President Trump has pledged to fire the radical Left accreditors that have allowed our colleges to become dominated by Marxist Maniacs and lunatics.
He will impose real standards on American colleges and universities, to include defending the American tradition and Western civilization, protecting free speech, eliminating wasteful administrative positions that drive up costs, removing all DEI bureaucrats, offering options for accelerated and low-cost degrees, providing meaningful job placement and career services, and implementing college entrance and exit exams to prove that students are getting their money’s worth.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/videos/agenda47-protecting-students-from-the-radical-left-and-marxist-maniacs
Most of my higher ed experience was limited to the time I spent at the University of North Dakota. I understand what working as an academic in a Republican state means. However, aside from the rate at which the State supported the University budget, I don’t remember politicians meddling in the curriculum. I left before the Trump years so I don’t know if this has changed in North Dakota, but it clearly has in many locations.
A few basic facts. Higher ed, even state institutions, are in a different situation than K12 public schools. We are only partially funded by your state taxes. The government proportion of the budget is about a third or so. Added to this reality, the state politicians can also limit tuition levels. You can get this sensation of feeling squeezed from multiple directions. In North Dakota, about 35% of the student body comes from the home state. It is important to be able to be competitive in order to attract other students and their tuition dollars. North Dakota institutions would do little to expose locals to the diversity of people and ideas that exist without these students.
A good proportion of the research conducted at universities requires external funds and faculty members are under constant pressure to secure grants to generate the research that plays a significant role in their tenure and salary increases. While a good proportion of the faculty may not be successful in obtaining such funds, the pressure to engage in scholarship is part of the pressure to keep academics current in their fields and to provide support for students’ hands-on experiences in their fields of study.
I get the feeling, mostly based on comments from some of my relatives, that citizens are fairly naive regarding both finances and the curriculum. Citizens seem more acutely aware of the performance of the sports teams and seem to conflate the salaries of the coaches of winning athletic programs and the dean of the medical school with the salaries that the rest of us made. Many equate becoming educated regarding issues of equity or some scientific principles with indoctrination and they ignore the fact-oriented, competitive debate that goes on in scholarly communities.
The word indoctrination has an interesting spin when used by many politicians. Rather than expecting citizens to be exposed to the many ideas that compete and deserve debate, they seem to have a specific dogma in mind that may not stand up to careful and fact-based analysis.
Higher ed is not above criticism. There are plenty of internal mechanisms that assure some degree of scrutiny, but we also welcome external analysis as long as it comes with an understanding of how institutions are actually funded and what processes ensure that students encounter all kinds of ideas to promote the development of critical thinking and challenge naive beliefs.