Lovell

[theBabyDavid]

Crash

Are the campus' more progressive in contrast to society as a whole or has society become more progressive than it was in the 70s and 80s at the same "rate" as campuses? As we get older, we tend to be more fixed in our views, more nostalgic for our day that bring sharp relief to where society has moved in the meantime with new ideas and new experiences of younger generations. So from our relatively fixed perspective it looks like campuses are more progressive than we experienced, but I'd argue its not out of line to where society itself is going.

There is no doubt that the concepts and conversations taking place on campus are different than they were when I was a freshman just like they are different from when you were a freshman, but that doesn't mean they are objectively bad concepts or conversations, just different and very likely aligned with society generally.

Rhino,

While I believe the content has changed - hell, the big protest in my day at MU was Boycott Nestle for promoting baby formula in the 3rd World - my concern rests on the complete incivility in discourse which characterizes the national conversation.

Personally, I favor much of the loosening of the former social construct. Harassing people because they wanted an intimate relationship with someone of the same gender was just wrong and completely indefensible. My mother's family was rounded up like cattle and incarcerated in concentration camps for years on US soil - all of them American citizens who were contributing members of society (my grandfather was a medical doctor who served his community, often being paid in vegetables and eggs.)   

My concern is the intolerance for other viewpoints. One need look no further than Scoop to witness the ugliness of discourse in contemporary American society. What is happening throughout society, but in particular on campuses which are designed to be bastions of free speech, is frightening. These illberal attitudes pose a threat to our values as a culture.

[mu03eng]

Rhino,

While I believe the content has changed - hell, the big protest in my day at MU was Boycott Nestle for promoting baby formula in the 3rd World - my concern rests on the complete incivility in discourse which characterizes the national conversation.

Personally, I favor much of the loosening of the former social construct. Harassing people because they wanted an intimate relationship with someone of the same gender was just wrong and completely indefensible. My mother's family was rounded up like cattle and incarcerated in concentration camps for years on US soil - all of them American citizens who were contributing members of society (my grandfather was a medical doctor who served his community, often being paid in vegetables and eggs.)   

My concern is the intolerance for other viewpoints. One need look no further than Scoop to witness the ugliness of discourse in contemporary American society. What is happening throughout society, but in particular on campuses which are designed to be bastions of free speech, is frightening. These illberal attitudes pose a threat to our values as a culture.

Fair, I guess I just don't assign this ugliness in discourse to be a relatively exclusive domain of campus' as you point out it's pretty universal in society at large these days. Additionally, this "outrage culture" is independent of political ideology in my opinion.....there's lots of people across the spectrum trying to limit discourse by being outraged about something their ideological opponent said.

This topic always makes me think of this scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

[Pakuni]

Fair, I guess I just don't assign this ugliness in discourse to be a relatively exclusive domain of campus' as you point out it's pretty universal in society at large these days.

I think this can be overstated. Discourse has always been ugly at times. There was a time, after all, when political disputes were solved with pistols at 20 paces. Or when a senator was nearly beaten to death by a fellow legislator in the Senate chamber. Or when law enforcement turned hoses on kids conducting a peaceful protest. Or when real radical leftists (not scary college professors) set off hundreds of bombs in the 70s.
Shouting at each other over social media (or even in person) really isn't all that bad in comparison.

[GGGG]

Personally, I favor much of the loosening of the former social construct. Harassing people because they wanted an intimate relationship with someone of the same gender was just wrong and completely indefensible.

What the f*ck are you talking about???

[GGGG]

The assertion that free speech is not under attack and that discourse on college campuses has not been politicized is absurd. I will only cite "liberal" news outlets.

I have received correspondence from the leadership of Harvard University specifically addressing the rise of intolerance in thought and discourse on that campus.

Not sure what your perspective is but the rise of intolerance on college campuses is not just distrurbing but an actual threat to our democratic values.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-glaring-evidence-that-free-speech-is-threatened-on-campus/471825/

https://www.salon.com/2015/09/30/free_speech_for_all_on_campus_unless_youre_criticizing_israel_that_is/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-speech-is-flunking-out-on-college-campuses/2015/10/22/124e7cd2-78f5-11e5-b9c1-f03c48c96ac2_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2d2c93e04fad

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-lukianoff/the-10-worst-colleges-for_b_9243000.html


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/us/politics/justice-department-campus-free-speech.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FFreedom%20of%20Speech%20and%20Expression&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=10&pgtype=collection


https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/us/campus-free-speech-trnd/index.html

Wow.  You sighted some pretty cool sources and got a neat letter from the President of Harvard!!!!  You must be a pretty important person!!!

Too bad you still don't know what you're talking about.  You're talking in absolutes that don't really represent what goes on routinely.

[mu03eng]

I think this can be overstated. Discourse has always been ugly at times. There was a time, after all, when political disputes were solved with pistols at 20 paces. Or when a senator was nearly beaten to death by a fellow legislator in the Senate chamber. Or when law enforcement turned hoses on kids conducting a peaceful protest. Or when real radical leftists (not scary college professors) set off hundreds of bombs in the 70s.
Shouting at each other over social media (or even in person) really isn't all that bad in comparison.

Forgive my rudeness, but so what? I mean it's great that out incivility has gotten more civil and less violent, but the suppression of discourse is just as bad for society as it ever was, the means of doing so have gotten more subtle

[mu_hilltopper]

Endowments must be relative. A value (ie $670 MM) is meaningless without context.

The University of Michigan has an endowment of $11 Billion and recently concluded a fund drive that generated $5 Billion. One can say that MU doesn't compete with U of M but the fact is that it does. When a college raises $5 billion in one drive it alters the total landscape.

If MU's endowment is half that of SLU and a quarter that of BC then Lovell needs to get to work.

MU's endowment of $670 MM might seem like a big number but in context it is not enough to ensure relevance in an increasingly competitive environment

https://www.wsj.com/articles/university-of-michigan-raises-5-billion-others-close-behind-1538658001

That's all well and good, but doesn't answer my question.  If SLU has double the endowment of MU, what does that mean?  What can SLU do that MU can't because their endowment is double?

[GGGG]

That's all well and good, but doesn't answer my question.  If SLU has double the endowment of MU, what does that mean?  What can SLU do that MU can't because their endowment is double?

They can weather downturns in enrollment. They can have more resources to allocate for all sorts of reasons. They would have more scholarships to award students.

[Herman Cain]

Agree with all of this, especially the very last point!  Why doesn't MU aspire higher?  Overall his tenure has been very positive, but MU seems to be more than content with competing for the same students that LUC and SLU gets instead of schools like BC, Villanova and Fordham and their ilk.  The irony is MU's campus has improved to the point where if they put the slightest bit of effort into it, they have a really good chance at picking off some of these really high caliber students that historically have matriculated elsewhere and wouldn't typically consider a school like MU as recently as 3 years ago.   Both MKE and MU in particular has improved substantially in the last few yrs so climate aside, MU has never been in a better position to compete for these students, but at the end of the day MU is all talk and no action.  They say want to be a "national university" and destination school, but are unwilling to do what it takes to get there because it's anathema to their mission.  Obviously I don't agree with their approach because the other schools I mentioned largely have the same mission.

First to address the question in the opening post. Lovell has done a very good job on buildings and acquiring property. I think he has made some solid movement in the direction of the Health Sciences. On the other hand, he has bent the school too much into the direction of the politically correct crowd. In doing so he has dumbed down the curriculum by getting rid of some of the core course requirements such as philosophy and theology s that make a Jesuit institution attractive   and is pursuing a misguided admissions policy that seeks lower quality students in the name of diversity. Finally, he has not achieved anything meaningful in terms of growing the endowment beyond what stock market gains have achieved. That said he has gotten some meaningful dollars along the way for the buildings, so I would call the endowment a work in progress.

Second, to address the posters comments above. I believe MU has everything necessary to be included in the same discussion as BC, Fordham and Villanova. However, the school has a very parochial vision that blinds it to the upside in embracing its own strengths. Instead it aspires to be at the level of Chicago State, which is truly amazing. Marketing and positioning mean everything at the high end of academics.  The world is a competitive place and MU is defining themselves in a non competitive way. There are plenty of double directional schools that fill the needs of the low end of the market. There are very few schools like MU that can legitimately compete at the high end, so why give that status up.  Always aim high.

[theBabyDavid]

Yeah, it was about the draft. You said the radical left was "armed with PhD's earned through draft deferments." Which is, of course, asinine, given that no one under the age of 62 has ever needed a draft deferment.
Sorry to have pointed our your very bad take.
Your failure to support what you wrote, replaced instead by your standard masturbatory drivel, is typical.

Thank you for proving the point of strident, imperceptive, eristic polemic.

Such an angry silly person you are. You demean the spirit of a Jesuit education.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

It's been my experience that the general student body is significantly more liberal than the faculty at the vast majority of campuses. Universities are not indoctrinating students. If anything they are reigning them in a keeping them from going too far to the left.

As it has been for years,  the youngest generation is more liberal than the one before it. College is often the first time that a student has been encouraged to seek self determination rather than conformity. This creates the illusion that colleges turn students liberal. It's not the case, college is just the first place were they've been told its okay to choose their own ideologies.

[GGGG]

Thank you for proving the point of strident, imperceptive, eristic polemic.

Such an angry silly person you are. You demean the spirit of a Jesuit education.

So how does plagiarism fit with the "spirit of a Jesuit education?"

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Thank you for proving the point of strident, imperceptive, eristic polemic.

Such an angry silly person you are. You demean the spirit of a Jesuit education.

LOL.  "I was made to look like a fool, but instead of admit I'm going to bull through with my ersatz umbrage and faux intellectualism routine."

[dgies9156]

Let me see if I get this

1) We're screaming that there is an overwhelming liberal bias at universities across the nation, including our beloved Marquette.

2) One at least assumes that after four years of indoctrination, if a university is doing its job, these students leave a university as the next weapons in the liberal effort to govern the country. They are trained in liberal ways and indoctrinated in liberal thought.

But:

3) Donald J. Trump is President.

4) Conservative Republicans control the United States Senate and are a fairly strong minority in the House of Representatives.

5) The Supreme Court has a 5-4 conservative majority that's likely to be there for a long time to come.

6) The majority of governors in the United States are Republicans and, for the most part, conservative.

7) I may be wrong on this one but I believe the majority of state legislatures are controlled by Republicans and, therefore, conservatives.

My logic tells me that somewhere along the line, the folks that are coming out of college aren't as indoctrinated as Arguments 1 and 2 would suggest. The facts tell me two things. First, that students through the ages have been pretty good at listening and thinking for themselves regardless of what thought is presented in class. Second, that if universities view themselves as bastions of liberal thought, they've failed miserably in this endeavor.

It is an amazing thing that we in this country can switch governments every to four to eight years. Think about it. We went from Bill Clinton to George Bush to Barack Obama to Donald J. Trump. Our country and our people have an amazing way of, on the national level, avoiding going too fair in one direction or another.

[real chili 83]

Let me see if I get this

1) We're screaming that there is an overwhelming liberal bias at universities across the nation, including our beloved Marquette.

2) One at least assumes that after four years of indoctrination, if a university is doing its job, these students leave a university as the next weapons in the liberal effort to govern the country. They are trained in liberal ways and indoctrinated in liberal thought.

But:

3) Donald J. Trump is President.

4) Conservative Republicans control the United States Senate and are a fairly strong minority in the House of Representatives.

5) The Supreme Court has a 5-4 conservative majority that's likely to be there for a long time to come.

6) The majority of governors in the United States are Republicans and, for the most part, conservative.

7) I may be wrong on this one but I believe the majority of state legislatures are controlled by Republicans and, therefore, conservatives.

My logic tells me that somewhere along the line, the folks that are coming out of college aren't as indoctrinated as Arguments 1 and 2 would suggest. The facts tell me two things. First, that students through the ages have been pretty good at listening and thinking for themselves regardless of what thought is presented in class. Second, that if universities view themselves as bastions of liberal thought, they've failed miserably in this endeavor.

It is an amazing thing that we in this country can switch governments every to four to eight years. Think about it. We went from Bill Clinton to George Bush to Barack Obama to Donald J. Trump. Our country and our people have an amazing way of, on the national level, avoiding going too fair in one direction or another.

Very well said.  You must have a Superior upbringing.

And.... In before the lock.

[dgies9156]

Very well said.  You must have a Superior upbringing.

And.... In before the lock.

That and my Marquette education, which came from my Superior background!

[rocket surgeon]

As I stated in the beginning, I tried to bring up a point of view from about as an apolitical stance as I could to how maybe MU could offer something a little closer to where it was, say 30-40 years ago. That maybe it would be a refreshing change from the "status quo". It just seemed that over these past 30/40, if you weren't hillsdale college, you were Berkeley.  Why not something in between.  Whenever asking why why why...follow the money

[GGGG]

As I stated in the beginning, I tried to bring up a point of view from about as an apolitical stance as I could to how maybe MU could offer something a little closer to where it was, say 30-40 years ago. That maybe it would be a refreshing change from the "status quo". It just seemed that over these past 30/40, if you weren't hillsdale college, you were Berkeley.  Why not something in between.  Whenever asking why why why...follow the money

Follow what money?  I can pretty much guaranty you that Marquette's major donor base is significantly more conservative than the faculty and student body.

And its pretty hard to not make it political when you say crap like "if you weren't hillsdale college, you were Berekely."  That's simply absurd.  Marquette is nowhere close to Berkeley despite what an 80 year old dentist from Burlington thinks.  I think your impression of what is going on at Marquette really doesn't match the reality, but instead of educating yourself on that point, you decided to go full "talking point."

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Follow what money?  I can pretty much guaranty you that Marquette's major donor base is significantly more conservative than the faculty and student body.

And its pretty hard to not make it political when you say crap like "if you weren't hillsdale college, you were Berekely."  That's simply absurd.  Marquette is nowhere close to Berkeley despite what an 80 year old dentist from Burlington thinks.  I think your impression of what is going on at Marquette really doesn't match the reality, but instead of educating yourself on that point, you decided to go full "talking point."

Happy Thanksgiving, Pontiff.

[jesmu84]

As I stated in the beginning, I tried to bring up a point of view from about as an apolitical stance as I could to how maybe MU could offer something a little closer to where it was, say 30-40 years ago. That maybe it would be a refreshing change from the "status quo". It just seemed that over these past 30/40, if you weren't hillsdale college, you were Berkeley.  Why not something in between.  Whenever asking why why why...follow the money

What, specifically, was different at Marquette 30 years ago vs today?

[4everwarriors]

Watt's UW-Whitewater's USNWR's rankin' again, hey?

[WarriorDad]

It's been my experience that the general student body is significantly more liberal than the faculty at the vast majority of campuses. Universities are not indoctrinating students. If anything they are reigning them in a keeping them from going too far to the left.

As it has been for years,  the youngest generation is more liberal than the one before it. College is often the first time that a student has been encouraged to seek self determination rather than conformity. This creates the illusion that colleges turn students liberal. It's not the case, college is just the first place were they've been told its okay to choose their own ideologies.

That may be a Texas thing.  Washington Post found something different.






Liberal professors outnumber conservative ones 12:1 in some areas

https://econjwatch.org/articles/faculty-voter-registration-in-economics-history-journalism-communications-law-and-psychology


More broadly across wider academic fields, 5:1

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/11/the-dramatic-shift-among-college-professors-thats-hurting-students-education/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.88a57a2c5334

[Lennys Tap]

That may be a Texas thing.  Washington Post found something different.






Liberal professors outnumber conservative ones 12:1 in some areas

https://econjwatch.org/articles/faculty-voter-registration-in-economics-history-journalism-communications-law-and-psychology


More broadly across wider academic fields, 5:1

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/11/the-dramatic-shift-among-college-professors-thats-hurting-students-education/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.88a57a2c5334

Wow. 33.5 Democrat history profs for every 1 Republican. Speaks volumes.

[GGGG]

Wow. 33.5 Democrat history profs for every 1 Republican. Speaks volumes.

Yep. It's been obvious for awhile that Republicans are poor students of history.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

That may be a Texas thing.  Washington Post found something different.






Liberal professors outnumber conservative ones 12:1 in some areas

https://econjwatch.org/articles/faculty-voter-registration-in-economics-history-journalism-communications-law-and-psychology


More broadly across wider academic fields, 5:1

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/11/the-dramatic-shift-among-college-professors-thats-hurting-students-education/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.88a57a2c5334

Not just Texas thing. Also a Marquette, Michigan and Utah thing in my experience. I'd be curious how WaPo gathered that data. I would imagine most categorize themselves as moderate...but they're view of moderate may not be the same.

Liberal professors outnumbering conservative ones is no surprise. Those with higher levels of education have always leaned to the left.