August 23, 2006
Founders College?
What should we think when we hear news that an Objectivist intellectual, long associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, is trying to start up a private, for-profit liberal arts college?
At first it sounds pretty good, no? We all like to see Objectivism--or at least Objectivists--advancing in the culture. We deplore the liberal orthodoxy of higher education, and would like to see colleges teach core ideas of Western civilization, instead. We assume that an Objectivist philosophy teacher shares our convictions. And surely we've all had our dreams about how great it would be to attend Patrick Henry University with a real live Hugh Akston.
This, I would imagine, is the likely first impression of a typical Objectivist on hearing news that Gary Hull is trying to start up something called Founders College, which is being bankrolled by some mystery person willing to front $12 million to purchase a campus in Virginia.
So what exactly is Founders College supposed to be, and what should we think about it? First of all, what exactly is the relation of this college to Objectivism? There's been a long series of confusing reports on this question. Original reports quoted the articles of incorporation of an associated group, the "College of Rational Education," as planning to provide "a reality-based, rationally grounded education, by applying Objectivism, the philosophy of Rand, to all of the Corporation's activities and undertakings." But later reports quote Hull as insisting that the Ayn Rand angle is one that "fell by the wayside," and that the college would have "no particular ideology."
Of course there's no reason to think that a good college must be based on Objectivism, or even that an "Objectivist college" would necessarily be better than an ordinary one. But it is odd that Founders couldn't get its story straight at first, particularly since one would hope that a project serious enough to warrant spending $12 million would have a clearly defined mission. In any case, what they're pushing now is a general liberal arts curriculum, which is a fine way to organize a college. But then the question is, what reason do Objectivists have to think this college will be so spectacular? Founders claims that it is "igniting a revolution in higher education," that it plans on sparking a "life-long passion for knowledge." How do they plan on igniting this revolution, and are their plans credible?
The Founders web site lists a great many things which they will not do. They will not be like the colleges that offer an "indiscriminate smorgasbord of random liberal arts courses." They will not offer courses that are "packed with propaganda." They will not offer tenure for their professors. Of course stating what the school won't do doesn't say much about its positive marks of distinction. What are these, and should we believe them?
Founders claims that it will offer courses focusing on "the great ideas and significant events that shape both an individual’s life and entire civilizations," and courses teaching "thinking and communication skills to excel in any profession." Of course there are already a number of "Great books" schools, like St. John's and Thomas Aquinas College which offer this. There are also many other schools where one can take courses covering the same material, even if it is not part of a mandatory curriculum, and is of varying degrees of quality. So what reason do we have to think Founders can compete with existing "Great books" programs in quality?
Probably the biggest distinction Founders claims for itself is a "state-of-the-art program to train our professors to be superlative teachers." One report even claims they will feature a "rigorous 60-hour teacher training program"). This raises a number of questions.
First, if Founders needs to give a 60-hour training program to its teachers, does this imply it doesn't already have a large stock of experienced professors ready in the wings? Indeed we know of no experienced professors, Objectivist or otherwise, who have signed on to this program, besides Hull himself. If there are experienced professors already on board, why have none voiced support for the college? If there are no experienced professors on board, is it realistic to think they will become "superlative teachers" just by taking a teacher training session? Who will teach it if there are no experienced professors already on board? "State-of-the-art" suggests that this program has already been tested and proven. Now Gary Hull has been teaching for several years at Duke, but what reason do we have to think he has enough experience to give 60 hours of state-of-the-art material and create a whole new staff of superlative teachers? And why think that experienced teachers would want to work for a program subjecting them to training like this, when Hull has no special reputation as a teacher of teachers?
Given that a new college can't create superlative teachers ex nihilo, what reason is there to expect that Founders can attract already experienced teachers? Founders is taking pride in the fact that it will have no tenure system--even though the possibility of tenure is usually an incentive attracting the best quality job candidates. Academics go through many years of schooling and poverty before finding a job, and need the prospect of job security to motivate them to complete this ordeal. Surely, the current tenure system has many flaws, especially its focus on research at the expense of teaching. But why not simply reconfigure the standards for tenure to reflect teaching qualifications? The prospect of tenure is no different from other fringe benefits, such as insurance or stock options. Law firms and other professional firms regularly offer tenure or senior partnerships. Doing so not only motivates the staff, but gives them a professional stake in the success or failure of the institution. It also helps to establish the stability and credibility of the institution, insofar as it demonstrates that experts in their fields are making hiring and curriculum decisions. Tenure is a good thing: it's just not handled well in the current system.
If quality professors will not be attracted by the prospect of tenure at Founders, what will attract them? This is a very serious question, because there will already be strong disincentives for working at a school like this. Besides the rather negative press it has so far generated, there is the fact that the only known faculty member (Hull) has no reputation outside of Objectivism, and no record of success in college administration. There is the fact that the success of a new institution like this is highly uncertain, so even those motivated to join up without the prospect of tenure will be risking a lot by lining up with a controversial project that may not even last. And there is the fact that teachers will have to take a 60-hour training program, which would certainly be an off-putting requirement to any teachers who already have significant teaching experience. Perhaps new professors will be paid very well for the time they are there, but many academics are motivated only by long-term financial considerations (if they were interested in making only fast money, they wouldn't go into teaching). All told, there is currently little reason to think this institution will be able to attract teachers capable of "igniting a revolution," regardless of how "state-of-the-art" they claim their training program to be.
Besides Founders' claim about creating superlative teachers, it also claims to offer a distinctive curriculum, the coursework of which "sequentially builds a superior foundation that is greater than the sum of its parts." But we have few details about how this curriculum will build this superior foundation, or what it consists of beyond a list of subjects ("economics, philosophy, history, literature and the arts, and an education certificate") which are standard liberal arts fare. Of course there may be good reasons not yet to release the details of the curriculum (it is alleged to be "copyrighted"). But what reason do we have to think Founders principals have the qualifications to create such an outstanding curriculum? When this stopped being an "Objectivist college," and started being a general liberal arts program, Gary Hull lost the only possibly relevant qualification he might have had: being an Objectivist philosophy Ph.D. Surely, a philosopher is in something of a special position to evaluate and integrate knowledge from various disciplines. But the philosopher's perspective isn't enough: where is the evidence that Hull has experience to make decisions about the various subjects, or even the knowledge/connections to pick the right people who could make these decisions?
When Lisa Van Damme began her academy, she did it after having proved her ability to develop a curriculum (in a homeschool setting). Likewise the LePort Schools began as successful Montessori schools before branching into elementary and middle-school education. Where is the proof that Founders College principals have established the same kind of track record?
Of course, one might wonder, if everyone needs to have established a track record before they're given a chance, nothing innovative will ever be created. Could Gary Hull be the Howard Roark of higher education? Well, Roark didn't start out by talking about the revolution he would ignite. Mainly, he showed us his drawings. He offered substance, not hype--evidence of his competence, not marketing rhetoric. It would be one thing if Founders were renting out a few rooms in an office suite somewhere, and offering us a quality education for a bargain price (which, I think, could actually be done). But it is quite another thing to purchase a $12 million campus, with private rooms and gourmet meals, and charge students $28,000 in tuition. Pardon me, but there is a big difference between bold innovation and delusions of grandeur. Why is Founders expecting so much from so many without demonstrating any details of its actual merits? (And why--all things considered--does the mystery investor actually think he can make a profit supporting this venture??)
So what should we think when we hear that some Objectivist is starting up a private, for-profit liberal arts college? The fact that he's an Objectivist by itself should offer us very little solace. We should evaluate the proposal like we'd evaluate any other school or business proposal, by looking for evidence of its merits. So far, there is no credible evidence that Founders College has the potential to ignite any kind of revolution. Why have so many Objectivists been so uncritical about this?
UPDATE (9/5/06): Readers directed from the Speicher Forum may read my reply to my critics here.
Posted by admin at 07:49 PM | Comments (11)
August 18, 2006
Who's Amending the Constitution?
As the standard internet cliché-proviso goes, I am not a lawyer. Nor have I read the recent decision of Federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor striking down the Bush administration's policy of warrantless overseas wiretapping. But I suspect the same is true of Cox and Forkum, who seem to disagree with this decision. (Via Gus Van Horn.)
What exactly is this objection here? The implication of the Cox and Forkum cartoon is that the U.S. Constitution doesn't protect the rights of foreign citizens, and since these wiretaps are placed only on overseas calls, constitutional privacy protections should not cover them.
Wait a second, though. Last time I checked, it took two parties to make a phone call. Obviously there's a domestic party involved here, too, and unless the NSA has a way of screening domestic callers for their citizenship status, it is highly possible that there are U.S. citizens involved in this equation.
What's more, is it really the case that only U.S. citizens should be afforded the protection of constitutional rights? We certainly don't deem it permissible to restrict the freedom of speech of foreign tourists who visit our shores. What is the difference with this case?
Of course, a very good argument can be made that there is an important difference between the right to liberty and the right to be free from search and seizure. The former is a fundamental individual right, whereas the latter is a derivative, procedural right (sometimes called a "civil right"). Limiting or restricting derivative rights can be justified if it is for the sake of protecting fundamental ones. If terrorists are trying to kill us, and we need to perform eavesdropping or baggage searches in order to catch them, then it's justified to do this, by reference to our right to life.
But here's the catch: in order to be justified, violations of derivative procedural rights need to be, well, done in accordance with a justifiable procedure. The big important meta-procedure in our country is something called the Constitution. The President, for example, has the potential to violate procedural rights using his executive powers. So the Constitution defines the limits of these powers, including his powers to violate procedural rights.
This applies to the question of warrantless wiretapping. The putative justification for this policy is that we are at war with a foreign enemy, so intelligence needed to combat that enemy must be obtained. And true enough, the President is the Commander in Chief of the military, so it is his task to execute tactics needed to achieve military ends. But, it is Congress that has the power to declare war, and define the limits of President's war powers. So the President may invoke his war powers to limit procedural rights only if given the proper authority by Congress.
As every Objectivist ought to know, one of the basic flaws of the current "War on Terror" is that there has been no official declaration of war against an enemy nation-state. There was an ambiguous resolution after 9/11 authorizing the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." But this statement lacks one important element: the identification of those nations, and thereby the statement of any objective criteria for victory in the war.
As long as the President continues to fight this war without a war declaration, his powers are dangerously undefined and unlimited. I believe that warrantless wiretaps would be completely justifiable in the context of a declared war, or in some other finite, declared emergency in which habeas corpus has been suspended. But that is not the case now.
For this reason, I find it heartening that the President's runaway powers are being challenged by the judicial branch. I see no argument for the constitutionality of warrantless wiretapping, particularly given the fact that it is in direct violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which gives the President specific powers to engage in foreign surveillance, but only with the permission of special emergency judges.
I hope that the judiciary strikes down even more of the President's "temporary" emergency powers. Permitting him to use them not only threatens our liberties, but reinforces the standard leftist view that this war needs to be won through police powers, rather than the military. As domestic support for expanded police powers dries up, perhaps the administration will come to see that their only recourse will be to take the fight to our real enemies abroad (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia).
By the way, this position has already been summarized by a very nice article by Felipe Sediles in the campus Objectivist paper, The Undercurrent. Worth following, The Undercurrent.
UPDATE (8/18/06): Thinking about it more, I realize that the Cox & Forkum cartoon doesn't imply anything about foreign citizens, just about foreign terrorists. They're not suggesting anything about rights afforded to non-terrorist citizens, and obviously they're correct to imply terrorists have no rights. But my overall point stands. It is appropriate to challenge unjustified powers of the Bush administration, not on the grounds of the rights of terrorists (who is doing that?) but on the grounds of our own rights.
UPDATE (8/19/06): Trey Givens seems to agree with me. Good for him.
Posted by admin at 09:30 AM | Comments (2)
Return of NS?
This site has been down for too long, owing to my decision to remove my archives--and a silly mistake that caused me to lose even the design template. I've fixed the template, so the site is back to its original elegance (more or less). Now it's time to begin to add content.
Posted by admin at 12:28 AM | Comments (2)