Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Diversity And Inclusion Are Underrepresented At The Top Ranks Of University Leadership

A diverse student body needs a diverse faculty, but not evidently a diverse leadership.

Take the 2018 U.S. News & World Report list of the top 20 national universities.  How many women and underrepresented minorities (URM) hold the positions of president and provost?

Among 20 presidents, there are 16 White males, 3 White females, and 1 Latin American immigrant who has lived most of his life in the U.S.

Among 20 provosts, there are 12 White males, 4 White females, 2 Black males, 1 Asian (born in India) male, and 1 Hispanic female.

Compare these numbers against the student bodies.  The overall averages for the 20 schools are roughly 50% female, 45% White, 20% Asian, 11% Black, 11% Hispanic, and a percent or two Native American and Pacific Islander.  Another 10% is international students.  There is considerable variation among the 20, some less White, etc.

To be fair, the pipeline is only now beginning to provide URM candidates for leadership.  Not so for women.  The Ivies have a stronger history of female presidents.

What’s hard to reconcile is the emphasis of White male presidents to diversify their faculties to better reflect their student bodies, while retaining the top leadership post for themselves.

Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Diversity and Exclusion

Diversity and Inclusion are the watchwords of American colleges and universities.  Pick any top 20 ranked national university, for example, my alma mater, Washington University.

Open its home page.

Click on “Campus Experience” and scroll down to “Diversity and Inclusion.”

Read Chancellor Mark Wrighton’s statement.  “Making the university more diverse and inclusive is not an option.  It is an imperative.”

Similar web pages and declarations are presented on the vast majority of every university’s web site.  Indeed, diversity and inclusion are defined as a core value of the university’s mission.

A typical definition of diversity and inclusion reads as follows.

“We are committed to ensuring that "our school" is a community where everyone is valued and respected.  Hate, bias, and discrimination are to be rejected.  "Our school" does not discriminate in access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, age, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, veteran status, disability, or genetic information.

So far, so good.

But inclusion surely doesn't mean every culture, tradition, or practice.

For example, no respectable university would want to have among its faculty or student body those who espouse "honor killings."

Or those who support beheadings for "blasphemy."

Or gay-bashers.

Or Ku Klux Klan members.

Or Anti-Semites.

Or genuine Nazis.

Where is the line to be drawn between inclusion and exclusion?  No university of which I am aware has compiled a comprehensive list of excludables.  Admittedly, this is not an easy task.  At some point, exclusion and freedom of expression will clash.

If a Constitutional Convention was called for the limited purpose of considering the "Bill of Rights," how many would survive intact?  The first would be curtailed to reduce "hate speech."  The second might be eliminated, as former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens recommended on March 27, 2018.  The Ninth and Tenth ceased to be effective a long time ago.  The Third would be deemed outdated.  The Fourth and Eighth would be relaxed in the name of national security. That was easy. So too for all the other Amendments.

What follows is the text of an article that appeared in Palo Alto Online over 23 years ago on March 3, 1995.

STANFORD: Hate speech code struck down

Judge rules that Stanford's prohibitions are unconstitutional

A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge ruled Tuesday that Stanford University's prohibition against hate speech is unconstitutional.

The code was crafted in 1990 after some students defaced a poster with racist caricatures, but it has never been invoked on campus. The code prohibits speech or actions that are discriminatory forms of harassment against individuals.

A group of students sued the university after it was adopted.

University officials had no immediate comment about a possible appeal, saying they first had to read the decision by Judge Peter Stone.

President Gerhard Casper was out of town this week.

"The speech code is contrary to everything Stanford should stand for in free discourse," said former law student Rob Corry, who argued the lawsuit for himself and eight other students in court.

Corry said Stanford students rejected the speech code by a large margin in a non-binding 1990 referendum.

"We were thrilled by the court's decision," Corry said. "This is a victory not only for Stanford students but for students all across the country."

While the speech code had never been invoked since its adoption, Corry said it had "a chilling effect" on students. "If a forbidden word crosses your lips, theoretically you can be expelled," he said."

Judge Stone ruled that Stanford's code violated the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech. In his decision, Stone ruled that Stanford's standard is too broad. He also endorsed a state law that guarantees free speech to students at private universities.

In his decision, Stone quoted from a 1949 Supreme Court case, Terminiello v. Chicago, stating that speech could not be prohibited "unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance or unrest."

The speech code was contained in a 1990 extension of Stanford's "Fundamental Standard," a conduct code. The Fundamental Standard was established in 1896 by David Starr Jordan, Stanford's first president.

The standard states: "Students are expected to show both within and without the university such respect for order, morality, personal honor, and the rights of others as is demanded of good citizens. Failure to observe this will be sufficient cause for removal from the university."

After considerable debate by the Faculty Senate, the university adopted in 1990 what became known as the Grey Interpretation of the standard, after Thomas Grey, a law professor who wrote it. It was the Grey Interpretation that was stricken down. The university's Fundamental Standard is still in place.

The Grey Interpretation upheld the right to free expression, except when it involves harassment on the basis of sex, race, color, handicap, religion, sexual orientation, or national or ethnic origin.

The Grey Interpretation had expressly forbidden the use of "fighting words."

Stanford chose not to appeal the decision.  That was then.  Things are different now.

Thursday, March 22, 2018

Finland Is The Happiest Country In The World

To borrow a phrase from John McEnroe, “You cannot be serious!”

Let’s start with the weather.  It’s cold, dark, and dreary most of the year.  I first arrived in Helsinki in late May 1981.  The buds on the trees were just starting to open.  Even the long glorious days of summer can be wet and chilly.  The Finns cannot be happy about the weather.

Did you know that half of the people in the world living north of Helsinki, 60 degrees latitude, is Finnish?  Helsinki, on the southern tip of Finland, sits about halfway up Hudson Bay and Canada.

In my subsequent visits to Finland in 2000, 2002, and 2006, I never saw a Finn give a good belly laugh, or even smile.  A people that do not laugh cannot be happy.  Do a search for adjectives and nouns characterizing Finnish personality.  I think dour just about sums it up.

Finnish consumption per capita of coffee is the highest in the world.  Finns need an injection of caffeine to get from one hour to the next.

Food!  A few Michelin-starred restaurants serving the “Nordic” cuisine have popped up in recent years, but you might need to sell the family silver to pay for dinner.  Otherwise, ghastly.  In my experience, Russian restaurants are the best places to dine.

Culture.  Sibelius.

Language.  Incomprehensible (although most Finns speak good English).

Adult beverages. Mum’s the word.

Now to the most important reason.  The West is in the midst of a great  movement to increase diversity in top positions in all walks of life.  Diversity is almost impossible to find in Finland (although there is a no-go zone of Somalis living between the airport and downtown Helsinki).

The most recent population estimate of Finland is 5,516,872 (March 2018).  The foreign born population amounts to 6.5% of all Finns.  Those born in such Muslim countries as Iraq and Somalia amount to 6.9% of the foreign born, or .44% of the population.  Those born in Asian countries make up 8.2% of the foreign born, or .53% of the general population  Together they sum to .97%, just under one percent of the Finnish population.  The overwhelming majority of foreign born, 5.5% of Finland’s population, are from the former Soviet Union, Estonia, Sweden, and other European countries.

To all intents and purposes, there is no diversity in Finland.  It’s understandable.  Who would want to migrate to Finland when Germany, Italy, Greece, and even Sweden are better choices.

In the absence of diversity, Finns cannot be happy.

Having said all that, I’ve loved my visits to Finland as they were all in summer with the one in late May.  White nights are a wonderful experience.  Downtown Helsinki is easy to explore on foot.  The surrounding archipelago is gorgeous.

PS.  Please, no harsh comments from native Finns, those married to Finns, those who have relatives and good friends in Finland, or moved to Finland.  The reason is that you have no sense of what it is to be happy. 

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Warning To Business Men and Women Seeking The Democrat Nomination for 2020: DON’T

If you try to pull a Democrat Party Trump, a political outsider running for president, you will be crushed!  The Democrat Academic Political Media Industrial Complex will destroy you.  Your purpose is to give money.  It’s just that simple.

Several dozen news sites have identified men and women from outside the political world who might be thinking about a run.

Mark Cuban:  charged with sexual misconduct
Mark Zuckerberg.  allowed Facebook data to be misused for political purposes
Sheryl Sandberg.  ditto
Howard Schultz. hateful symbols have appeared on Starbuck coffee cups
Tom Steyer
George Clooney
Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson
Oprah Winfrey
Kanye West
Bill Gates

It doesn’t matter if the charges are true or not.  The allegations will terminate a possibly candidacy.

If any of the bottom six rear his/her head seriously considering a run, that individual will be savaged within 24 hours.  A dozen or more Democrat politicians are in the queue for 2020.  They will not allow an outsider to take away their prize.

A word to the wise.  Open your wallet, but stay out of politics.

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Red Guards 2.0 With American Characteristics For The Current Era

A large number of (self-defined) oppressed groups are actively fighting the White heteronormative male patriarchy for influence and power.  At present their influence is dissipated in fragmentation, with each group seeking its own redress.

What’s needed for greater success is to unify this myriad of intersectional communities into a brigade under a unified chain of command.

The solution is a little Red Book 2.0, modeled after Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-Tung, first published in 1964. Each community should compile its slogans into a chapter (Mao’s quotations were categorized into 33 chapters).  The chapters should then be collated into a little Red Book 2.0 With American Characteristics.  (A photo of President Barack Obama could be placed on the inside front cover for inspiration.)  Then activists could wave their little Red Book 2.0 when shouting slogans at the privileged.

Here, in alphabetical order, is a partial list of chapters that might be included in little Red Book 2.0.

Abortion rights
Global Warming
Global Warriors
Marxist left
Safe spaces
Trigger Warning
Unconscious bias

I was in Hong Kong in September 1966 at the onset of the local Red Guard movement, which was unleashed as part of Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution.  We (my spouse and I) were visiting relatives in Hong Kong, who had made plans to leave for Australia in October 1966.  They lived in Cosmopolitan Dock, which was surrounded by a Chinese-populated neighborhood.  Each time we rode into and out of the Dock, gangs of youths waved little Red Books at us chanting pro-Mao slogans.

Riots broke out in Hong Kong in summer 1967.  After months of disruption, Hong Kong’s police crushed the movement as mainland Red Guards and Mao watched quietly from across the border.  (It took another decade for the Chinese army to extinguish the mainland Red Guard movement.)  China’s earnings of foreign exchange in Hong Kong were too important to the mainland to allow chaos and violence to shut down Hong Kong’s economy.  Conservatives who have been shouted down at American universities and escorted off campus with police protection will understand this experience.

American universities are still in the early stage of Red Guards 2.0 for two reasons.  First, unlike the Black Power movement of the 1960s, this time is different.  The movement extends way beyond Black Power due to Harvey Weinstein and others like him.  #MeToo has exposed the hypocrisy of Hollywood, the media, and politicians.

Second, the professoriate of American universities is overwhelmingly White males.  At Stanford, for example, Women and Minorities make up only 28% and 29% respectively of the faculty.  In general, female and minority academics are more liberal than White males, especially older White males set to retire over the next 10-15 years.  As their increasingly female and minority replacements settle in, universities will lean even more to the left on social, economic, and political issues.  From the universities this narrative will spread through K-12 education, the media, Hollywood, business, and government at all levels.

The Black Power movement of the 1960s ­­faded away after a decade, almost exactly as long as it took for the Red Guard movement to dissipate in China.  Perhaps the multi-dimensional character of the Red Guards 2.0 movement in America will last much longer, for a generation or more, until it transforms the American cultural landscape.

This is an exceptionally interesting time to be a historian.

Monday, March 19, 2018

Words Vs. Deeds: Comparing Trump With Bush/Obama

How shall I criticize thee?  Let me count the ways.  Here is a list, in alphabetical order, of some of the harsh words that liberal Democrat and conservative Republican (anti-Trump) members of the Academic Political Media Industrial Complex (the establishment) use to describe President Donald Trump:

unacceptable presidential behavior
worst president

What about the words used to describe presidents George W. Bush and President Barack Obama.  Bush came in for his share of liberal criticism, but nothing remotely close to that of Trump.  Obama was uniformly praised.  To liberals, Obama walks on water.  To conservatives, save a very few, barely a peep of criticism could be read or heard.  Silence was acquiescense.

Perhaps some comparisons can put these markedly different treatments in perspective.

First, foreign policy.  Bush and Obama launched three wars:  Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.  During their 16 years in office, U.S. military fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan numbered 8,360.  Tens of thousands more were wounded, some requiring life care.  Several million civilians were displaced.  Trillions of dollars were spent.  Iran has gained influence in Iraq.  The Taliban still control large areas in Afghanistan.  Not a pretty picture.

Trump inherited this mess.  From his inauguration to March 15, 2018, U.S. war zone fatalities total 47.  Secretary of Defense James Mattis, fired by Obama, has stabilized the situation in both countries.

Second, economic policy.  Bush presided over the worst financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression.  Obama presided over the slowest post-recession recovery in decades.  Both presided over stagnant wages.  Between them, the national debt increased 300% (quadrupled), from $5 trillion to $20 trillion.

President Trump is presiding over the strongest job growth in decades.  He has managed, after decades, to cut the corporate tax rate to internationally competitive levels.  He has rolled back incentive-destroying regulations.

Third, social policy.  Obama set race relations back fifty years.  Trump has reached out to Blacks and Hispanics, who now enjoy the lowest unemployment rates since records have been kept.

I come from an older generation, guided by such phrases as “sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me."

Now words are more damaging than deeds.  It’s alright to launch wars and shatter an economy, but  not to tweet!  I prefer tweets to wars and a financial crisis.

Is there anything that Trump can do to receive praise, however faint?  The only thing I can think of is for Trump to follow Nixon into history by resigning the presidency.  However, any such praise he receives at the moment will be short-lived and quickly give way to never-ending historical damnation. 

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Herbert Hoover, A Good President Who Twice Lapsed From Grace

Three new biographies have created renewed interest in Herbert Hoover, who served as president from March 4, 1929, to March 4, 1933.  This affords an opportunity to weigh in on two policy failures that haunt his memory.

One is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which receives blame for exacerbating the Great Depression.  Tariff reduction began in earnest after World War II.

The second, which has received much less critical attention, is the Revenue Act of 1932.

In 1924, six years after the end of World War I, the top marginal rate of tax was 46.0%, which applied to taxable income over $500,000.  The rate was 43.0% for income between $100,000-$200,000.

Beginning with calendar year 1925, Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon (1921-1932) succeeded in sharply reducing the top marginal rate to 25.0% for annual income exceeding $100,000.  Tax rates were reduced across-the-board for all levels of income.

Mellon’s rates remained intact until President Hoover signed the Revenue Act of 1932, which imposed a rate of 56.0% on income exceeding $100,000, topping off at 63.0% on income above $1,000,000.

Fifty years later, two Hoover fellows, Robert E. Hall and Alvin Rabushka, removed Hoover’s lapse from his namesake research institution.  Their 19% flat tax made the Hoover Institution the home of the most important new idea in tax policy in decades.  Building on the idea of a simple flat tax suggested by Milton Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom, Hall and Rabushka constructed a detailed, workable 19% flat tax as a replacement for the then steeply graduated income tax with its top rate of 70%.  A flat tax has been adopted in over 40 countries since the initial publication of their proposal in the Wall Street Journal of December 10, 1981.

The most recent edition of their book, The Flat Tax, can be downloaded free online.