José Cabranes: The Present Danger at our Leading Universities: What is to be Don [19:03-24:06]

Such statements are not a form of persuasion. They may be verbal, but like a ruling from the bench by a judge, they embody an act of force, not a moment of inquiry or conversation. Consider as well the turn towards social ostracism and condemnation in campus controversies, even banishments for a time. This is a form of Siberia without the gulag, and there's the related phenomenon of forced public confessions, struggle sessions without chairman Mao. Here, too, we are witnessing a preference for those tools that will bludgeon one's opponents rather than those that persuade them, or consider the excesses that accompany the ever-expanding anti-harrismate efforts. Here, too, universities have sought to expand our definitions of actionable conduct. What was once protected speech, expressions of personal warmth, humor, political opinion, even the direct quotation of the title of an essay by James Baldwin? All of these are now causes for an inquisition, for apologies, and, of course, for re-education. Without the knowledge of where that concept of re-education comes from, or consider the obsession with sexual and ethnic diversity and contrast the apparent lack of interest and diversity of opinion. The contrast is no accident. It reflects a vision of the university as a vehicle for implementing social change rather than as a forum for deliberation. There is a pattern here. Each of these failures reflects a blurring of the line between inquiry and activism, between speech and conduct, between the process of understanding the world, and the attempt to impose our will on it, with clarity about the nature of the disease may come clarity about how to fight it. First, the current moment calls for a sustained effort to this lodge to scrape off these non-faculty barnacles on the backside of the university. In doing so, we should recognize that the present dangers offer opportunities as well as challenges. The absurd growth in university non-faculty bureaucracies presents a threat first and foremost to faculty. Yale, for instance, recently revised its faculty handbook to expand the authority of administrators in university disciplinary proceedings at the expense of the faculty. Now, here I'm going to turn to a footnote, the only footnote in my remarks, but it's a footnote worth, which is worth the reading aloud. In small print. From the Yale University handbook, which in an earlier time I helped to invigorate, as of August 22, 2019, quote, if the provost decides that a matter can be resolved by a responsible administrator, or through another university process, the provost may refer the matter for appropriate disposition. Quote, unquote. Just in case you thought I was making it up. With the faculty's core interest threaten, the current moment presents an opportunity to enlist important allies. Beseech faculty and concerned alumni, regardless of differences on other matters, share the goal of eliminating this bureaucratic bloat. And if faculty are not interested in defending their historic centrality in serious universities, no amount of help by trustees in alumni can possibly rescue them. It is sadly true, of course, that too much of today's faculty is oblivious to the danger, or simply hiding in place when they are not actively collaborating in their own disempowerment. But while faculty power has been eroded, I still believe that the faculty can exercise substantial influence even if only in self-defense, if they would only wake up. I remember vividly, my concern years ago, when a great Yale president faced the prospect of a no-confidence vote from an unrepresentative but active band of disaffected faculty. Others here may remember this as well. I need not have worried. Minutes before the faculty meeting,