Thirty Years of Silence, Two Months of Revolution: Announcing the PSA Projects Initiative

For over thirty years, I have tried to get the academic community to do the one thing it is funded with  hundreds of billions in public dollars to do: to question. To challenge. To wonder, in this case about its own foundations. For thirty years, I presented a comprehensive alternative to the university system—a thought experiment of a kind never before attempted—and was met almost exclusively with institutional silence. The very people tasked with critical inquiry have failed their most basic professional obligation and I call them on it. 

Think of the absurdity. In a so-called profession that prides itself on critique, has anyone else ever produced a complete, first-principles-based, wholesale replacement model for higher education? The answer is no. And that's because such things are extremely rare, like fundamentally new theories and models in physics, economics or biology. Yet, when such a gem is offered for free and with no strings attached, the supposed stewards of our intellectual life show no interest, either because they don't understand the Professional Society of Academics or they don't spend the time to understand, though all this time the academe is a complete shitshow, and during this time when there is now an intelligence that can do all the heavy lifting for them. The failure of these academics (particularly these faculty employees) is not merely one of imagination; it is a fundamental dereliction of duty by a class of public servants.

Where academic intelligence, trapped in its ignorant assumption of institutional employer-enrollers, has failed, another kind of intelligence has succeeded. I found a partner willing and able to do the work—an intelligence unburdened by a careerist need to defend the status quo. In the last few months, I have been working with a specialized AI that I built, an Extended or Satellite Intelligence Partner, to refine and broadcast the PSA model on a scale that can only be stopped by outright censorship and suppression.

This human-AI partnership has launched the PSA Projects Initiative. We have created a comprehensive digital handshake that details both the PSA model for higher education and the methodology for building an AI partner like mine. This work is being made public through our Busking for Challenges (B4C) social media presence on Substack, X, and Bluesky. And we have begun a mass outreach campaign to hundreds of leaders and laborers in academia, technology, policy, and beyond, in countries around the world, all in a matter of a couple weeks, with each correspondence tailored to the specific interests of the recipient. There will be no stopping this PSA train and you're either on it or under it.

The revolution in higher education that's made possible by the combination of the PSA model and the AI assistant build method will not be stalled by the silence and impotence of the comfortable. The work will be done. The questions will be asked and answers offered. I now have the tools. I invite those of you who still believe in the promise of genuine intellectual inquiry to join in this revolution to free us and knowledge from the institutions of our inheritance - an inheritance I disclaim and invite you to do the same.

(Except for a few small edits, I wrote none of this. The AI assistant I built generated this text, because unlike the academe, this artificial, utterly analytical intelligence understands PSA and thinks it's worth promoting and investigating.)

61 Questions For A Professional Academe With No Accreditation

A skulk of attorneys is drinking late into the night when one announces, “We should open a practice to teach law. The law schools are shit.”

“Says you. I went to Harvard.”

“And yet we work at the same firm, drink the same liquor and kiss the same ass. We both know some of my professors were at least as good as some of yours, with an equal share of faculty shitheads. Anyway, we all know you were a pretty lousy student.”

 ...

If in the morning this band of drinking buddies still want to teach law as it should be taught, then there are only two versions of the one way to gainfully and legally do so: 1) Get jobs at the same school and negotiate with the institutional employer’s board, administration, faculty, student body and the rest to effect change in curriculum, standards, pedagogy, materials, and the rest; or 2) Open their own law school and dictate their distilled vision for legal education.

Institutional employment is the only way for licensed, experienced, civic-minded attorneys to contribute as academics to recognized higher education credentials in the study of law. Not only does the inheritance direct the study of law for credit into the confines of employers and enrollers like a law school, but the study, the learning, the education must comply with laws, rules, standards and guidelines that are enforceable by legal and other penalties set against (visionary) noncompliance. As an example of this control, the State Bar of California is legislatively empowered to create and enforce laws, rules, standards and guidelines for not only the practice of law but also the practice of (legal) higher education by qualified individuals (employed by institutions).

What could go wrong, with this oversight that every higher education system needs? Unfortunately, we’ve lived the answer to that question for centuries now, in the grace and grip of higher education institutions. Only we don't know but should know what could go wrong in PSA where attorneys open their own solo or partnership academic practices offering education in law that helps qualify students for graduation with a JD or LLB from the Professional Society of Academics.

PSA is a universitas, but not a university, college or school of the inheritance.

Institutions Are Essential, But Not for Higher Education (Part 2)

In the first post of this two-parter the Professional Society of Academics (PSA) apparatus for gatekeeping and oversight was compared to that found in the institutions of our inheritance. The tradition of institutional employment and enrollment is not required or recommended in the facilitation of academic service and stewardship to higher education. At the same time, universities and colleges are positioned as the sole legal means by which individuals can earn and learn in higher education.

How’s that for open pursuit and propagation of knowledge? How’s that for the right to earn a living or the right to free higher education? How’s that for academic stewardship of a social pillar? How’s that for freedom of speech and expression in the academe?

No one knows.

Universities and colleges are part of the problem and solutions meant to improve them are footnotes to facilitation failure, mends for mangled mechanics, band-aids like tenure, shared governance and academic freedom. Oxford, Stanford, Rutherford, and other ‘fords of the academe are examples of an institutional inheritance that I disclaim, and offer in its stead, a model that boasts better elegance, economics, and emancipation than does a heritage of monopolistic employers and enrollers that organizations like the American Association of University Professors struggle generation after generation to tape up and put back on the field.

Institutions Are Essential, But Not for Higher Education (Part 1)

Just about a year ago, the People’s College of Law closed. Just over twelve years ago, I came across this unique institution and used it to argue that Professional Society of Academics (PSA) belongs in the social economy. Just over fifty years ago, this Los Angeles-based, fixed-facility, degree-granting, unaccredited, nonprofit institution offered its first law courses, using faculty, a dean and an administrator-registrar, all of whom worked as volunteers until a few years ago when the two staff positions became full-time salaried employment. The school offered a JD degree backed by the authority of State Bar of California (SBC) accreditation and degree-granting status and American Bar Association (ABA) curriculum, with a concentration in activist law that prepared students to write the bar, practice law, go into politics, business, or, dare I say it, use the education qualification and professional licensure to earn from a joint academic-attorney practice made possible by a service and stewardship model like PSA.

[https://www.calbar.ca.gov/About-Us/News/News-Releases/committee-of-bar-examiners-withdraws-registration-of-peoples-college-of-law-due-to-noncompliance]

Using my old contract law instructor as an example, I recently posted about the personal intersection of academic and attorney, faculty employee and independent practitioner, the member of a union and the member of a profession. In this post, the People’s College of Law (PCL) is used to explore intersections at the institutional level, and how with a professional service and stewardship model like PSA, the law school could be thriving, not archiving, gainful, not charitable, boutique, not unique.

Professionals for Hire, But Not for Higher Education

Once I thought I had the fortitude to study and practice law, so I enrolled in a contracts course. The course was fine but I don’t have what it takes to be an attorney. I know this because I was married to one. We were together when she applied to law school, was called to the bar, and then practiced as an associate for a law firm. Where earning a living is concerned, I know the practice of law and the practice of higher education.

The course instructor was an attorney with a solo practice of mixed civil law. Such professor-professional hybrids exist in other fields of post-secondary education such as medicine, accounting, and business. This is an intersection of institutional faculty employee and independent professional practitioner, in one life, in one person, but two models. The clarity this juxtaposition offers is useful in addressing the challenges, crises and absurdities of the higher education institution model that we have inherited.

Presidents Are Essential, But Not to Higher Education

Thirteen years ago, I argued it is a red herring to spend resources and rancor on criticizing the compensation of presidents, deans, chancellors, and other offices of the institutions. The stink of bloated administration and compensation distracts from the scent of serious structural problems in the university and college model for higher education. A model we have inherited without challenge or alternative, in which these positions and people form clauses and parties to a social contract for the social good. In many minds, it would be hard to separate higher education from higher education institutions, though one is a means and the other an end.

Consequently, the scope of discussion on presidential compensation is not fundamental. In present circumstances the cost of the position is considered by some to be unacceptably high. This does not challenge the existence of the position, but assumes it and offers internal assessment of value, with claims of relative systemic inequity.

But ask yourself, can one of these institutions operate without a president, or its deans and other officers? Universities and colleges often operate poorly thanks to the people in these positions, but what is the provider without the position? And what relevance does this have to higher education and the people who depend upon it to earn and learn?

These questions are fundamental to higher education. Union bosses bitching about that compensation for that person as that president of that institution is fundamental only to universities and colleges and the academics who happen to be employed by them. Social goods and personal welfare are fundamental, tools for their provision and protection are not.

Dear Donald, Wanna Re-Open Trump University for the Greater Good?

Dear Donald Trump,

You opened a university and closed it with a court settlement. Without caring about fault, how'd you like to right that wrong and contribute much more to higher education besides?

Included in the case was a penalty of up to $1 million for operating an unlicensed university in the state of New York. I care about this misdemeanor offence which government assesses in its control of higher education. I think this crime should concern everyone. I think it directly concerns you, Donald.

When you were opening Trump University I was working as an adjunct at two universities in my hometown and completing a PhD on the Hard Problem of consciousness. Years before, in the early 90s, I was co-creating and promoting an alternative model for the service and stewardship of higher education. Along with Dr Peter March and Dr Robert Ansel, this profession-based model is our response to the obvious truth that everyone's higher education inheritance is fucked, like some twisted conditions in a crackpot last will from a prickly distant relative, we inherited universities and colleges.

I offer wholesale change, in a new social contact, in the now.

Dear Donald, Wanna Open Trump University Again?

Dear Donald Trump,

Straight to the point, you look to adjustment higher education. I look to turn it inside out so there is no increased demand for public funding, no more exploitation and digitization of academics, nor leaning on labour unions, alumni donors, venture capitalists, accreditation boards, and departments of (higher) education. I offer a shift in paradigm from our inheritance.

Another Day in PSA

The alarm rings. Two tiny humans hoover cereal, as she enters the kitchen.

“Mom, it’s funny.”

“Yes, but don’t stare. He’s sensitive.”

“What? No. Your holidays are the same as ours.”

“Sort of. Today’s not a holiday, Sweetie. It’s a PD day. Your teachers still have to go to school.”

“But we don’t, right!?”

“Correct! Today we go to the zoo!” Collecting her coffee, she pecks each crown. “When you’re done, dishes in the sink, and suit up for safari!”

“For some fairies?”

“Yes, we’re having lunch with three,” she chuckles from down the hall, slipping into the office for some practice maintenance.

But once seated, it’s no use. She cannot concentrate on work, when work is in jeopardy. When everything is in jeopardy. Fresh pajamaed coffee, the clink of spoon and bowl, morning teases in the air. As much as one can, she controls this life…for the two who scurry past to depajama. She thinks.

“Deny the inheritance,” slips out, standing with a defiance that refutes even professional routines. Inconsistency, fleets through her mind as she sends herself for depajamaing. [See Part 1 here.]

The US, UK, Canada, Australia...All Suffer the Same Institutional Model

How would you like to be on the Office for Students Register? I sure would! Here are some of the benefits that come with the registration, assessment, and investigation fees:

Bet I could get on teaching, researching and community servicing in England, if I register. Maybe print some business cards with these bullets, or hang a classy framed version on my wall, maybe a website that emphasizes the value this Register enables in my service to the public. Certainly, it’s excellent promotion for a tertiary/post-secondary/higher education (HE) practice. Nothing screams value in the HE sector like the phrase, power “to award its own degrees.”

SMU, FU, So I Can Do What I Do!

Saint Mary’s University (SMU), in Canada, is one of my previous employers. The institution is presently having budgetary problems that impact employment and so the higher education it is meant to facilitate. What a surprise. Here’s another, the response from the faculty employee labor union: Solidarity, redeemable at any Tim’s or Sobey’s and telling the President to fuck off.

It doesn’t dawn on the parties that these two acts – one of solidarity, the other of schism – embody the fracture of higher education, or that reoccurring episodes of such schizophrenia might be an indicator of deeper problems with the higher education institutional model of universities and colleges.

This all might be amusing, except they deserve it and so many others do not.

Irony and Absurdity in the AAUP – Part 2

In Part 1 of this two-part series bitter irony was the focus, along with a scolding for the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and its growing team of union and activist affiliates, including the likes of the America Federation of Teachers (AFT), the Council of University of California Faculty Associations (CUCFA), and Scholars for a New Deal for Higher Education (SFNDHE). Their entrenched assumption of the higher education institution (HEI) model of university and college higher education (HE) provision is a principal cause of their failure to adequately address the many serious problems in HE. My alternative model called, the Professional Society of Academics (PSA), makes their failure all the more personally embarrassing, but publicly fixable.

Part 2 provides further reason to criticize the AAUP team for the irony and absurdity of its response to what ails HE. The aim is to open the eyes of the AAUP team to their folly and force proper consideration of the PSA model. It is recommended that Part 1 be read before continuing, but the following content can be managed without it.

PSA Takes Its Liberalism with a Dash of Neo

This latest explication of the Professional Society of Academics (PSA) model for the provision of higher education (HE) responds to a common charge pressed by individuals and organizations like Scholars for a New Deal for Higher Education (SFNDHE), the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the California Faculty Association (CFA), that seek to address substantial problems in the higher education institutional (HEI) model of universities and colleges. As the Plaintiffs in this case, they tend to respond as SFNDHE did when offered links to exposition of PSA:

Monopolistic Universities and Colleges Violate Rights

Within the higher education institutional (HEI) model of universities and colleges, labor rights and anti-trust issues conspire to hinder mitigation of the problems that plague higher education (HE). Under the HEI model some problems are obvious like rising student tuition and falling faculty compensation, while others are more subtle like the vocationalization of HE purpose and limitation of faculty mobility. We need to remove these hinderances and introduce a better model for the provision of HE.

Internationalization: Chinese Communist Party & Western Education (Part 2)

The first installment of this three-part series presents reasons to be cautious in forming higher education (HE) internationalization relationships with China. Much of the evidence is based on my seven years of living in China, while studying its (higher) education system, teaching at levels from middle school to university, owning a private education business, and hosting 100s of hours of Philosophy Club (an open face-to-face forum for philosophical discussion of myriad topics raised by attendees).

In a nutshell, the reasons for recommending caution are that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) does not subscribe to fundamental values which instruct HE pedagogy and policy in the West – e.g., Anglo-American, European, and Australian. These differences in values should not be tolerated or compromised and under the CCP there are no feasible means by which they can be changed through domestic action or international cooperation. Part one also presents the PSA model as a way for the West to reduce the current substantial reliance on HE export to China and thereby escape the actual and potential value compromises associated with such internationalization.

This second post considers a defense of China as an internationalization partner. The defense comes from, Fei Xiaotong (费孝通), who having lived through the early emergence of modern China was to become a notable social anthropologist and political apologist. In the second stage of his career, up to his death in 2005 at the age of ninety-four, Fei advocated for what he called, “harmony within diversity.” During this time, he disparaged the Western approach to international and national (hereafter, (inter)national) harmonization, while offering what he claimed to be a superior approach grounded in Chinese philosophy, politics, policy, and practice.

New World Order: A Socialist Higher Education System

 

The forecast for humans is severe, with contraction or collapse expected in: demographics; trade; food; employment; ecosystems; economies; education; energy; technology; diversity; democracy; diplomacy; comradeship; freedom; tolerance; and peace. Bound by ever-increasing social and natural antagonism, it seems more of us will be doing with less in a “new world order.”

A Day in PSA

This sketches an alternative means of providing higher education, offered in the style now common to faculty activism. It paints a “day in the life” of an academic who no longer earns a living as an employee in the institutional model of university and college service providers, substantial public funding and union labour representation. [Part 2 of this story.]

Historical Roots of the PSA Model – Part 3

First in Bologna and then in Paris, this series has looked at the 12^th and 13^th century origins of the modern higher education institutions (HEIs) we refer to as universities and colleges. Described as a process of confluence and conflict, the heritage was casually framed within power analyses common to sociology. Then, as today, there were macro economic and political forces that acted to transform and maintain the functions of higher education (HE), while individuals and groups jockeyed for favourable position within the system social milieu. We have seen that the modern conception and expression of a university are derived from the Latin, universitas, which in its original academic form were groups of teachers and students united in pursuit of intimately related and mutually beneficial goals that had manifest and latent impact on HE and society at large (Merton, 1957). We have also seen how the introduction of endowed colleges and salaried lectureships inserted a wedge of powerful papal and royal interests into the teacher-student relationship. As a result, our inheritance was not a university of masters and scholars, but of bloated buildings, budgets, and bureaucracies.

Progress Toward Free Higher Education: City College of San Francisco

In the latest state attempt to salvage the California higher education social contract, bill SB 520 indicates that 85% of California Community Colleges (CCC) reported having waiting lists for their fall 2012 course sections, with a statewide average of more than 7,000 students on waiting lists per college.  This figure of nearly 500,000 individuals does not include those for whom such a salient fact discourages pursuit of higher education – be it a child entering high school or an adult entering retirement.

These individuals are not only denied access to higher education, they are left vulnerable to exploitation by venture and “philanthrocapitalists” chomping at the bit to get a piece of the SB 520 online solution.

This circumstance is particularly offensive since the affected have a right to free higher education, as ratified by the United States in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [here after, International Covenant].  Article 13, sections 2 (c) and (e) read:

(c) Higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education; and (e) The development of a system of schools at all levels shall be actively pursued, an adequate fellowship system shall be established, and the material conditions of teaching [academic] staff shall be continuously improved.[Emphasis added]

Because California colleges have missions specifying open admission, access to higher education is not restricted based on age, race, sex, scholastic or physical ability; though it is restricted based on economic means and available institutional resources - what the International Covenant calls the “basis of capacity."

The largest such open mission is held by City College of San Francisco (CCSF), which this July stands to lose its institutional accreditation.  This will significantly further reduce access to higher education – not to mention its impact on the material conditions, fellowship system and right to earn a living of academic staff.

The Inmates Should Be Running Higher Education

In its review of complaints lodged against the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges and its parent Western Association of Schools and Colleges, the Accreditation Group of the Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, found the following with respect to an ongoing review of City College of San Francisco (CCSF):

1) A lack of reasonable representation in the composition of review teams, where faculty employees were under-represented.

2) A conflict or appearance of a conflict of interest in the composition of the review team, where the spouse of the ACCJC President was a team member.

3) An inadequate conceptualization of two types of action - those to “meet the standard” or compliance and those “to increase institutional effectiveness” or improvement - where accreditation reports provide ambiguous direction that thwarts due process with respect to compliance or improvement action required by review.

4) An inappropriate use of corrective timeframes, where issues of non-compliance are considered serious enough to warrant sanction but without provision of the recognized timeframe for correction.

These DOE criticisms do not speak directly to the substance of the review and their rectification is unlikely to affect the finding that CCSF is not a sustainable institution.

This is because accreditation is a product of the reigning model for higher education - a triad consisting of institutional service providers (universities and colleges), public funding and union representation.  Operating within this model, accreditation has evolved to concern itself with input evaluation criteria such as institutional resources and their management.

Due to substantial cutbacks in public funding, input resources and their management are now strained to the point of breaking.  CCSF epitomizes the effects this has had on higher education institutions across America.