I’m writing a novel series about a college for monsters from the perspective of the faculty and this gives me a reason to reflect on what college is about and what creates stress for faculty.
If you look up what colleges do, you’ll read that they are intended to give broad training in arts, humanities, and sciences with an emphasis on intellectual development. Intellectual development strengthens critical thinking skills and personal growth, or at least we can hope.
Faculty guide students in these pursuits. Despite what outsiders will tell you, respecting student differences of opinion is important to colleges and their faculty in creating an environment where learning can take place. However, students need to learn the material.
Faculty serve as mentors or masters to their apprentices, the students. Faculty mentors, drawing upon their expertise and experience, provide students with invaluable insights into their chosen fields of study. They offer personalized guidance, tailored to each student’s unique strengths, challenges, and learning styles. Through everything from imparting up to date information, career counseling, and “navigating the complexities of academic writing”, faculty work to help students grow and adapt to the modern world.
Faculty often make less than their industry counterparts but are motivated by factors such as commitment to learning and the ability to work with autonomy Most are passionate about their fields, want to contribute to new knowledge, want to help others learn, and thrive on intellectual challenge. I moved to academia from industry because I had research ideas not supported by my industry. In academia, I was allowed to follow my curiosity, engage both sides of my brain, build relationships, and work towards something important to my family—equality.
Stressors on faculty include increased workload, lack of funding, variability in student ability and background knowledge, and constantly needing to learn new technology, including learning platforms. Stressors come from the outside, too. It seems like a lot of people want to remake college to suit their own image and to punish all those unruly faculty members out there.
You’ve probably heard about outside groups which put professors on watch lists. You can scroll through these watch lists and find out that transgressions might include calling out racism, signing a petition, and recognition of pronouns. There might be one incident, reported on a social media platform, and that will be enough to put the offending professor on a list of the damned.
However, outside groups maybe more covert (as reported by students) and direct their members on how to fill out faculty evaluations. There are also rate my prof sites which are not monitored for accuracy and might even feature evaluations for courses the professor doesn’t teach.
Teachers put up with a lot of BS and not much comes from students.
When you consider that the brain remains in adolescence until the age of 30, it can be reasonable to view these outside groups as predatory. They encourage students to not trust or communicate with their professors and to put faith in their group instead. Some even call themselves ministries. There is one thing they lack: scholarship.
For those who care about scholarship, intellect, and quality of thought, the Iowa Legislature has handed us what could be a state expense lacking scholarship: The Center for Intellectual Freedom at the University of Iowa.
The University of Iowa is my alma mater and like many, I’m not enthused by this center. It seems somewhat haphazard, not particularly scholarly, and possibly too debate focused. Mostly what leads me to these opinions, besides its description and current course offerings, is what those who are involved have to say. Another red flag is that it was dictated by the Legislature, not scholars. It isn’t even an original idea.
At a recent inaugural event paid for by the public, lots of chests were beaten and accusations made. The whole idea of teaching civics isn’t bad, it’s done in intermediate school, high school and even college. The unscholarly part is accusations that the liberals are somehow terrible and need to be replaced. This makes the whole “freedom” idea confusing. At the recent celebratory event, a campus shooting was given as an example of conservative speech being censored but a professor didn’t shoot the man.
Another antecdote hinting at a huge bias problem in higher ed was “the example of former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, who stepped down from his Harvard University presidency after suggesting women were less represented in STEM fields because of “intrinsic aptitude.” Summers, who was teaching at Harvard …has stepped away from the university again due to his ties with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.” (quote is from here.) Personally, sticking up for that particular man doesn’t cast a good light on intellectual freedom.
At the inaugural event (paid for by taxpayers) a speaker from the American Enterprise Institute, a group that advocates for trickle-down economics and limited regulations, was quoted thus,: Katz separated those responsible for higher education’s issues into two categories — “sheep” and “crazies.” The sheep are “almost everybody,” he said, with the crazies at the fringes of both ends of the political and ideological spectrums. Nearly all university faculty fall into the sheep category, and if they follow a bad idea things can, and have, gone very wrong. Crazies used to be a small minority of academic units, Katz said, but now there are more of them and they are “malevolent.”“Don’t hire crazies, don’t be a sheep, and let’s hope that the Center for Intellectual Freedom at the University of Iowa can fix whatever problems there are,” Katz said.
What grade would you get if you gave a speech like that in high school or college?
To quote a student at the event, the speakers didn’t “provide any sort of solid, consistent argument to support the creation of the center.” And “Other(s)… have expressed disappointment in the center’s structure, as its director will have near-total control of hiring professors, inviting guest speakers and other actions…I think that it’s very clear that folks here are not actually interested in freedom of expression,”
Those who have forced this on our state allege college professors are too liberal and not fostering debate. I have news— scholarship depends on new ideas and new creations. Complaining that conservatives don’t have a voice on campus is implying that they can’t engage in scholarship. As for debate as a desirable means of learning, it is not always a useful learning tool and can lead to oversimplification and an oversized emphasis on winning. Debates can cater to the best BSers and create polarization. Dialogue is a better learning experience for most people.
As a parent or student paying tuition for scholarship, intellectual development, and training, I’d be damn mad about these speakers and their baseless claims. I’d be mad about outside organizations preying on students and watch-listing professors.
On the other hand, should you want to do your own research, you can sign up for one of the courses offered at the new Institute. It’s pass/fail and according to the course description, papers will not be graded. Even better, you get a whole class credit and only have to attend 5 of 7 lectures! Another quote associated with the inaugural panel is “Admissions must also be controlled to ensure students “are on board with the mission” of the center.” Looks like this course could be an easy pass for all those who need one.
Catherine Haustein 