10 comments

[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 27.3 ms ] thread
I think political interference is a horrible thing for university education.

But that particular part - "laws requiring professors to publicly post their course outlines in searchable databases" - is great, and should be done everywhere. There are actually universities who _claim_ to have great math (or physics or other science) program, but actually just teach it at "advanced high school" level. So public syllabi - something that was very common in 2000's but going out of style today - are critical for anyone choosing the university to go to.

I am just so glad my time at university was in the late 1960s. Not only was it an exciting time to be alive but the thought of universities and professors under this kind of surveillance and being frightened to speak out couldn't have been further from our thoughts.

Universities have always had their critics and back then was no exception. Complaints centered widely from about the ratbag student element causing troubles, to critism of subsidiaries/what universities cost the state, and about the spoilt and privileged class, and that universities were a hotbed of political activism—which at the time they were—but nothing approached this level of intense scrutiny.

We students and those teaching us could say what we wanted without retribution. I remember being cheered by the student body after giving an anti-Vietnam War speech in the student union building and I suffered no repercussions, and that's how it was for everyone, staff and students alike.

It was a wonderful time to be a university student, and 1968 was very special.

Surveillance of publicly funded activity is due diligence.
If we squint our eyes we can vaguely consider that at this point, university is on the path of becoming a mere extension of the regular k-12 education system.

In that case, we can simplify things by applying the same educational standards across the entirety of the k-16 system.

No double standards allowed!

Joking aside, it would be worth restoring tenure and explicitly strengthening it as a safeguard against outrage-driven firings.

Expanding the definition of misconduct to equate controversial speech with a “hostile environment” is unconscionable.