City University of New York Deserves Academic Leadership, Not Political Patronage, from Its Board of Trustees.
Written by Joan C. Tronto to
The New York Times, October 25, 2005.

To the Editor:
Many Democrats in New York City are remaining neutral in this mayoral race or are supporting Mike Bloomberg, claiming that this mayor isn’t a “real” Republican. But in his appointments to the City University of New York (CUNY) Board of Trustees the mayor has veered from his carefully sculpted image of nonpartisanship. All mayoral candidates should address one issue that is not a part of this campaign: how will they support CUNY?

Universities are unique institutions in society. For centuries, scholars have been charged with the responsibility for preserving, transmitting and evaluating the highest learning in our culture. They are also invaluable resources for the development of new knowledge, for constantly challenging and burnishing the received truths, and for educating their students to be informed and thoughtful citizens. This complex role, preserving and transmitting knowledge on the one hand, and questioning and creating new knowledge on the other hand, means that within the university academics need to have autonomy to pursue the truth. Whatever prejudices rule the moment, the long term benefit of society requires some independence. Most universities, public as well as private, have Boards of Trustees composed of distinguished alumni, leaders of cultural, scientific, and educational institutions, and others who understand the importance and precious position of institutions of higher education in society. Finding people to serve who meet such criteria should not be difficult in New York City. Our city is, after all, arguably the cultural, scientific, business and educational capital of the world. So why isn’t the CUNY Board of Trustees composed of such distinguished leaders and supporters of public higher education? Why has it become a dumping ground for political ideologues and cronies, people whose support for public higher education is ambiguous at best, hostile at worst?

Ten of the seventeen members of CUNY’s Board of Trustees are appointed by Governor Pataki, Mayor Bloomberg appoints five and there is one student and one faculty representative. The Governor’s appointments have been at least in part aligned with the most conservative Republicans in New York. Two examples illustrate this point. Angered about the influence of greater cultural diversity in universities, political organizations have sprung up to challenge these new directions in the last ten years. One such body is the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, founded by Lynne Cheney, Reagan’s Director of the National Endowment for the Humanities and a long-time critic of new directions in American higher education. This group has been particularly successful in New York. The SUNY Board of Trustees has been occupied by this organization. Many of the CUNY Board of Trustees (especially among the appointees named by Governor Pataki) now echo this group’s educational and political outlook; one, in fact, (CUNY Trustee Kathleen Pesile) serves as the Chair for ACTA’s Institute for Effective Governance.

Another attack on public education has been spearheaded by those who have a vested interest in undermining support for public education in favor of private education. The Chairman of the CUNY Board of Trustees, Benno Schmidt, is the CEO of Edison Schools, a private, for-profit corporation that earns its income by persuading local school boards to replace “ineffective” public schools with Edison schools. Schmidt oversees a university that is the single largest source of public school teachers in New York City; yet he stands to profit materially if the underfunded schools in which they teach fail. While it is true that during the last few years, teacher training test scores in the university have improved, this fact only tells part of the story. At Hunter College, we have had to lower our graduate education admissions standards and foreshorten master’s programs to conform to the norms in CUNY. Schmidt clearly suffers from a conflict of interest here, but Governor Pataki reappointed him and promoted him to serve as the Board’s Chair.

Mayor Bloomberg’s appointments have not been so overtly ideological, but his trustees’ only qualifications are political. Mayor Giuliani began the practice of appointing his deputy mayors as trustees of CUNY. Not only has Mayor Bloomberg continued this habit and appointed two of his deputies to the Board of Trustees, but he has also reappointed two Giuliani former deputies. One wonders what justification exists for keeping as trustees two former deputy mayors whose only qualifications are their expired political appointments. The fifth, who has been described as “a top state Republican party member” from Staten Island, rounds out Bloomberg’s five appointees. These are not people who have demonstrated any great concern for public higher education.

A serious effect of such political appointees is that they are susceptible to political manipulation both in the curriculum they promote—which should not be the job of trustees—and in the decisions they make about managing the university. Twentieth century history painfully demonstrated that the record of politicians running universities is not a noble one. It is difficult to claim that students should be committed to “academic integrity” when the leaders of their institution bend to political pressure and appoint political friends to high-ranking positions. But the more serious cost is the lost opportunity to uphold and further CUNY’s historic greatness.

If the Mayor wishes to avoid being painted with a partisan brush, he should rethink this issue. Appointments to the CUNY Board of Trustees will have a significant impact on the people of this city. This is no place to hand out political favors. As we approach this election, candidates need to reveal their intentions regarding the stewardship of the largest urban university in the country.

—Sincerely,
—Joan C. Tronto
—Professor of Political Science
—Hunter College and the CUNY Graduate —Center

EDITOR’S NOTE:
This letter was written when Michael Bloomberg was running for reelection as Mayor of New York City.

“In loco presidentis.”
Written by Roger W. Bowen to
The Washington Post, September, 2004.

Within the span of a few weeks, five university presidents have engaged in overt censorship. At Arizona State University the president had the museum director remove several political cartoons lampooning President Bush from an art exhibit. At Stanford University the president vetoed an outdoor sculpture for being inappropriate. At California State University at San Marcos and at George Mason University both presidents ordered that contracts for filmmaker Michael Moore to speak on campus be rescinded. And Florida Gulf Coast University’s president disallowed an author from speaking on campus because her views are critical of President Bush’s environmental policies.

Why are university presidents, who are honor-bound to protect academic freedom and, in the case of public universities, the First Amendment, playing the role of Chief Censorship Officer? Their professional training and credentials give them no license to judge art or film artists or writers, yet suddenly and without credible explanation, they are making aesthetic or political judgments that impact entire campus populations.

Yes, this is a presidential election year, and in the cases of George Mason, San Marcos, and Florida Gulf Coast it appears that these campus presidents did not want to their schools to be perceived as “partisan,” but for most educators an election year is a time to encourage more speech, not less. In the first two cases the university presidents cited the need for “balance,” but what does that mean? Real balance in the case of Michael Moore might be Rush Limbaugh, John O’Reilly or Leni Riefenstahl, but what if they (is Riefenstahl still alive?) refused to go on stage with Moore? What if their speaker’s fees were not affordable? What if they only agreed to appear, say, in December, after the election?

“Balance” was also invoked by the Arizona State president. Keep six of the nine political cartoons lampooning George Bush to “balance” the six they have already of John Kerry. But what if the quality of the six Bush cartoons is not as good, nor as funny? Can a seventh be added to balance the six better lampoons of Kerry? And should the art museum director make such decisions, or does this rise to the level of presidential intervention? Is the president more capable than his faculty experts to determine what is funny?

Balance was not the issue at Stanford. The president simply did not like the sculpture entitled “Device to Root Out Evil,” an upside-down church anchored to the ground by its steeple. Is the sculpture sacrilegious and therefore “inappropriate,” as the Stanford president allegedly said, or if it been called instead “Church After Hurricane” would it have passed his aesthetic muster?

Such are the kind of weighty decisions forced upon today’s university presidents. No longer simple intellectual leaders, they now act as guardians of morality, censors of political bias, and protectors of “balance.” Could these presidents be taking their lead from several of our nation’s political leaders, who act as if they alone have the insight and wisdom to decide who and what is evil and who and what is good. No more than these elected leaders trust the intelligence of the American electorate to arrive at reasoned judgments about right and wrong, it seems, do university presidents trust the judgments of the students, faculty and administrators who invite controversial artists to campus, or who select art work for public display.

In loco parentis may be gone at today’s universities, but “in loco presidentis” is booming and the academy is the poorer for it.

—Roger W. Bowen
—General Secretary
—American Association of University —Professors
—Washington, DC