New article about the Red Tape in Academia
Here is my latest article of the “Letters from Academia” series. It is about red tape in academia. You can read it at:
Post Secondary Education Needs Common Sense
Aldemaro Romero Jr. Letters from Academia
Here is my latest article of the “Letters from Academia” series. It is about red tape in academia. You can read it at:
Post Secondary Education Needs Common Sense
Dr. Aldemaro Romero Jr. interviews Dr. Andrew Greenwood. from Aldemaro Romero Jr. on Vimeo.
This interview is about the history of Scottish music.
Aldemaro Romero Jr. The Romero Report aldemaro romero, aldemaro romero jr., budget cuts, education, Funding, politics
This week’s Romero Report discusses the vicious cycle between tax cuts and education budgets.
Aldemaro Romero Jr. Letters from Academia
Here is my latest article of the “Letters from Academia” series. It is about race relations on campuses.
During the first week of March a nine-second video recorded a few days earlier went viral on the Internet and then throughout all conventional media. The video showed members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) chapter of the University of Oklahoma singing a song that included the N-word and made reference to lynching.
The president of the university, David Boren, ordered the SAE house shuttered, expelled the two students identified as the ringleaders and made strong verbal condemnation of the behavior.
By reading the press reports we saw that there were a large number of people who, while condemning the whole incident, showed surprise by the swift and firm response by the president of the university. Why would this be?
First, most college leaders tend to be very circumspect when dealing with “hot” issues such as race, sexual assaults and the like. Yet, Boren, a lawyer, knew what he was doing.
While at Yale he was a member of the controversial undergraduate secret society Skull and Bones. He is also a seasoned politician who served as governor of the state from 1975 to 1979. In 1967, while serving in the U.S. House of Representatives, he was a member of a committee that investigated OU for inviting Paul Boutelle, a black militant, socialist and Vietnam War activist to give a speech there. He then served as a U.S senator from 1979 to 1994. In this position he helped to orchestrate U.S. efforts to have Nelson Mandela released from prison in South Africa.
So, Boren knows about the culture of college close-knit student societies and also about controversial political issues that have a racial component.
The other surprise that some people expressed was about this type of behavior in what is supposed to be a post-racial America. But for those of us who have had long experience in academia, this incident was of no surprise. At the same time that the incident at OU surfaced, similar incidents (but without videos) were being investigated at fraternities at Louisiana Tech University, The University of Texas at Austin, the University of Maryland at College Park and the University of Washington.
Nolan Cabrera, an assistant professor at the University of Arizona who has studied these issues, recently gave an interview to The Chronicle of Higher Education in which he said that this type of behavior is not confined to the Deep South and that it is more common throughout the country than people think. He also said that such misconduct is not confined to Greek life either. What happens is that members of those organizations feel less accountable for their actions. They also oftentimes become important alumni donors of the university. In fact, alumni of the SAE chapter of the OU have already hired a lawyer to work with the students expelled.
The perception that this is a problem limited to the Deep South comes from two sources. One is that the SAE itself was founded in 1856 at the University of Alabama and held its Southern heritage close. “We came up from Dixie land,” says a ditty from an old SAE songbook.
The other is that a similar well-publicized incident took place in 2001 at Auburn University, also in Alabama. Then a group of 15 students, members of Beta Theta Pi, who had worn Ku Klux Klan uniforms and blackface to fraternity Halloween parties were suspended. The then interim president of Auburn, William F. Walker, also used strong language condemning the incident. Yet, within weeks of the president’s public stance, an Alabama judge ordered the university to reinstate most of the students. The argument used in court? What those students did was protected speech.
And this brings us to the other bone of contention in this whole issue. Should this kind of behavior be acceptable because the First Amendment protects it?
First of all, the First Amendment is not absolute. That is why child pornography is severely persecuted not only in this country but also in any other country that protects freedom of speech. So, how can we avoid this type of behavior from repeating?
One problem in today’s American society is that we do not want to talk about race outside our comfort zone. And that is an issue more serious than most people think, particularly on college campuses.
Postsecondary educational institutions are supposed to be places for the discussion of all kind of issues, including those that can be uncomfortable or controversial. Yet, we rarely see these discussions happening outside a few classrooms where the issue of race is specific to the subject matter of the course.
Unless we take a more decisive stance on this matter, change will not happen. Many surveys in recent years have shown that after the election of Barack Obama as the first African-American president of the United States, race relations have not improved as had been expected. Incidents like the ones in Ferguson only highlight that sentiment.
I believe that discussions about race need to take place more frequently, forcefully and openly on campuses across this country. And those discussions need to be led by college presidents. Regardless of what you may think of Boren’s actions in relation to its legality and due process, the fact of the mater is that he saved the name of his institution for, at least, as long as he is its president by showing courage and moral fiber.
That is what is called leadership.
PDF Version
It’s Time To Discuss Race Relations On Campuses
Dr. Aldemaro Romero Jr. interviews Dr. Kyong Yoo. from Aldemaro Romero Jr. on Vimeo.
In this interview Dr. Aldemaro Romero Jr. interviews Dr. Kyong Yoo about insects interactions between humans and insects.
Aldemaro Romero Jr. The Romero Report academic, aldemaro romero, aldemaro romero jr., education, Funding, politics, the romero report
This week’s discussion looks at some of the politics surrounding the funding of institutions of higher learning. Where have we been on this issue in the past as a country, where are we now, and what direction should we be heading?
Aldemaro Romero Jr. Letters from Academia
Here is my latest article for my weekly column “Letters from Academia”. It is about how the Founding Fathers envisioned public universities for the U.S.
When presidential campaigns take place, most of the times some unexpected issues become part of the political debate. And they can usually be summed up in catchy phrases such as “The U.S. as a Christian nation,” “war on women,” or “Stem Cell Research.”
Now it seems likely that some higher education issues will be hotly discussed among potential presidential candidates in the months to come. Obama’s plans for free community college tuition and ranking colleges based on affordability, degree completion and job attainment, as well as the number of guns on campuses, will probably be deliberated. Another issue that may surface is public financial support for postsecondary institutions.
In the last several weeks we have seen how some governors are already taking stands on these issues and they include both Republicans and Democrats.
For example, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker – a possible presidential contender for 2016 – has not only proposed cutting $300 million in state funding to higher education over two years, but also suggested that the faculty should teach one more course per semester without compensation. His office also wanted to delete the public-service emphasis of his state university system, called the “Wisconsin Idea.” This proposal was later dropped after public outcry, with the governor claiming that it was a product of “confusion.”
Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, another possible presidential contender, is proposing a $211 million cut for higher education in his state, while the newly installed Illinois governor, Bruce Rauner, just proposed major budget cuts of even bigger size for his state system of postsecondary education.
Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Maloy, a Democrat, is proposing a budget that will shortchange his state’s higher education finances by $78 million.
And all this is happening in the midst of increasing tuition and fees, mounting student debts and, in many cases, stubborn refusal by some politicians and board of trustees to reform the financial structure of public postsecondary institutions in ways that would allow them more freedom in establishing their own revenue streams.
These cuts are a direct result of continuing tax cuts and the depreciation of the value of a higher education – now valued by many politicians as useful only as long as it produces immediate jobs for graduates.
We can trace these kinds of ideas back to Feb. 8, 1967, when California Gov. Ronald Reagan, who had been in office for only one month, announced a number of budget cuts to higher education and said “taxpayers shouldn’t be subsidizing intellectual curiosity.”
Yet, many of the Founding Fathers viewed education quite differently. Take Thomas Jefferson. Despite all of his accomplishments, including being president, he always considered the founding of the University of Virginia in 1819 as his greatest achievement. We can read in his correspondence –when referring to the university- phrases such as, “The last of my mortal cares,” “The hobby of my old age,” and “The last service I can render my country.” These quotes show how much he cherished his brainchild for what would become the American model of public higher education.
His vision of a public university for the U.S. was clearly aimed at producing individuals with a broad, liberal education that was, as he wrote, “based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind, to explore and to expose every subject susceptible of its contemplation.” He thought that it was time for the country to endorse a public, non-sectarian higher education. He viewed a college campus as an “academic village” without matriculation, where “bright” students came when they liked it and left when they felt educated. Jefferson considered granting degrees “artificial embellishment.” For him the mission of the university was to create an environment that would help prepare students to become future leaders in many affairs and to engage in public service.
In addition to espousing these ideals, Jefferson designed the truly first American campus that included qualities that today are common features, such as a central lawn or “quad,” and a rotunda. He was an amateur architect and took inspiration from Roman construction design. And he recruited the best professors he could get from England and the U.S.
The curriculum that he designed included the study of ancient and modern languages (Latin and Greek), moral philosophy (ethics), natural philosophy (natural sciences and physics), chemistry, medicine and law. No remedial classes – so common today at public universities across this country – were even foresaw. As the late journalist Joseph Sobran pointed out, we have gone from teaching Latin and Greek in high school to teaching remedial English in college.
The University of Virginia became the first institution of higher education in providing elective courses and a student-run honor system by which students police themselves. Jefferson’s vision of what a public university ought to be was so outstanding that it created a great deal of interest across American public life. In fact, most of the first classes of students attending it were not even Virginians. Substance, not marketing gimmicks, was the magnet for these students.
Jefferson, who is frequently quoted by conservatives (correctly or not) for writing, “That government is best which governs least,” maintained that this kind of education should be publicly supported.
Since the way some politicians have been framing postsecondary education lately is so radical, we should not be surprised to hear arguments that justify such moves based on our history, much like the debate over whether the U.S. was created as a Christian nation that took place little more than six years ago.
We need to remember the facts before we enter into a political discussion of what American public higher education should be and what the Founding Fathers thought about it. What is clear is that Thomas Jefferson and others thought that public universities had to be supported by the taxpayers. He also left very little room for mediocrity in projecting his plans.
PDF Version
Vision Of Founding Fathers Becomes Blurred
Dr. Aldemaro Romero Jr. interviews Chinese scholars from Aldemaro Romero Jr. on Vimeo.
Dr. Aldemaro Romero Jr. interviews with three Chinese scholars about higher education in China.
Aldemaro Romero Jr. The Romero Report aldemaro romero, aldemaro romero jr., college, episode 7, politics, public opinion, the romero report, university, vlog
This week’s Romero report discusses what the public feels the role of colleges and universities should be in society.
Aldemaro Romero Jr. Letters from Academia
For my weekly column “Letters from Academia”, I discuss a recent report from the National Research Council that calls for a stronger leadership in higher education.
One of the least appreciated realities about U.S. prosperity throughout its history is the role played by the federal and state governments, industry and higher education working in concert. These partnerships and investment in research have taken place during both good and bad economic times.
It was during the Civil War that Congress passed the first Morrill Land-Grant Act in 1862, forging a partnership between the federal government, the states, higher education, and industry aimed at creating universities capable of extending educational opportunities to the working class while conducting the applied research to enable American agriculture and industry to become world leaders. The results of that partnership couldn’t have been more impressive. It resulted in major progress in agriculture and manufacturing that catapulted this country into a position of world economic leadership.
During and after World War II –particularly after the Sputnik shock of 1957- Congress acted once again to strengthen this partnership by investing heavily in basic research and graduate education, which resulted in the creation of the world’s finest research universities. These schools not only provided the nation with a significant number of well-prepared graduates, but also contributed a myriad of scientific and technological innovations to society.
Among the great achievements of that era were putting a man on the Moon, the development of the Internet and advances in public health that increased the human life span to theretofore unimaginable levels.
Yet, despite all that progress, the U.S. is witnessing today new challenges that are coming at a time of rapid and profound economic, social and political transformation. Add to that the global competition we are facing. We rank ninth in the world in the percentage of a nation’s population that has a college degree. This comparative sliding in the proportion of Americans with a college degree puts the U.S. in a weak position when it comes to innovation, which in turn threatens our long-term economic progress, our national security and international prestige.
Both in 2005 and 2009 a bipartisan group of members of the U.S. Congress tasked the National Research Council (NRC), an independent operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine with determining what this country needed to do to maintain its position of world leader in science and technology.
The results of the NRC study have just been published in the form of a report titled “Research Universities and the Future of America: Ten Breakthrough Actions Vital to Our Nation’s Prosperity and Security.” Its recommendations could not be clearer: reaffirm and revitalize more partnership among the nation’s research universities, federal government, states and industry. Otherwise, the report said, the future of the U.S. as a world leader in innovation will diminish, having serious effects on our economy.
Leaders in academia, industry, government and national laboratories representing a great diversity of backgrounds composed the NRC panel in charge of the report. They concluded that America’s research universities are the key assets for our nation’s future, but that their own future will depend upon the willingness of policy makers to act to strengthen the historic partnership that got us to where we are now.
Among the recommendations issued by the panel are (1) better funding of higher education by the federal, state and private entities, especially in the area of graduate education; (2) greater autonomy and fewer regulations to institutions of higher education so they can respond more swiftly to new opportunities; (3) greater partnerships with businesses; (4) better financial management of postsecondary institutions; (5) the development of clear strategies that identify key national priorities; (6) improving the pipeline of graduate students into the labor market; (7) more outreach efforts by higher education to share the benefits of science and technology among the general population; and (8) facilitate the participation of more international graduate students and scholars into the American higher education system.
I don’t think that there will be any significant opposition to these recommendations from a rhetorical viewpoint. The problem is the state of decomposition of both the political system in general and management of higher education in particular.
We are living in a time of political gridlock that makes the federal system largely dysfunctional. That is particularly true when it comes to budgets. The state system is not much better. Many states, in order to satisfy an irresponsible anti-tax populism, keep cutting higher education budgets, resulting in ill-funded postsecondary institutions and the limiting of public access to those institutions, particularly for the constituencies with the fewest financial resources.
Finally we are seeing how the leadership of (mostly) public institutions of higher education seem too content with just passing budget cuts down the line while not taking a more spirited defense of what universities mean for the well-being of local, state, and national communities. They also seem to show very little inclination to develop more creative partnerships with businesses. No wonder corporate America is doing more and more business abroad, to the detriment of our own economy.
We are not facing a crisis of lack of ideas, as the NRC report shows. What we are facing is the lack of appropriate leadership at multiple levels where incompetence, indolence and mediocrity appear to be widely accepted by the society at large.
Those of us who remember how the U.S. responded to the Sputnik challenge know that we have the capacity to overcome these difficulties. The question, given the political environment in Washington, is whether higher education leadership is going to take a more energetic and visionary stance for its own sake?
PDF Version
Academia Needs To Be More Of A Leader