By backing a Democratic Senate candidate in Michigan, AAUP swapped its historic standing as a non-partisan defender of academic freedom for a louder but more narrow political role.
Yeah, this doesn’t bode well, but then, there were already longstanding critical control points that failed before we arrived here. This is only a progression of the process and bearing academia has been on, not a deviation from it. Thank you for the article.
Individuals and organizations that feel threatened defend themselves. University professors have been politically attacked, including professors that had in the past supported the politicians doing the attacking.
The audience to whom AAUP endorsements are aimed are professors and those who care about them. Telling that audience that there are candidates who don't attack professors, or actually are professors, and suggesting those are good choices to vote for seems a natural path for any attacked organization except those barred from it (such as a 501c3 "registered charity").
I find it ironic that the author frets about potential "political interference" in the academy -- apparently from state and Federal sources -- when for years the academy has been politically corrupted by the Left, as the AAUP has just confirmed! Is the academy really so naive and arrogant to think it can sell out to the Left -- as is obvious to any objective observer -- and then go on its merry way without outside interference from taxpayers, alumni, and society at large? And why assume this outside interference would necessarily taint an already badly tainted academy? And what choice does society have when it's clear to all that the academy is incapable of reforming itself from within.
Yeah, this doesn’t bode well, but then, there were already longstanding critical control points that failed before we arrived here. This is only a progression of the process and bearing academia has been on, not a deviation from it. Thank you for the article.
Individuals and organizations that feel threatened defend themselves. University professors have been politically attacked, including professors that had in the past supported the politicians doing the attacking.
The audience to whom AAUP endorsements are aimed are professors and those who care about them. Telling that audience that there are candidates who don't attack professors, or actually are professors, and suggesting those are good choices to vote for seems a natural path for any attacked organization except those barred from it (such as a 501c3 "registered charity").
The AAUP is obviously neomarxist-captured.
I find it ironic that the author frets about potential "political interference" in the academy -- apparently from state and Federal sources -- when for years the academy has been politically corrupted by the Left, as the AAUP has just confirmed! Is the academy really so naive and arrogant to think it can sell out to the Left -- as is obvious to any objective observer -- and then go on its merry way without outside interference from taxpayers, alumni, and society at large? And why assume this outside interference would necessarily taint an already badly tainted academy? And what choice does society have when it's clear to all that the academy is incapable of reforming itself from within.
You deserve all the cuts and more.