live and work -- let it remain unidentified -- "sustainability" and "diversity" are both goals of many state, local governmental, and business entities. Where I work the dorms don't have anything like this program, as far as I have been able to ascertain, but if they did, I'm not sure it would arouse that much objection within the state board. In fact, they might think it is a good thing -- I'm sure the governor would. Hmmmm maybe a good time to keep quiet.
Mike--Here's the 2008 Delaware board, with links to their bios: http://www.udel.edu/vp-sec/members_trustees.html. See what you think.
I looked at about half of these and they are even more "establishment" than I expected -- mostly business types, a few politicos, a scientist and state veterinarian here and there, a grange guy (!).
The list really makes my point -- mainstreamers are supporting or at least going along with this stuff. Why that might is an interesting topic. Are they really enthusiasts? Do they just not want to rock the boat? Look like bumpkins? I am not the one to ask.
Post a comment:
