Quick Takes: Texas Loan Shortfall, Tale of a Trade School, ACLU Backs Churchill, iPhones Not to Blame, American’s Choice, Missed Paychecks, Accreditors Fire Back, 61 Presidents Sign Anti-Rankings Pledge, Oxford Revises Admissions

CHEA complains too much

CHEA should be more concerned with transitioning its members from the current institutional focus to a focus that highlights consumer concerns and grievances.

Rather than simply dismiss ACTA’s report, CHEA needs to counter with proposals of its own – for example, specific proposals that would address how to transition from QA (public relations based assurances of quality) to QC (quality control).

The public and the US DOE want to know what the minimum standards in higher education are, and what guarantees there are that these ARE being met. Right now we don’t have this kind of accountability and transparency, leaving us with only empty assurances of quality. ACTA is to be commended for raising these issues. No one else seems to have the moral courage to do so.

For example, there are no studies to determine the thoroughness of accreditation procedures. No one is double checking the accreditors to see what their efficiency levels for site-review are, or how accurate institutional self-study reports are. Sadly, academic work on accreditation is no help at all, since it is uniformly compromised by conflicts of interest (scholars are invariably part of the very institutions and associations that they are studying), rendering most of it useless.

It is time for CHEA to take a leadership role in actually addressing these issues, not just complain when others do.

Glen S. McGhee, Dir., at Florida Higher Education Accountability Project, at 9:05 am EDT on July 23, 2007

Churchill and the ACLU

In general, I respect the ACLU and most of the causes it undertakes. However, I find the following statement spurious.

“The investigation of Professor Churchill’s scholarship cannot be separated from the indefensible lynch-mob furor that generated the initial calls for his termination”

Of course it can! The specific allegations of scholarly misconduct in this case are separate in time and context and should be tested against standards of scholarship quite separate from Churchill’s ideology.The critical question is, were they?

Craig Monroe, at 10:15 am EDT on July 23, 2007

Legal System Competence

This is one time where the proper channels have been used within the University. The right of the University to manage its business should be superior to the Courts right to tell them what to do and, therefore, to the ACLU’s opinion.

The Courts don’t have the ability to be involved in the management of the educational system. They can’t manage the education of lawyers. See the American Bar Association fiasco before the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity.

It would take a lot of nerve for the legal system, including the ACLU, to attempt to supervise other disciplines.

Any lawsuit brought by Mr. Churchill should be immediately dismissed.

William Sumner Scott, J.D.

Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.

wss@jefound.org

William Sumner Scott, J.D., at 10:55 am EDT on July 23, 2007

clearing up some misunderstandings

I am always reluctant to get involves in these Churchill debates, because I don’t care about him personally. Despite IHE’s link to the ACLU’s letter, people seem unable to actually see their position. There are a few misunderstandings.

First. The ACLU is not Churchill’s lawyer. Read the letter carefully. Or heck, just read the first few paragraphs. (I am not sure that the ACLU would, as a constitutional matter, have standing to sue the university, anyway.)

Second. Even if Ward Churchill was a complete fraud (a proposition that I don’t have a position on), there are still valid issues of academic freedom to discuss. Any time a professor is dismissed, one can, at least analyze, whether the dismissal was for reasons that had to do with politics outside the university. Should he have been dismissed solely because a state legislator did not like what he was saying, then the academic freedom concerns would have more vitality.

Third. To Mr. Scott (who refuses to tell us how many paid employees work for his organization), while courts do not “run” educational institutions, the ACLU did not threat to sue anyone. Did you even read the letter? Let me say it again: there is no threat of a lawsuit in the letter. This letter is not long.

Fourth: Mr. Monroe, you seem to have a sane outlook on this. While I probably can agree with your result (because it seems the panel members acted in good faith), I don’t think that the ACLU’s concerns are so easily brushed off. Since the controversy has taken on a life on its own, it is a fairly easy leap to conclude that not everyone’s motives are devoid of politics. (But, the ACLU is raising an legally cognizable issue here, though I don’t know if the facts support his position.)

Fifth. Buzz, I did not make a comment. Nevertheless you referred to it. As many have pointed out on here, you seem to have a complete distaste for academe.

Sixth: To Mr. Scott, again, public universities are generally organs of state government. As such, they are bound by the constitution (and other applicable laws). People that feel that they have been injured by the violation of such laws can seek redress in the courts. While I am not sure of the merits of any lawsuit that might hypothetically be brought in the future, you seem to propose an absolute immunity of all universities from any lawsuit — or any law! This is pretty wild!

Seventh: Academic freedom is not a new concept. While debates as to its scope are, indeed, valid, as are debates as to its applicability, it behooves academics (and all Americans) to inform themselves of the nature of his beast before commenting and looking too jingoistic.

Larry, at 12:10 pm EDT on July 23, 2007

answer to question regarding the FCA

The FCA is a federal statute, not the constitution. Under most circumstances, the FCA allows people that think that Uncle Sam (i.e. the federal government) someone they think is defrauding Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam must be given an opportunity to take over the suit, and if, victorious Uncle Sam gets most of the recovery.

Anyway, there is no “immunity” to FCA suits, because the FCA never applied to universities in the first place. Just as the constitution does not apply to you(since you are not a government agent), the Supreme Court held in VTaNR v. US ex rel Stevens, that the text of the FCA did not provide for such suits against states or their agencies. (This turns on the ambagious word “person” in the act. Sometimes persons are individuals. But, a person could also be a corporation, state, or horse.)

Congress, could, of course, go back and specifically allow such “qui tam” suits against states. However, the court hinted that this might run afoul of the 11th amendment, but did not rule on the issue.

So, as you can see, the meaning of statutes is sometimes often subject to debate, and even if a statute is unambiguous it still might not be enforceable as it is unconstitutional.

Larry, at 1:15 pm EDT on July 23, 2007

what was incorrect about the ACLU’s position

Orson, The ACLU is not Mr. Churchill’s lawyer. Secondly, based on the assumptions stated in the letter, are they wrong on the law?

Now, I am not saying that ultimately their argument would prevail, but you seem to be arguing that in extreme cases any “neutral” decision maker, examining facts, satisfies due process even if the outcome with pre-determined by a political process of sorts.

Larry, at 7:05 am EDT on July 25, 2007