BYU is at a ‘crossroads’ — Will flagship LDS school be a Notre Dame or a Liberty University?

[let’s roll]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

It does seem like a dilemma for the church. Many years ago I heard a GA speak to this issue. It has been so long I do not recall who or even when. But the person said that the brethren seem to take into account how certain policy issues and other changes in direction impact members. They worry that on the one hand something may drive out the more liberal leaning progressive types as well as on the other, how another might drive out the more conservative hard line members. I imagine it is a tough balancing act.

Leaders who love their brothers and sisters in the Church recognize that Church activity can sometimes be a hindrance to spiritual progression.  That activity leaving some with the perception of safety and that perception suffices for that member who, as a result, makes no meaningful effort to come to know, and commune with, Deity.  Those leaders have observed that sometimes members who cease activity feel a void and emptiness that turns them to Deity in a more focused and urgent way than might have occurred if they had continued in their unfocused activity in the Church.

With that as context, my expectation is that Church leaders act on Divine guidance and inspiration, understanding that that guidance may result in some members choosing to cease Church activity, while at the same time understanding that both we and He will continue to love them and continue to invite them to seek Divine wisdom.
 

 

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

DEI is not the problem. The real problem in most public universities is that states have been slashing funding. Then they got rid of the faculty running the universities and put in a “professional” administrator and staff for them which eat up a LOT of money. 20-30 years ago stundents paid about 30% of the costs and the state covered about 70%. Now students pay about 80% and the state pays about 20%.

The state governments are trashing institutions that provide a lot of public goods to save a few bucks. Add in that the professional administrators have largely cut tenure as a possibility and even regular professors. A lot more of the teaching is now being done by adjunct temporary professors hired on a per semester basis for a lot less money. This leads to a decline in teaching effectiveness as professors have no security and can rarely get comfortable in their roles and regularly have to be re-hired or switch schools. They also have a much harder time doing real academic research since the temporaries don’t have much support for it.

With the fall in the pay and number of ongoing jobs at schools the permanent positions are mostly filled with old-timers now who couldn’t get their current jobs if they had to apply for them. The administrators raise tuition as much as they can and tend to spend the gains on themselves and their staff (these jobs often get turned into political gifts from politicians to donors) little of the tuition money gets to the actual teachers. A lot also goes into pet projects to attract students like climbing gyms or other ‘luxury’ perks to impress students.

It is not a red vs. blue state thing. Most every state is trashing their own university system. We get less research, worse teaching, higher tuition and people crippled by student debt, and a lot more. All so the state can save a few bucks and give donor sons and daughters some cushy well-paid admin positions. It is a mess. The Ivy League schools will survive. The state schools where the bulk of the education occurs are going to get worse and worse unless something changes. DEI and gender studies degrees are a red herring to cover up what state legislatures are doing and to cover up their looting.

Come to NY. The  SUNY system seems pretty sound.  Some very good four year colleges and a bunch of great community colleges. The two year schools are very affordable. The four year schools are more but still within reach. My youngest went the community college route then two years at SUNY Binghamton which is really top notch. Tuition, room and board there was about $25k per year.  But NY does have fee tuition for lower income families and is pushing to expand that.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, let’s roll said:

I didn’t say it was going to happen, I said I believed the school would better fulfill its mission if it did.  My experience at the school as a student from New York was a helpful one, it introduced me to the LDS culture, although I did miss the diversity of thought and demographics that I valued in NY and OR.  I’m not sure how much UT students’ experience is expanded and rounded by attending BYU for 4 years, certainly not as much as if they went to school for a time out of state.

My experience with the school as a recruiter for law firms, specifically the law school, has been frustrating.  The vast majority of the students appear to have little interest in a career outside of the intermountain west.  I understand there is a perceived safety in the familiar, but the Savior didn’t avoid, and in fact sought out, societies that were not “civil and polite” and invited His disciples to do the same, charging them to go “into all the world.”

I think the Lord would be pleased if more graduates of BYU heeded the invitation to “go forth and serve” by serving outside the intermountain west and I believe more would be both willing and well equipped to do so if a portion of their college education was experienced at a school other than the Y.

I think part of the reason these students don't want to leave the intermountain west is because that's where all their family is.  When we first moved to Utah I was kind of shocked how most of the people in the ward grew up in the state, and almost all of our move ins were from other parts of Utah.

[Rain]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think part of the reason these students don't want to leave the intermountain west is because that's where all their family is.  When we first moved to Utah I was kind of shocked how most of the people in the ward grew up in the state, and almost all of our move ins were from other parts of Utah.

It would be interesting to look at this.  My parents were in the military and moved 15 places before I was 6 when they moved to Utah.  Then they moved to TN while I was on my mission and back again 5 years later.  Now only one sibling is in Utah and they moved there to be with my parents after a divorce. 

On the other hand, my husband's parents always lived in Utah (except 2 years when my MIL was little) and all his siblings live in Utah and we are just in Arizona. 

My husband has resisted moving to other places farther from Utah, but now that his parents are gone he likes the idea much more.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, let’s roll said:

I didn’t say it was going to happen, I said I believed the school would better fulfill its mission if it did.  My experience at the school as a student from New York was a helpful one, it introduced me to the LDS culture, although I did miss the diversity of thought and demographics that I valued in NY and OR.  I’m not sure how much UT students’ experience is expanded and rounded by attending BYU for 4 years, certainly not as much as if they went to school for a time out of state.

My experience with the school as a recruiter for law firms, specifically the law school, has been frustrating.  The vast majority of the students appear to have little interest in a career outside of the intermountain west.  I understand there is a perceived safety in the familiar, but the Savior didn’t avoid, and in fact sought out, societies that were not “civil and polite” and invited His disciples to do the same, charging them to go “into all the world.”

I think the Lord would be pleased if more graduates of BYU heeded the invitation to “go forth and serve” by serving outside the intermountain west and I believe more would be both willing and well equipped to do so if a portion of their college education was experienced at a school other than the Y.

It has always surprised me how many Utahns have no desire to live anywhere else, even for a time.  It is typically because they want to keep close ties with family, so not saying it’s unhealthy….usually.

I was excited to move to different places and it never occurred to me that I would be within an easy drive to my parents, but where we lived there was no extended family besides my dad’s parents for about 2/3s of my childhood, so traveling to visit was part of the adventure of childhood.  As a parent, I am grateful to have my son within a ten minute or less drive, but wish he had been able to spend some time as an adult outside of Utah.  Even his mission was to Utah and we moved from Canada to Utah as soon as he got home.  He didn’t grow up here except for his first 4 years, but his wife is homegrown and why they chose to live where they are.

[let’s roll]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think part of the reason these students don't want to leave the intermountain west is because that's where all their family is.  When we first moved to Utah I was kind of shocked how most of the people in the ward grew up in the state, and almost all of our move ins were from other parts of Utah.

Understood, which is why I think getting the rounding experience of living elsewhere during the first two years of college makes sense, since the move need not be permanent.

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Understood, which is why I think getting the rounding experience of living elsewhere during the first two years of college makes sense, since the move need not be permanent.

It does, for the experience.  I think the hurdle that many kids (and their parents) hit in this regard is that the first two years are typically the years when the school doesn't matter much.  It makes sense to spend them at the cheapest school you can and for kids from Utah, those will almost all be schools in Utah. 

It's probably hard for most students to want to spend a few thousand more dollars than they otherwise would (or accumulate that in debt) just to get some experience outside of their state.  But I'm sure there are some community colleges in very small towns in many unpopulated states that have fairly cheap out of state tuition.  Wyoming has a few.   But it would be hard for most kids from Utah to adapt to that level of change.  Still possible though, and with benefits like you said.

[Robert F. Smith]

23 hours ago, Peacefully said:

CFR please. I am very interested this. 

https://mspolicy.org/dei-is-destroying-american-universities-we-need-to-act-now/ 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-dei-destroying-meritocracy-how-mei-can-save-us-patel-md-mba-ybnnc 

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-788816 

https://dividedwefall.org/dei-vs-mfe/ 

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

CFR please.  Would like to see evidence of this.  Went to research it and what popped us was the loss of jobs and talent and opportunities for minority students because of some states enacting antiDEI measures, including Utah.

Also came across how DEI administrators and professors have to endure high rates of harassment, women leaders twice as much as men, but men have it pretty high as well.

https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/career-advice/conditionally-accepted/2024/08/16/challenges-dei-practitioners-experience
 

Would be interesting to see who is getting more lawsuits threatened at them, those critical of DEI or those DEI administrators and leaders.  My bold

2/3 of all college students are now women.  Almost all professors and administrators are Democrats and most believe in and practice DEI.  Most colleges have been thoroughly feminized, and in many cases women are school presidents -- regardless of qualifications -- which has led to several major scandals of plagiarism and failure to actually lead the school into true academic pursuits.

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/08/1218314691/after-a-disastrous-testimony-three-college-presidents-face-calls-to-resign .

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

DEI is not the problem. The real problem in most public universities is that states have been slashing funding. Then they got rid of the faculty running the universities and put in a “professional” administrator and staff for them which eat up a LOT of money. 20-30 years ago stundents paid about 30% of the costs and the state covered about 70%. Now students pay about 80% and the state pays about 20%.

The state governments are trashing institutions that provide a lot of public goods to save a few bucks. Add in that the professional administrators have largely cut tenure as a possibility and even regular professors. A lot more of the teaching is now being done by adjunct temporary professors hired on a per semester basis for a lot less money. This leads to a decline in teaching effectiveness as professors have no security and can rarely get comfortable in their roles and regularly have to be re-hired or switch schools. They also have a much harder time doing real academic research since the temporaries don’t have much support for it.

With the fall in the pay and number of ongoing jobs at schools the permanent positions are mostly filled with old-timers now who couldn’t get their current jobs if they had to apply for them. The administrators raise tuition as much as they can and tend to spend the gains on themselves and their staff (these jobs often get turned into political gifts from politicians to donors) little of the tuition money gets to the actual teachers. A lot also goes into pet projects to attract students like climbing gyms or other ‘luxury’ perks to impress students.

It is not a red vs. blue state thing. Most every state is trashing their own university system. We get less research, worse teaching, higher tuition and people crippled by student debt, and a lot more. All so the state can save a few bucks and give donor sons and daughters some cushy well-paid admin positions. It is a mess. The Ivy League schools will survive. The state schools where the bulk of the education occurs are going to get worse and worse unless something changes. DEI and gender studies degrees are a red herring to cover up what state legislatures are doing and to cover up their looting.

Most of what you say has been a problem in higher ed for a generation, but more recently made much worse by the ballooning of administrative positions to enforce idiotic DEI standards.  Social grading is another problem in which everyone gets an "A".  Some scholars think that our system of higher ed will not survive.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/y7m8r/how_the_american_university_was_killed_in_five/?rdt=63187

 https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardvedder/2020/06/22/the-decline-of-the-american-university/ 

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, let’s roll said:

I didn’t say it was going to happen, I said I believed the school would better fulfill its mission if it did.  My experience at the school as a student from New York was a helpful one, it introduced me to the LDS culture, although I did miss the diversity of thought and demographics that I valued in NY and OR.  I’m not sure how much UT students’ experience is expanded and rounded by attending BYU for 4 years, certainly not as much as if they went to school for a time out of state.

My experience with the school as a recruiter for law firms, specifically the law school, has been frustrating.  The vast majority of the students appear to have little interest in a career outside of the intermountain west.  I understand there is a perceived safety in the familiar, but the Savior didn’t avoid, and in fact sought out, societies that were not “civil and polite” and invited His disciples to do the same, charging them to go “into all the world.”

I think the Lord would be pleased if more graduates of BYU heeded the invitation to “go forth and serve” by serving outside the intermountain west and I believe more would be both willing and well equipped to do so if a portion of their college education was experienced at a school other than the Y.

In the past, when high quality and reasonably priced universities were available, there is no doubt that Latter-day Saint students (serious students) were better off going to high quality schools outside the intermountain West.  Hugh Nibley, for example, graduated from UCLA with highest honors, and went on to UC Berkeley for his PhD on a fellowship.  He first taught at the Claremont Colleges.  The only reason he came to BYU is that Elder Widtsoe asked him to.  Hugh discouraged BYU students from obtaining graduate degrees from BYU.  He knew that they needed to deal with the real world.  Having spent a lot of time at UCLA and the Hebrew Univ in Jerusalem, I can attest to the need to get out into that real world.

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most colleges have been thoroughly feminized, and in many cases women are school presidents -- regardless of qualifications -- which has led to several major scandals of plagiarism and failure to actually lead the school into true academic pursuits.

So in your view even though only a third of college presidents are women, they and the majority presence of women students in colleges are responsible for the increase of plagiarism (as opposed to the increased ease of plagiarizing due to technology)? (Serious question, trying to understand your reasoning)

Edited January 16, 2025 by Calm

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

2/3 of all college students are now women.  Almost all professors and administrators are Democrats and most believe in and practice DEI.  Most colleges have been thoroughly feminized, and in many cases women are school presidents -- regardless of qualifications -- which has led to several major scandals of plagiarism and failure to actually lead the school into true academic pursuits.

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/08/1218314691/after-a-disastrous-testimony-three-college-presidents-face-calls-to-resign .

Are you arguing that college is suffering because there are too many women now?  I can’t figure out your point if that’s not it. Can you clarify?

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most of what you say has been a problem in higher ed for a generation, but more recently made much worse by the ballooning of administrative positions to enforce idiotic DEI standards.  Social grading is another problem in which everyone gets an "A".  Some scholars think that our system of higher ed will not survive.

What specifically do you think is ridiculous about DEI standards?  It seems like a broad term that can encompass a lot or a little of various types of initiatives.  I am not an expert at all on the subject other than like so many things today it seems a lightening rode for political extremes on both sides. Do you think that all things should be totally based on merit?  Do you you disagree that there is still an advantage that some groups have over others?

Edited January 16, 2025 by Teancum

[Peacefully]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

https://mspolicy.org/dei-is-destroying-american-universities-we-need-to-act-now/ 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-dei-destroying-meritocracy-how-mei-can-save-us-patel-md-mba-ybnnc 

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-788816 

https://dividedwefall.org/dei-vs-mfe/ 

Thank you. I will take a look at these links. 

[halconero]

FWIW, as someone on the inside of academia, DEI is a mechanism, not a cause of the decline in universities across the US, Canada, the UK, and elsewhere.

A mechanism is a 'link' in the causal chain between a cause and an effect. It explains how a particular cause results in a particular outcome, but isn't its ultimate cause.

In this case, I think DEI is a sufficient mediator for the outcomes we're seeing, rather than a necessary one. Put another way, it's enough to mediate the decline in post-secondary institutions, but isn't a required factor.

It's just my opinion, but one shared by others (e.g., Jonathan Haidt), but university "empire building" among administrative staff is the ultimate cause. Academic pay in post-secondaries is largely performance based, which might be a shocker to some here. Committees that review applications for tenure or pay increases typically look at the output of academics, including publications in journal articles, teaching evaluations, and unpaid service (e.g., volunteering to be part of a government review panel). Now, there's issues with all of these metrics, but it at least attempts to accomplish something akin to merit-based pay.

By contrast, salaries for non-academic staff are largely based on seniority and position. For a variety of reasons, positions opening up for typical reasons (e.g., retirement, job changes, etc.) are becoming rarer these days. So the easiest way to advance up the ladder is to create new positions. DEI presented a good opportunity here, with the proliferation of equity based offices not only at the Faculty level (e.g., Faculty of Arts & Sciences), but the Departmental level as well. I don't think this is malicious, but rather the natural outcome of non-academic staff getting excited over something that seems well-intentioned, combined with getting excited that you'll get to advance in your career a little earlier than expected. Both of those are rational things to get excited about, without ill-intent, but it's caused issues.

The other, related factor, would be campus demand for DEI among students. You might call this a 'moderator' of the relationship between empire building and outcomes among university campuses. A moderator is another type of mechanism, except, unlike a mediator, it acts like a bit of a multiplier effect between cause-and-effect. In this case, students during the 2010s increasingly sought DEI-type actions on campus, for ostensibly good intentions, albeit ill-informed ones (imo). This brought attention to and provided legitimacy for departmental empire building in an effort to meet that demand.

Ultimately, academics likely bear some of the responsibility, but not the lion's share, in my opinion. Most of us are comfortable with disagreement and even contention over competing ideas, beliefs, or worldviews. It's practically our job to disagree over these things. Even between the activist scholars and the "is/ought" scholars (I count myself among the latter), the debates tend to be relatively cordial, with exceptions. To the extent that a few academics act differently, they're typically outliers and, in my opinion, the academic equivalent of grifters drifting off the sentiments of their students and a university apparatus incented to self-perpetuate.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, halconero said:

, but university "empire building" among administrative staff is the ultimate cause

This makes sense to me.

[The Nehor]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most of what you say has been a problem in higher ed for a generation, but more recently made much worse by the ballooning of administrative positions to enforce idiotic DEI standards.  Social grading is another problem in which everyone gets an "A".  Some scholars think that our system of higher ed will not survive.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/y7m8r/how_the_american_university_was_killed_in_five/?rdt=63187

 https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardvedder/2020/06/22/the-decline-of-the-american-university/ 

That is not why administrative positions are ballooning. Your links don’t support this idea either.

We need to actually fund our state universities to get the costs of an education back down to something approaching reasonable.

[Calm]

From Robert’s first link:

Quote

Who didn’t like the outcome of the 60s? The corporations…..

I suspect that, given the opportunity, those groups would have liked nothing more than to shut down the universities. Destroy them outright.

I highly doubt corporations want to kill the universities. Where would they get upper management from, if not lower management?  Where would they get people for Research and Development?  Graphic design, advertising, and marketing?  Computer programming, etc?

Some of the other points I think are solid…the problem with the majority of professors being low paid adjuncts, for example 70% and over half of college course being taught by them, is imo a massive problem. So is having legislators making educational decisions that has led to cut in funding of education.

He is also blaming conservative political elites for the problems, which is who attack the so called “woke” movement, so not seeing the support for your conclusions here.

The second link does support your claim, but besides waving in the direction of polling, does not provide evidence:

“Seventh, American universities have lost some popular political support, in part because of excessive campus intolerance of views deviating from the dominant left-wing campus progressive perspective that large portions of the potential college-going American population find uncomfortable, almost un-American. Campus protests, the Cancel Culture, and other suppression of intellectual diversity and heated but civilized debate put off many Americans, as a good deal of polling by Pew and Gallup has indicated.

American universities have become too arrogant, bloated with expensive non-academic apparatchiks, and too far out of the mainstream of American life. They have been doing less for more, and America is getting sick and tired of it.”

Third link very supportive, but what evidence offered was anecdotal, no stats that I recall (I am skimming these so admit I might miss something, I prefer research to opinion pieces so not investing much time).

4th link is better, refers to research but not by name or date and no links so it would take significant effort to track down each claim and see if represented correctly, taken out of context or not, etc.

Fifth one was mainly an opinion piece with unsupported statements of fact and anecdotes, often vague.  One stat was offered, more DEI officials than history professors, but without context provided (as in what percentage of the student population each group interacts with, etc).

Last one uses the case of Claudine Gay and Roland Fryer to demonstrate that DEI supports subpar work (Gay allegedly has plagiarized) and attacks those who challenge it.  While Fryer was held accountable for the telling of off color jokes (this is how he described the sexual harassment, I assume it’s accurate), perhaps more so than others who had acted in similar ways, we have nothing to compare his treatment to besides Gay’s.  Again anecdotal.

Fourth link looks useful, but requires effort to use it decently, imo, for information (tracking down exactly what studies they are talking about).

PS:  my bias is pro faculty, not too fond of administrators, my husband is a retired business prof and I aspired to get Ph.D and teach at a university as well to feed my desire to be a professional student, have many professor friends…only know a few administrators, lol.  Know no one in DEI.  I currently have no opinion on DEI except to say I am finding arguments against it weak with a lot of claims of what it is without letting DEI supporters explain for themselves.  The phrasing explaining DEI comes across as more caricatures than precision.

Edited January 17, 2025 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

So in your view even though only a third of college presidents are women, they and the majority presence of women students in colleges are responsible for the increase of plagiarism (as opposed to the increased ease of plagiarizing due to technology)? (Serious question, trying to understand your reasoning)

Men are fleeing the DEI ravaged halls of higher ed.  Men are openly declared to be toxic by their very nature, just as whiteness is used to demean all white folk as automatically and systemically racist.  That was not what we had in mind when I marched with Dr King's SCLC back in the 60s.  The great MLK legacy is being systematically destroyed by members of the Marxist DEI cult.  Top women college presidents made it a policy to entertain and encourage this sort of Orwellian DEI thinking, and to tolerate anti-Jewish activity on campuses across the country.  The female president of Harvard obtained her position simply because she was a woman, with no consideration of merit.  Turns out that she plagiarized her doctoral dissertation and other papers written by her.  Lying and dishonesty has become the norm in such instances, and has also deeply infected politics.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

Are you arguing that college is suffering because there are too many women now?  I can’t figure out your point if that’s not it. Can you clarify?

Marxist DEI policies are destroying higher ed.  I spent over 30 years as a card-carrying activist with NOW (National Organization for Women), back when feminism was an honest, meaningful pursuit, back when Title IX meant something.  Today, Marxist DEI activists are determined to destroy Title IX, to undo everything we accomplished.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

What specifically do you think is ridiculous about DEI standards?  It seems like a broad term that can encompass a lot or a little of various types of initiatives.  I am not an expert at all on the subject other than like so many things today it seems a lightening rode for political extremes on both sides. Do you think that all things should be totally based on merit?  Do you you disagree that there is still an advantage that some groups have over others?

When any student goes to school, K-12, higher ed, or technical school, they should always be judged solely and only on merit.  Same applies for those applying for a job.  Only those who are qualified should get the job.  Western civilization has thrived on those principles, and DEI is dedicated to burn it to the ground.  As Dr King said:  ""I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, halconero said:

FWIW, as someone on the inside of academia, DEI is a mechanism, not a cause of the decline in universities across the US, Canada, the UK, and elsewhere.

A mechanism is a 'link' in the causal chain between a cause and an effect. It explains how a particular cause results in a particular outcome, but isn't its ultimate cause.

In this case, I think DEI is a sufficient mediator for the outcomes we're seeing, rather than a necessary one. Put another way, it's enough to mediate the decline in post-secondary institutions, but isn't a required factor.

It's just my opinion, but one shared by others (e.g., Jonathan Haidt), but university "empire building" among administrative staff is the ultimate cause. Academic pay in post-secondaries is largely performance based, which might be a shocker to some here. Committees that review applications for tenure or pay increases typically look at the output of academics, including publications in journal articles, teaching evaluations, and unpaid service (e.g., volunteering to be part of a government review panel). Now, there's issues with all of these metrics, but it at least attempts to accomplish something akin to merit-based pay.

By contrast, salaries for non-academic staff are largely based on seniority and position. For a variety of reasons, positions opening up for typical reasons (e.g., retirement, job changes, etc.) are becoming rarer these days. So the easiest way to advance up the ladder is to create new positions. DEI presented a good opportunity here, with the proliferation of equity based offices not only at the Faculty level (e.g., Faculty of Arts & Sciences), but the Departmental level as well. I don't think this is malicious, but rather the natural outcome of non-academic staff getting excited over something that seems well-intentioned, combined with getting excited that you'll get to advance in your career a little earlier than expected. Both of those are rational things to get excited about, without ill-intent, but it's caused issues.

The other, related factor, would be campus demand for DEI among students. You might call this a 'moderator' of the relationship between empire building and outcomes among university campuses. A moderator is another type of mechanism, except, unlike a mediator, it acts like a bit of a multiplier effect between cause-and-effect. In this case, students during the 2010s increasingly sought DEI-type actions on campus, for ostensibly good intentions, albeit ill-informed ones (imo). This brought attention to and provided legitimacy for departmental empire building in an effort to meet that demand.

Ultimately, academics likely bear some of the responsibility, but not the lion's share, in my opinion. Most of us are comfortable with disagreement and even contention over competing ideas, beliefs, or worldviews. It's practically our job to disagree over these things. Even between the activist scholars and the "is/ought" scholars (I count myself among the latter), the debates tend to be relatively cordial, with exceptions. To the extent that a few academics act differently, they're typically outliers and, in my opinion, the academic equivalent of grifters drifting off the sentiments of their students and a university apparatus incented to self-perpetuate.

Yes, of course, but DEI has effectively broken the back of higher ed.  Some even suggest that Western civ is over.  John Stuart Mill has been cast aside with a vengeance.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is not why administrative positions are ballooning. Your links don’t support this idea either.

We need to actually fund our state universities to get the costs of an education back down to something approaching reasonable.

Unlikely.

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

he female president of Harvard obtained her position simply because she was a woman,

So you are saying I could have applied and been considered for the job since I have the only needed qualification of being a woman.