Letters from Academia

1968 was one of the most convulsive years in recent world history. Fifty years later it is worthwhile to remember many of the things that happened back then. That was the year of the Tet Offensive that radically changed American public opinion about the Vietnam War. That was also the year of the Paris revolts in May that transformed a lot of popular culture, of the Mexico City Olympic games where two African-American athletes publicly protested against racial discrimination by raising their black-gloved fists and wearing black socks in lieu of shoes at the podium. It was also the year in which both Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were assassinated.

On April 3, 1968, the day before Dr. King was killed, a unique movie opened in theaters across the U.S. Its title: “2001: A Space Odyssey.” Although it had mixed reviews initially, this film directed by Stanley Kubrick and partially based on a short story by Arthur C. Clark titled “The Sentinel,” went on to be the highest-grossing movie in North America for 1968, and today is considered one of the best and more transformative films ever made.

“2001” was a very revolutionary film in many ways. It included a number of cryptic messages open to interpretation by the audience, high quality special effects well before the era of CGI (Computer Generated Images), the first serious introduction of the concept of artificial intelligence, very little dialogue (only 40 minutes out of 161), elegant use of academic music, and a higher degree of scientific accuracy than any other science fiction movie made before.

This film captured the public imagination because it was released at a time when the human landing on the Moon was just around the corner, an event that took place little more than a year after the release of the movie.

Although these elements are important enough to celebrate the 50th anniversary of “2001,” this movie is also a springboard to ponder a very basic question: How come those dreams of planetary travel by humans died with the last Apollo mission in 1972?

As with most big questions, it has a complicated answer. First, there is cost. It is very expensive to send humans to other planets. Also, traveling large distances is difficult, which translates into long and perilous journeys. Equally important is the fact that there is no political taste for human-manned planetary exploration today. After all, the main drive behind the original space race was the competition between the Soviet Union and the U.S. for world supremacy. These are some of the reasons for the demise of big dreams for the U.S. space program, but another major reason that tends to be overlooked concerns the lack of appropriate leadership.

And this issue brings us to a person who is little known by the American public, but whose vision and political savviness were crucial to the success of the U.S. beating the Soviet Union in the space race: James Webb.

Webb was the NASA administrator from the beginning of the Kennedy Administration in 1961 until 1968 when Lyndon Johnson announced Webb’s resignation. Before President Kennedy announced to Congress on May 1961 the intention of the U.S. “to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon, and returning him safety to the Earth,” he consulted Webb to see if such a thing was possible in that timeframe and how much it would cost.

Webb had been hesitant about taking the NASA job in the first place because he lacked any technical background about space exploration. He had been a businessperson and a policy maker when working for government. Kennedy told him that he was looking for someone with policy experience, not a scientist or an engineer. And Webb was very successful as NASA’s head. Why?

First of all, Webb placed technical expertise above politics and allowed scientists and engineers a lot of freedom in running their programs. That approach is in big contrast with the way government agencies are run today. Second, he knew that great initiatives cost a lot of money, so he not only came up with a well thought out budget, but also doubled it when he presented it to the White House because he knew that in such an untried field things would not necessarily work out well the first time around.

Webb also remained focused and promoted efficient communication among the different units at NASA, which at that time directly or indirectly employed nearly 400,000 people, hired about 20,000 contractors and worked with 200 universities in 80 countries. He also showed a lot of vision for a program that was supposed to make such an impact on the history of humanity, something that did not distract him from being honest and transparent when dealing with disasters, such as when three astronauts perished on the launch pad of the Apollo 1 spacecraft in 1967.

What kind of lessons can today’s higher education administrators draw from Webb’s example?

In a country where college education is under attack for political reasons and faces major financial threats, drastic changes in demographics, and scandals of many kinds, a new kind of leadership is needed. Academic leaders must be capable of communicating to diverse constituencies of society the benefits of higher education from economic and political viewpoints. We need leadership that is ambitious and proactive – not mediocre and reactive – to the challenges that we face today, one in which the leaders see themselves as heads of a “moon-shot,” not being afraid of failure, and who come forward in moments of crises with transparency, authenticity, and creativity.

And that is what is called leadership.

PDF Version:

2001 and future of higher education.

One of the current urban legends circulating about is that college students are intolerant to a diversity of views and have a selective attitude towards free speech. Epitomized by a few highly publicized cases highlighted in the media, especially conservative ones, the idea of intolerance as a feature at colleges and universities has now become part of the conventional wisdom. But, is it true?

As usually happens with legends, impressions may be just a reflection of a distorted reality.

According to a study carried out last year but published a few weeks ago by Gallup and the Knight Foundation, students’ attitudes toward free speech shows support for open learning environments that protect free speech while promoting diversity and inclusion. The study was carried out by randomly surveying 3,014 U.S. college students from 39 public and private institutions across the U.S., including six historically black colleges or universities, to gain a sense of what those college students think about First Amendment issues. The results of the study challenge conventional wisdom.

For example, 70 percent of U.S. college students believe that offensive speech should be allowed for the sake of freedom of speech. That is down from 78 percent in 2016. Sixty-one percent said that their campus climate prevents certain groups from saying things because they might be seen as offensive, up from 54 percent the previous year.

But probably the most important statistic emerging from the study is that 90 percent said that protecting free speech rights is very important or extremely important, while 83 percent said promoting an inclusive society is very important or extremely important.

When it came to prioritizing, these college students ranked promoting an inclusive society over protecting free speech rights, 53 percent to 46 percent. About 65 percent of black students, Democrats and women chose a “diverse and inclusive” society over one protecting free speech rights, while 70 percent of Republican students favored free speech. Sixty-six percent of the voluntary respondents identified themselves as Democrats or Democrat-leaning.

Do comments students hear on campus in reference to their race, ethnicity, or religion make them feel uncomfortable? About 25 percent of all college students said yes, with about 43 percent of black students answering yes. This number is nearly double that of white students who answered yes. About 39 percent of all students who said that they felt uncomfortable participated in protests for diversity and inclusion in 2017.

These feelings generated different levels of reactions from students. Although most of them did not protest on their campus last year, among those who did 26 percent attended demonstrations regarding diversity and inclusivity while only 12 percent attended a protest related to free speech issues.

Interestingly enough, 61 percent of students said that they agree or strongly agree that the climate on their campus prevents some people from saying things they believe. That is up from 54 percent in the 2016 survey.

One of the factors that seems to influence the current climate about free speech is – not surprisingly – social media.. Because of the lack of face-to-face communication or simply because of anonymity, people tend to say things that they would not under other circumstances. To begin with, 57 percent of students said in this poll that discussions on political issues are taking place online instead of face-to-face.

Thus, it is not surprising that more than 80 percent of students see social media as responsible for a rise in hate speech. And that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. Sixty-six percent of college students responding said schools should restrict hate speech, with 52 percent of Republicans favoring restrictions.

That does not mean that college students are well informed about their campus policies regarding this topic. Sixty percent of them said they were unsure about whether their college had a speech code, a free speech zone or had ever disinvited a speaker.

Furthermore, 73 percent of students said that they favor campus restrictions on offensive language such as slurs against groups, while 60 percent believe that stereotypical costumes, painted faces and the like should be banned. Not surprisingly, that measure is largely supported by African Americans, women and Democrats.

In these times of “fake news” parlance, unrestricted social media sources, and attention only to media that agree with people’s political point of views, it is not surprising that the American public in general have had an increasing suspicion and even disdain towards conventional media outlets. In a 2016 Gallup poll, 32 percent say they have “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of trust in media, with only 14 percent of Republicans expressing trust, down from 32 percent in 2015. Confidence in media also continues to drop among younger and older Americans.

Yet it seems that in 2017, college students were not that distrustful of traditional news sources. In fact, 50 percent of students said they had “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of trust in the news media, an 8 percent jump from the number reporting in 2016. However, it seems a factor behind those significant changes in attitudes has been the result of the last presidential elections. For example, before the 2016 elections Democrats and Republicans had similar views on the security of First Amendment freedoms. Since then, Democratic students are less likely to see those freedoms as secure in comparison with Republicans.

That may explain why a number of independent newspapers, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post, have seen their circulation numbers increase in spite of the ease to which their content can be viewed online. That increase in circulation seems to be propelled by Democrats, whose trust in the news media made a gigantic jump in just a year, from 44 to 64 percent. Republicans’ trust in the news media, by contrast, has declined to an all-time low of 34 percent among college students.

All these statistics seem to indicate that U.S. college students struggle to find a balance between First Amendment rights and the curtailment of hate speech. Unfortunately, not that many campuses are taking significant steps in providing guidance in this area.

PDF Version:

College Students Not Intolerant of Ideas

There is a new obsession among higher education administrators and the politicians who oversee them. That new obsession can be summarized as follows: Colleges must prepare students for jobs. While this new mantra might seem innocuous and even well intentioned, there is more to it than meets the eyes.

In the first place, in the world we live today the specific requirements for different jobs continue to change at a dizzying pace. What we think is most important today will most likely not be tomorrow. Leading to these changes are factors including technological transformations, as well as changes in the economic, social, and legal foundations of society. These changes make it virtually impossible to produce graduates with the precise know-how to be applied as soon as they graduate. And no one should ever think that what one learns in college is all that is needed to succeed. It is not about memorizing facts; it is about people’s ability to keep learning and adapting to a changing world.

So, what are the skills that we should be teaching in college, regardless of a particular career path? First is critical thinking, that is, the ability to gather the correct information, dismiss unsubstantiated material, and question conventional wisdom. In that way, we can make informed decisions. Second is problem solving. Life is full of surprises with new problems arising at every turn, and that is why one needs to have the ability to analyze the components of problems and discern what is the best decision possible, while being conscientious about the fact that there is no such a thing as a perfect solution. Third is the ability to work in teams. Because everyday problems are becoming more and more complex, we need the knowledge, experience, and insight from people with different backgrounds. To that end we have to be able to reach out and seek advice and alternative approaches, and that can only be achieved through well-designed teams.

Fourth, no matter the discipline or career path, being a good communicator is key. That means being able to express ideas convincingly to a variety of audiences, whether in writing or verbally.

By no means do I mean to imply that the only things that we need to teach in college are the skills mentioned above. People need to have a strong literacy in their discipline of choice, a combination of breath and depth in the knowledge and practice of fundamental subjects. But without the foundational skills mentioned above, we may be producing graduates who are not prepared for the workforce because they graduate based only on their ability to memorize facts for a particular test.

The problem is that they will forget most of those items within weeks after the exam. After all, humans are not like a computer hard drive.

And this is not just a personal opinion. A couple of weeks ago The Wall Street Journal published an article titled, “More Companies Teach Workers What Colleges Don’t.” The article describes a number of examples in which corporations are retraining recent college graduates for them to be able to contribute efficiently to the goals of their employers.

The crux of the article is that employers are complaining that many college graduates lack even basic critical thinking abilities. That is why many employers are becoming more and more skeptical of college diplomas and transcripts because of what they perceive to be “degree inflation.” Jobs interviews are being geared more towards figuring out if the applicant has the right skills or not. Thus, many employers feel dissatisfied with the way colleges are preparing students and that they have to invest time and money in teaching important skills.

So, what are some employers doing? Their thinking is as follows: If we have to teach our entry-level employees what they need to know, we will just siphon them out from high school. This approach is, of course, bad for our higher education system, a system that is more and more dependent upon tuition money, and that in many areas of the country is experiencing a drop in enrollment numbers due to a decline in the number of high school graduates.

Another factor we need to be aware regarding the message of “preparing students for a job” motto is that there is a subtle but evident predisposition for undermining certain areas that politicians perceive as “useless.” Despite such biases, many studies (mentioned in this column over the years) have shown that people with liberal arts degrees not only are able to secure well-compensated jobs, but also show a great deal of personal satisfaction. After all, what better way to develop skills in critical thinking than majoring in philosophy? What better way to develop communication skills than majoring in English, modern languages, or communications studies? What better way to engender creativity and problem solving than majoring in the arts?

These are the kind of skills we should be emphasizing in college because they are the ones that will pave the way not only to satisfying employment, but also are the ones needed by employers. Not surprisingly, a large proportion of people (near 50 percent) with a college degree end up working in a sector that did not require the particular knowledge they learned in their majors.

Therefore, both administrators and faculty in colleges and universities need to be aware of these realities in order to promote the value of a higher education degree, particularly in the liberal arts. And there is no better way to achieve that by demonstrating that we ourselves are good communicators.

PDF Version:

Employers Seeking Skills, Not Robots

In the last few years a ghost has been wandering the political landscapes of many countries. Whether it is Trumpism in the U.S., the Five Star Movement and the League Party in Italy, the Podemos and Catalan separatist parties in Spain, or the Venezuelan Chavism, they all have something in common: a mixture of populism and nationalism.

Populism is characterized by the rejection of the establishment, the socalled privileged elites. Nationalism is a movement that promotes the alleged interests of a tribe, whether it is a group tied by geography, culture, or ethnicity. They are both anti-historical in the sense that throughout time major progress has been made by civilizations that embrace an open world, well-organized societies, and deference to the intellectual elites.

But look at what is going on today. Scientific facts are being dismissed when they do not conveniently match the tenets of these ideologically driven groups, whether it is climate change, the value of vaccinations, or the unmasking of trickle-down economics.

And look at the consequences. Countries that have embraced such tendencies have done very badly. From fascist Italy, to Nazi Germany, to the Soviet Union, they all have ended in disaster.

But these movements have not just popped up without context. First, we need to blame the established political parties for either their incompetence managing government or bending to irrational popular sentiments out of cowardice and ineptitude. We should hold them accountable to tell – and explain – the truth to the public.

Then we have had the economic elites who are more interested in quarterly returns than in the long-run wellbeing of the societies of which they are a part. Thus, they always advocate for more tax cuts that hurt basic social investments such as infrastructure, health, and education. These cuts make societies more fragile and less capable of being part of a productive world.

Also, we have the leadership of institutions of higher education who have not only failed in managing their organizations appropriately, but have also lacked the vision and the communication savviness to make society understand that their institutions are the pillars of progress. And, of course, they are not the only ones who are responsible for the bad cultural movements we are witnessing today.

There are also faculty members who promote a narrative that takes us back to the 1960s with conspiracy theories galore, pretentious jargon that seems illustrious but lacks real substance, and more interest in the “ideology-of-the-month” than in providing evidence based explanations of what is going on in the world.

And finally, the fault also lies with all who vote without being informed, or who are simply too lazy to even go to the polls.

All of this has resulted in demagoguery based on fear of immigration, blank checks given in the form of unwise tax cuts, acceleration of the degradation of the global environment, education made more expensive than ever, and the lowering of vaccination rates, generating public health threats to the general population.

And what have these failures meant for the image of the world today? Just by looking at the news, both traditional and through social media, what we see is a portrayal of societies where mediocrity and vulgarity are commonplace. We are also seeing many countries becoming more authoritarian and their leaders assuming the role of assertive despots.

Some people may think that this is a very apocalyptic view of the world. Some even argue that actually things are better today. Take, for example, Harvard professor Steven Pinker’s recent book, “Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress,” in which he contends that if you believe that things are going badly, think again. “People are living longer, healthier, freer, and happier lives, and while our problems are formidable, the solutions lie in the Enlightenment ideal of using reason and science.”

Not only can one counter his statistics with many others that are really somber, but he also misses the larger point of not looking at historical examples when deep societal problems were being masked by apparent progress.

Take, for example, Nazi Germany. Hitler and his acolytes took advantage of the public’s hatred of the Versailles Treaty, designed to humiliate the Germans for being part of World War I, as well the economic chaos created by the Wall Street Crash of 1929 when American banks recalled their loans to Germany and plunged the country into further financial desperation. And, yes, under Hitler, Germany saw an economic recovery during the first years of Nazism, along with a resurgence of German pride. But it came at such a cost. The final result? World War II, the Holocaust, the Cold War, and totalitarianism in Eastern Europe.

The creation of the United Nations, the end of apartheid in South Africa, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the establishment of the European Union, the flourishing of democracy in many developing countries, the acceptance of human rights as universal values, and worldwide economic development, all worked to create confidence that we were moving in the right direction.

Now we know better.

Colleges and universities need to address these issues. We, alone, cannot change all things that are wrong in the world, but we certainly have the responsibility to do our part. We need to prepare students not just “for a job,” but to build their characters so they can make effective social change.

We need to talk directly to the general public not from an ivory tower, but by speaking plainly and convincingly about the world’s problems and proposing sensible solutions. And we need to convince everybody that there is nothing wrong with intellectual elites.

There is nothing wrong with merit while everything is wrong with mediocrity. If you want medical attention you deserve the best. There is nothing wrong in achieving a fair and just society, and the most important tool to that end is education. We must have a system that provides quality and affordable education.

The ball is in our court.

PDF Version:

Demagoguery Hurting Higher Education

In the last few weeks we have seen an impressive mobilization by our nation’s high school students to tackle one of the most nefarious political issues that affects this country: gun violence. Many people question whether anything can be done about it given the power that lobbyists, most notably from the National Rifle Association, have over cowardly politicians. Yet, that does not mean that we lack information about what we need to do to stop this epidemic.

In a study published just a few days ago by the Interdisciplinary Group on Preventing School and Community Violence titled, “Call for Action to Prevent Gun Violence in the United States of America,” researchers of the Melissa Institute for Violence Prevention and Treatment, a Florida-based, non-profit organization dedicated to the study and prevention of violence, provided guidelines to reduce gun violence while at the same time protecting Constitutional rights.

The report recommends the following steps:

1. A national requirement for all schools to assess school climate and maintain safe conditions and positive school environments that protect against bullying, discrimination, harassment, and assault.

2. A ban on assault-style weapons, high-capacity ammunition clips, and products that modify semiautomatic firearms to enable them to function like automatic firearms.

3. Adequate staffing (counselors, psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers) of schools to provide mental health services for individuals with risk factors for violence, recognizing that violence is not intrinsically a product of mental illness.

4. Reform of school discipline to reduce exclusionary practices and foster positive social, behavioral, emotional, and academic success for students.

5. Universal background checks to screen out violent offenders, persons who have been hospitalized for violence towards self or others, and persons on no-fly, terrorist watch lists.

6. A national program to train and maintain school- and community-based threat assessment teams that include mental health and law enforcement partners including practical channels of communication for persons to report potential threats as well as interventions to resolve conflicts and assist troubled individuals.

7. Removal of legal barriers to sharing safety-related information among educational, mental health, and law enforcement agencies in cases where a person has threatened violence.

8. Laws that allow courts to issue time limited restraining orders requiring that firearms be recovered by law enforcement when there is evidence that an individual is planning to carry out acts against others or against themselves.

The question remains as to why we have witnessed such an increase in gun incidents lately?

Since the 2008 election of President Obama, the number of firearms manufactured in the U.S. has tripled and the number of imported firearms has doubled. One reason for the dramatic increase has been the intense media campaign by right wing groups falsely saying, “Obama is coming to take away your guns.” Yet, the percentage of households that own firearms has remained fairly stable – at about 50 percent – according to the Injury Control Research Center at Harvard University. How is this explained? Simple. Those who already owned guns have been stockpiling more and more of them. But who are these people?

According to several studies, they are mostly less-educated, conservative, antigovernment white males anxious about their ability to protect their families (despite the national decline in violent crime), who are insecure about their place in the national economy and plagued by racial fears. These are people whose insecurity makes them feel that they need to become heroes of a certain sort. In other words, guns make them feel more empowered.

While studies like these are key to better understanding the problem, the NRA through fear tactics has influenced the political establishment to discount altogether scientific research on gun violence.

For example, earlier this month the RAND Corporation released a comprehensive analysis on gun policy in the U.S. and concluded that too few policies and outcomes have been the subject of rigorous scientific research.

But that was not always the case. For example, until 1996 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) supported research on firearm violence through its National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Then came the “Dickey Amendment” that year, which prohibited the CDC from funding activities that promoted or advocated for gun control. Later, in 2011, Congress enacted similar restrictions affecting the Department of Health and Human Services, resulting in the absence of scientific research on any aspect of the availability and possession of firearms and the violence that might be related to them.

After the tragic shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2013, President Obama moved to lift those restrictions on research. But when the CDC requested funds to support relevant gun-related research, Congress, which must approve the federal budget, consistently said “no.” Something similar happened with The National Institutes of Health when they tried to fund related research. And in the current anti-science, anti-intellectualism environment that we have in government and politics, these obstacles are not likely to go away.

Thus, fundamental research that can provide clear answers to questions such as the effectiveness of raising the minimum age for purchasing firearms to 21 years old, social factors affecting proclivity to gun violence, or the effectiveness or arming school officials, is less likely to take place.

Certainly, there are many people who fear that the answers to those questions will contradict their talking points, such as “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” We all must sometimes face inconvenient truths.

It is time to remove the despicable influence of ideologies on research about the fundamental problems that affect the U.S. And, to that end, we need to elect officials less prone to be influenced by money from lobbyists and special interests and who are more inclined to listen to reason.

PDF Version:

Gun Violence Requires Better Prevention

One question that is commonly asked of people who pursue a career in the humanities (like philosophy, literature, history and the like) is, “But what are you going to do for a living?” Even former President Barack Obama once ridiculed those following an art history career. These concerns are even more amplified in the case of first generation college students whose parents oftentimes expect them to follow more conventional careers, such as medicine, law or engineering.

Also, in the last few years there has been great hype about the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) disciplines as the only majors worth pursuing because their applicability to the modern world. That push has come from politicians – particularly on the right – who advance the idea that STEM graduates are the only ones who could obtain professional careers. In fact, many liberal arts colleges are adding pre-professional programs to their offerings. Other institutions are going in the other direction. The University of Wisconsin Stevens Point is eliminating many programs, mostly in the liberal arts. But are either of these approaches necessary or the correct response?

A few days ago, the American Academy of Arts & Sciences produced a report that contradicts many of the assumptions that have guided recent changes in academia.

The report, titled “The State of the Humanities 2018: Graduates in the Workforce & Beyond,” shows humanities grads to have good jobs and are even in positions of authority. It also shows that only a slightly smaller share of humanities graduates think they have enough money, compared to their better-paid non-humanities educated counterparts. Further, the report shows that when it comes to career satisfaction, humanities graduates are as satisfied as those who majored in STEM-related areas. The report was generated using data from the U.S. Census, other government sources, as well as from a Gallup poll of workers from around the country.

The Academy’s report does show that humanities graduates do earn less, on average, than those in many other fields. The median salary for those with a terminal bachelor’s degree in the humanities was $52,000 in 2015, less than the median for all graduates ($60,000) and much less than those in engineering ($82,000). Yet, that earnings gap is reduced over time.

The idea that a humanities graduate is more likely to be unemployed is also disputed by this report. Only 4.3 percent of those with terminal bachelor’s degrees were unemployed in 2015, and the figure was under 3 percent for those with a bachelor’s in a humanities field and an advanced degree in any field.

Humanities graduates also seem pleased with their career choices. Almost 87 percent of all workers with a bachelor’s degree in the humanities reported they were satisfied with their jobs in 2015, which is about the same for graduates from almost every other field. After all, money is not everything.

Further, the report shows that a large percentage of humanities majors are in supervisory roles, with 60 percent reporting that managing or supervising others is part of their job. This percentage is similar to those graduating in other fields.

When it comes to more qualitative data, humanities graduates are also generating a positive outcome. According to the Gallup survey, many humanities students follow those subjects as an end in themselves and because they have an innate interest in gaining skills toward understanding how the world works.

Among those who do pursue a career for which a humanities degree is part of their jobs, 80 percent said that they are “deeply interested” in their jobs. That number is higher than those pursuing careers in business. Additionally, they do not seem to be particularly concerned about whether they are well compensated or not.

Not only that, but to the statement, “At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day,” humanities graduates respond far more affirmatively than do engineering graduates.

All this information is important because it helps to counter the stereotype that humanities graduates are very likely to fail in obtaining a decent job and/or to feel miserable about the investment in time and effort they made earlier in their lives.

It is also useful in showing that the skills and values you learn as a humanities student will be useful to succeed in life. This is another important point because in addition to the stereotypes mentioned above, there has been some discussion that such skills and values are very difficult to define and impossible to measure.

In a recent article published in American Affairs, a conservative political magazine (and reprinted in The Chronicle of Higher Education), Justin Strover, a lecturer at the University of Edinburgh, argues that, “there is no case for the humanities” and that “deep down we know our justifications for it are hollow.” That is in line with other conservative-leaning publications, such as Forbes, that recommend people selecting a major in college to stay away from a humanities degree.

As the American Academy of Arts & Sciences report shows, such opinions are not based on data. This misunderstanding is what happens when you allow ideology to overshadow facts. But, of course, it is not all the fault of conservatives. Liberals and higher education leaders in general also have a responsibility in not legitimizing misinformation. They not only seem unable to articulate opinions, but also incapable of conveying arguments based on real data, such as the ones summarized in this article.

Unless we take new approaches in higher education communications that go beyond unscientific rankings, athletics, and campus amenities, misinformation on the value of the humanities in particular and on higher education in general will persist. The problem is that we are not just talking about stereotypes. What we are talking about is the declining support for higher education and the increasing perception that a college degree is not worth the time, effort, and money invested in obtaining.

How about a simple and easy tagline to remember, such as “Following a humanities career will most likely fulfill your dream in the pursuit of happiness”?

PDF Version:

Humanities and the Pursuit of Happiness

Midterm elections usually reflect strong opposition to the party in the White House, and the 2018 elections do not seem to be any different. Women, many who see themselves as targets of the current political environment, have achieved great success in special elections since 2016, and they seem to be heading to even greater success in this year’s elections.

According to Emily’s List, the largest national organization devoted to electing female candidates, in the 10 months before the election in 2016 about 1,000 women contacted that organization about running for office or getting involved in other ways.

Since the election, the number has exploded to more than 25,000. And something similar is happening with higher education.

According to 314 Action, a D.C.- based nonprofit advocacy group formed two years ago to encourage scientists to engage in politics, at least 60 scientists are bidding for seats in the U.S. Congress this year.

Some 200 people with science and engineering backgrounds are also running for state legislative seats, with a similar number vying for school board and other local and county level positions.

Here are some examples of academics (all of them happen to be Democrats) who have already thrown their hats into the ring.

Julia Biggins, a biotech scientist, is challenging freshman representative Barbara Comstock (Republican) in Virginia’s District 10, considered a purple, or tossup, seat. Democrat Chrissy Houlahan, an industrial engineer with very good fundraising skills, is challenging Republican Ryan Costello for District 6 in Pennsylvania. Jason Westin, a clinical oncologist, will be running against nine-term incumbent Republican John Culberson in the purple District 7 in Texas. Molly Sheehan, a biophysics postdoctoral student at the University of Pennsylvania, is vying for the open seat in District 7 of Pennsylvania. For Illinois District 14 (suburban Chicago) Matt Brolley, a young engineer, is looking to unseat Republican Randy Hultgren, a social and fiscal conservative. The list goes on and on.

By the way, women make up the majority of scientists planning a run for Congress this year.

These academics have many different reasons for seeking a political career after a life in academia.

Molly Sheehan, for example, knows she does not have the money or the networking connections that lawyers, industrialists, or political operatives usually have. Yet, she has raised more than $35,000 and loaned herself $170,000. That is a lot of commitment for a postdoctoral student. She said that given the anti-science and anti-intellectual environment in which we live, she needs to do something.

Randy Wadkins is a professor of biochemistry at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, near where he grew up.

Wadkins has been public about his distaste for Trump’s and the Republican majority’s policies in Congress.

But what chance do these first-timers and political neophytes with science and engineering backgrounds really have of making a dent in the policies of this highly partisan Congress? There are many obstacles.

At a minimum, a run for a Congressional seat costs, on average, about $4 million. If your district is in an urban or suburban area, we are talking several millions more because of television costs. You may win millennials (they rarely watch TV) but attracting an older, more disciplined electorate may be a different story.

It is also difficult for a first-time Democrat to win in a traditional red district. You will also have to contend with the fact that the Republican-election machine is well adept at demonizing and ridiculing people whose credentials are as intellectuals.

One of the things they used to say about Barack Obama was that he was too “professorial.” On the Democratic side, on the other hand, they are very bad communicators, particularly when it comes to the defense of intellectualism. Finally, to run a campaign you need professionals supporting you. If you have never run or been involved in a campaign, you will have a hard time figuring out how to do it effectively.

How about the positives? This year some conventional wisdom may not apply. Not only is it a midterm election, which usually leans against the party in power, Trump has become a figure who has energized a large opposition.

Further, Republican candidates elected in primaries seem to be more and more leaning towards the far right, which makes them look more extremist in the eyes of even moderate Republicans.

With the Trump Administration, known for its scandals and incompetence, Republicans might prove an easy target for people who are just different, who can show they are rational or just “normal” in comparison.

The crux of the matter will be at the communications level. Not only are Democrats bad at constructing effective messages, but people in academia may not have the training to present themselves as likable individuals capable of showing that they understand that the general public is not their captive classroom audience.

These candidates need to be able to connect themselves with people who really do not care much about science, while being able to explain the facts in simple terms.

These facts, in a world of lies and “alternative facts,” sometimes are not easy to convey in the form of a “talking point.” Also, they may not be very adroit at dealing with personal attacks and in how to counter them.

But, as they say, time will tell.

PDF Version:

Academia is Running for Congress

On February 16, the Justice Department issued a detailed indictment of 13 Russians and three Russian companies that worked since 2014 in subverting the 2016 U.S. elections. According to the indictment filed by the office of special counsel Robert S. Muller III, these foreign agents developed a sophisticated network aimed at supporting the Trump campaign, especially in battleground states.

These agents, who worked from an office in St. Petersburg, Russia, stole the identities of American citizens, posed as political activists, and stirred debate on politically sensitive issues such as immigration, religion, and race, all in an attempt to favor the Trump campaign.

Further, the Russians were in contact with “unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign,” according to court documents. In a more general framework, these Russians conspirators wanted “to promote discord in the United States and undermine public confidence in democracy,” said Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general overseeing the inquiry.

Although this indictment is not surprising since for years the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have been saying that the Russians have been meddling in our political system, this is an official confirmation that such is the case and not just “fake news.” As also reported by intelligence agencies in other countries, particularly those in Europe, the Russians have carried out similar actions elsewhere in order to serve the global political ambitions of their country by creating instability that weakens democratic political institutions.

But what may surprise many is that these types of Russian actions are not just targeted at democracy as a political system; they have also gone after our universities.

In an article recently published in the journal, Strategic Studies Quarterly, its author, Lt. Col. Jarred Prier, of the United States Air Force, reveals that the Russian Internet bots had another target in the fall of 2015: The University of Missouri.

Internet bots, or simply bots (short for robots), are software programs that run automated tasks that repeat themselves through what is called web “spidering” or “crawling” in which a script makes, analyzes and files information from web servers at high speed. This allows for information to be spread very rapidly throughout social media and Internet sites, giving the impression that many people are engaged in the “conversation” and, thus, adding to the false belief that the information in question is true.

As sinister as it sounds, today more than half of all web traffic is made up of bots for purely commercial purposes or by people who pay companies to increase their Internet profile, so all Internet has been exposed to them.

In the case of the University of Missouri (“Mizzou”), a lot of the racial anger and confusion surrounding incidents on campus in 2015, was manufactured, at least in part, by a disinformation campaign from Russia. According to Prier’s article, the bots created false impressions about some threats against black students and faculty members at the university, which resulted in some campus leaders calling for people to stay home and many students to say that they were terrified. The false reports also contributed to a negative image of the university regarding its support for minority students. This is an image that the university in trying to counter to this day.

What made the Russian meddling so slick in this case was that the Russian bots avoided detection, in part, because the hashtag #PrayforMizzou was used by real people who were at the university or were concerned about it, as well as by those forwarding the bot-created tweets.

According to the journal article, one of the false news items that was quickly picked up and circulated came from Russian bots. The tweets from this bot said that local police officers were marching with Ku Klux Klan members on or near campus, representing, thus, a serious threat to black students and faculty. The tweet said that the supposed author’s younger brother had been beaten up by police officers, and the tweet was accompanied by a photo of a black child who looked as if he had just been beaten up. The picture was actually of an incident that had occurred a year earlier in Ohio. People immediately started retweeting the story, using the #PrayforMizzou hashtag.

If at the time of the incidents you would have done a Google search for “bruised black child,” one of the first images that would pop up would had been the Ohio picture, as well as the false story about Mizzou. Needless to say, this false information inflamed campus racial tensions even further. Black students, supported by the football team, protested, and the University of Missouri System’s president – the target of some of the protests – resigned.

Since Mizzou is not alone among the campuses with racial incidents that extremist rightwing groups have targeted, we can expect more of these cyberattacks to occur in the years to come.

You may ask that since this is a human technology, why can’t we counter these bots with technology? It is not that easy. “You can design a strategy of dispersing bots that evade the algorithms Twitter designed to catch bot tweeting, mainly because the Mizzou hashtag was being used outside of that attack. The narrative was set as the trend was hijacked, and the hoax was underway,” wrote Prier in his article.

The question now is, how can U.S. colleges and universities prepare not to be hacked by ill-intended bots? First, these institutions need to be more proactive in their information strategies, not just reactive, because by the time a misinformation crisis occurs, it may be too late to respond. Second, the top officials at these institutions need to come forward quickly, openly, and with authenticity to present the facts.

We should never underestimate the public appetite for bad, shocking news, as well as how vulnerable humans are to false news. After all, it is far easier to believe than to know.

PDF Version:

Meddling Goes on in Higher Education

The Roman Empire was one of the largest and most powerful regimes in human history, despite its many faults. Most historians will agree that the causes of why that empire fell were a combination of factors including, but not limited to, the invasion by the Barbarians from the north, the loss of traditional values, and military overspending.

Last week I reported in this column on how a fiscal shutdown of the federal government would affect higher education. Now that a two-year budget has passed, allowing the government to run until late March, we have a better idea of what is to be expected for higher education over the next 24 months. Last Monday President Trump sent Congress a $4.4 trillion budget, which included drastic cuts in domestic programs and large increases in military spending. That, combined with the tax cuts recently enacted, has analysts agreeing that this plan will result in a $7.1 trillion deficit over the next decade.

Let’s examine this budget – and its potential effects on education – one step at a time.

The Congressional agreement, titled “The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018,” includes $4 billion for what they call “student-centered programs that aid college completion and affordability.” Although this sounds good, there are very few details about this plan beyond that the measure will cover “programs that help police officers, teachers, and firefighters.” According to some politicians involved in this deal, including Sen. Patty Murray (D-Washington), this should help low-income students, first responders, and teachers to deal with the student-debt crisis. However, the lack of details means that we will have to sit and wait to understand what it really means.

Also, as reported in this column regarding how the new tax code was targeting private institutions of higher education for ideological reasons by taxing their endowments, there were some unintended victims of this anti-intellectualist move. One was Berea College.

Berea College is a small (about 1,600 students) liberal arts college. Founded in 1855, it was the first college below the Mason-Dixon Line to become coeducational and racially integrated. And today, it provides education free to its students. This generosity is made possible thanks to its large endowment (over $1 billion).

Republicans seem obsessed with private colleges and universities that have large endowments, and what they see as their liberal agendas. As a result, these institutions were hit with a 1.5 percent tax on those endowments. Luckily for Berea, it is located in Kentucky (about 35 miles south of Lexington), which is the home state of Republican Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, who introduced a compromise in the senate plan.

Republicans seem obsessed with private colleges and universities that have large endowments, and what they see as their liberal agendas. As a result, these institutions were hit with a 1.5 percent tax on those endowments. Luckily for Berea, it is located in Kentucky (about 35 miles south of Lexington), which is the home state of Republican Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, who introduced a compromise in the senate plan.

Sen. McConnell also included a provision that authorizes the education secretary to exempt colleges from the potential loss of federal Title IV funds if they operate in economically distressed areas. That seems to be directed to help Southeast Kentucky Community and Technical College, whose students have a high loan-default rate. Sometimes it pays to be in the right state.

Although the bill also provides $100 million in relief for institutions in Puerto Rico, it does not provide any dollars for immigration or those enrolled in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, most of whom are now of college age.

But how about the new proposed White House budget?

To begin with, it does not embrace the budget passed by Congress as described above. Secondly, it keeps increasing the federal deficit well beyond what Congress wanted, and, obviously, well out of line with the Republican orthodoxy of balanced budgets. There is an extraordinary increase in military spending of $195 billion over the next two years. That is shocking given that the U.S. already spends more on national defense than China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the United Kingdom, India, France, and Japan combined. In fact, defense spending accounts for almost 16 percent of all U.S. federal spending.

Amidst all of this spending, ideology continues to drive budget cuts in other areas. For example, the fiscal 2019 proposed budget for the Environmental Protection Agency will represent a $2.8 billion cut (or 34 percent) from its current level. How is it doing that? By virtually eliminating all climate change related programs and cutting the agency’s Office of Science and Technology by nearly half, from $762 million to $489 million.

The justification for these cuts is that the EPA will be refocusing on what it calls “core activities” and eliminating “lower priority programs.” Evidently for the White House, climate change – the worst environmental crisis in human history and whose economic and social consequences will be disastrous for civilization – represents a “low priority.” Other programs facing reduction or complete elimination are those that promote partnerships with the private sector in dealing with climate change, the protection of marine estuaries (one of the most fragile ecosystems), and environmental education training.

Although most political observers believe that this budget proposal is unlikely to pass in its current form, it does reveal a number things about the current White House that are not that surprising.

One is an utter contempt for science, a feeling shared by most members of the Republican caucus. Another is the adamant position of ignoring climate change, which, for them, has become as bad a term as “Obamacare.” It also represents a reckless disregard for the well being of the citizens of this country and the world as a whole. As long as they keep certain sectors of corporate America and their base happy, why should they care?

Our country is facing now some of the very same threats that caused the collapse of the Roman Empire: military overspending, and the deterioration of traditional values, evident in the rejection of demonization of immigrants, and the outright hostility for knowledge. The Barbarians are again at the gate, only this time they are coming from within by occupying positions of power within government in its three branches.

Think about it.

PDF Version:

The New Federal Budget and Higher Education

When we read or hear about the federal shutdown in the media, we learn that it is due to the inability of our politicians to compromise, that all federal employees who are not considered essential are subject to a furlough, and that national parks and museums usually close. Yet, one may ask, how such shutdowns affect higher education. After all, most of higher education – including student aid – is supported directly or indirectly by the federal government.

To begin with, we need to remember that although no new federal dollars can be spent during a shutdown, money that has already been approved, such as for student-aid programs or research grants, is still available. The same can be said about spending mandated by law, such as the Pell Grant Program, money for federal direct student loans, and benefits paid through the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Still, that does not mean that all would be well. The military service academies, such as West Point, would shut down because civilian faculty and staff, who constitute a significant portion of their personnel, would be sent home, affecting the quality of education of our future military leaders. Even things that do not seem to have a personal touch can be significantly disrupted, such as services that aid students applying for federal financial aid through the U.S. Department of Education Web site.

The same can be said about researchers applying for grants to federal institutions such as the National Science Foundation, or regarding major research projects that are time sensitive, such as launching space missions. Astronomers would lose invaluable hours of observation time at federally funded observatories, researchers at the National Institutes of Health would be unable to enroll patients in clinical trials, and federally-funded scientific expeditions would be cancelled. Government employees would be barred from attending conferences in their disciplines.

On the other hand, services such as the U.S. Geological Survey’s on-duty seismologists in Golden, Colorado, who monitor earthquakes worldwide to produce real-time analysis and damage estimates, would remain open. Drug reviews by the Federal Drug Administration would continue because these undertakings are funded by fees from the pharmaceutical industry.

Some may think that committed researchers could continue to operate from home thanks to the Internet. Yet, by law, they are forbidden to work whatsoever, so they cannot even have work-related communications via email.

The net result of all this political mess would be the continuing loss of ground for the nation’s leadership position in areas that are critical to our national security, such as science and technology. Meanwhile, adversaries like China would see this as an opportunity to take over the relative supremacy that the U.S. has held in this area since the Sputnik era.

If you believe that this is an overstatement, look at the numbers. Since 2000, China has grown its spending on research and development by about 18 percent on average while ours grew only by four percent. Between 2010 and 2015 the share of investment by the U.S. government in that area has declined from 30 percent to 25 percent of the total country’s expenditures in research and development. And the gap will be growing in critical areas. China plans to invest 100 times more in artificial intelligence than the U.S. did in 2016 and now they have 200 of the fastest 500 world’s supercomputers, while the U.S. has fewer than 150. Those computers are essential in areas such as defense and homeland security.

Some will think that because of the furloughs and freezing in spending, the federal government would save money in a shutdown. Think again. After the 2013 government shutdown, Congress approved about $2 billion in retroactive compensation for the employees who were furloughed, erasing any payroll savings. After all, why should people pay for Congress’ inability to do its most basic job? Further, many expenditures for projects resumed at a higher pace in order to make up for the lost time.

On the other hand, that does not mean that there are not financial effects of a federal shutdown. According to a report issued by the White House, the 2013 crisis led to a loss of $2 billion in productivity.

Why we are risking the U.S. position as the only superpower left due to government shutdowns? The politics of ideology.

Since 1977 there have been 19 federal shutdowns. The six that took place during the Carter Administration were over federal funding for abortion. The longest one, a 21-day closure, took place during the Clinton Administration when the Republicancontrolled Congress shut down the government over expenditures on funding for Medicare, education, public health, and the environment. The 2013 shutdown was over funding of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”). The most recent was over immigration policy.

There was a time when the Congress, composed of elected officials paid by taxpayers, always tried to reach compromises in order to keep the country going. That is not true anymore. Further, they seem to enjoy the increasing polarization of the American society, their ability to ignore facts, and being able to get away with lying to our citizens. Now what we have is a system of government that is not only increasingly dysfunctional, but also underfunded and lacking of visionary leadership.

No wonder Congress has an approval rating of only 20 percent. But we should also see this state of affairs as a reflection on ourselves. How does a body that we elect and fund through our taxes misbehave at such levels? In a country in which less than 50 percent of the people eligible to vote exercise that right every two years, and where most people who vote do not look in depth for whom and what they are voting for, that is not surprising.

At the end of the day it is upon us to call into account the people who are supposed to run the country. That is what democracy is all about.

PDF Version:

A Shutdown’s Effect on Higher Education