That’s the most charitable reading of this particular tweet but ignores his other writings. In fairness to his body of work I’m suggesting that he’s not principled about worrying about political interference in colleges. Because he isn’t. 
-
-
Replying to @Sebastian_Hols @jholbo1 and
Specifically he doesn’t care about a Board political non-interference principle. Overruling the well researched hundred page report on the SAT, in the largest public system in the US, is clearly more impactful than a single tenure decision in a mid rate university.
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I don't think there's a generally recognized principle that Boards are not supposed to 'do any politics', insofar as policy is politics of a sort. But there are recognized bright line norms about hiring and tenure. 'More impactful' isn't the issue.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Exactly. The whole system of academic freedom is about faculty rights to hire, promote & do research free of interference. I think California board wrong in this case but admissions (in schools supported by tax dollars!) is a broad political remit.
3 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
By the way, you say in your article (relying on the NC Policy Watch report) that the plan to give NJH tenure was changed after political pressure from conservatives. But
@newsobserver tells a different story. https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article251527603.html …pic.twitter.com/U2Vz3eBS6H
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @CathyYoung63 @jholbo1 and
??? I'm having trouble understanding the difference. Tenure was presented to board, which didn't act on it (i.e. was stalling) and then second non-tenured offer (which didn't require board approval) made
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
The initial story said the plan to grant tenure was changed due to political pressure after the NHJ hire was announced. This says the hire was announced when she had already accepted a non-tenured position.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @CathyYoung63 @HeerJeet and
In the 2nd scenario, the board’s non-action may still have been related to political reasons, but could not have been a result of the post-offer backlash.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CathyYoung63 @jholbo1 and
I guess you're assuming the backlash is external to the board. But I assumed that the backlash came from inside the board as well as outside. It's a pretty conservative heavily GOP board.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
The Policy Watch article that broke the story was very specific about a post-hiring backlash from the outside.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Right, but based on other stuff I've read about how GOP appointed trustees behaving in NC colleges, I never assumed backlash was exclusively external.
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet @CathyYoung63 and
the fact you two are arguing about whether or not the trustees acted politically when a trustee has said that they made the decision for explicitly political reasons is really quite absurd
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.