The AAUP, the ACTA, and the PSA

Continuously and effectively, I criticize the institutional inheritance of university and college employer-enrollers that’s monopolized the facilitation of higher education for nearly a millennium now. I have more recently directed my criticism at the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), which claims to be a champion of all things related to this inherited higher education institution (HEI) model. I have been working on this social good reform or revolution project for over thirty years, ever since I co-invented and developed the Professional Society of Academics (PSA) model as replacement or complement for the HEI model.

There are only two ways to stop me from criticizing the ignorant, irresponsible assumption of universities and colleges: Someone or some group that has more reach and authority than myself takes up the PSA project or someone refers me to material that successfully argues a professional model for higher education service and stewardship is not viable or desirable. In the meantime, my immediate strategy is to make the AAUP the focus of PSA criticism. To that end, here is the first in a series of posts that criticizes the policies, practices and actions of this organization over its 110 years of ignorant, irresponsible and unnecessary stewardship. I will be forwarding these posts to critics of the AAUP, of which there are a growing number, particularly during this period of social, political and fiscal unrest that is but one more instance in a long history of HEI model unrest.

The AAUP Can't Generate a Coherent Comment Policy, Never Mind the Future Academe

The American Association of University Professors recently revised its comment policy for the Academe Blog and it's a deeply revealing document. It reveals just how stunted and scared is this professional/labor union organization. While ostensibly framed to ensure civil and productive dialogue, the new restriction in particular—concerning an outright ban on comments written "with the assistance of generative AI"—demands critical analysis that opens up a broader look at this ordinary element of an organization of PhDs that declare themselves stewards for the social good and freedom of expression.

From the perspective of the Professional Society of Academics (PSA), these rules are not merely procedural; they are potent symptoms of the defensive posture of the Higher Education Institution (HEI) model and its associated guardians. They raise fundamental questions about the AAUP's commitment and competence regarding open inquiry and the very nature of academic freedom in the 21st century.

[IMPORTANT NOTE: It should be said that the AAUP has blocked me on X (Twitter) for doing what I am doing in this post, though there I did it with more decorum than these dipshits deserve. Further, though I don't yet claim to have sufficient documented evidence of it, after checking back over months of Academe Blog comment sections, I could detect no obvious AI-generated comments, in fact there are normally very few comments and the functionality is turned off within a few weeks. But more than that, after this initial research into past comments on the Academe Blog, I found that I am the only commenter to openly acknowledge my use of a Constitutional AI assistant--that I built quite by accident and I'm offering a manual here on B4C for anyone to build an AI-assistant for themselves. If a guy thought himself relevant, he'd think the AAUP's comment policy change was directed at him specifically.]

by Shawn Warren, mostly generated through PSAI-Us (a specialized instance of Gemini Pro developed by Warren to understand and produce text on the reasoning that follows)

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:

Who’s Ready to Take Risks for the Rewards of PSA?

Dr Lisa Corrigan of the University of Arkansas is doing what is expected of an academic. She is using her experience and expertise to engage with periods of deep social change. She has a vision of what higher education (HE) should be, including how it is meant to impact and be impacted by people. Given that HE is an important pillar of modern societies, the affected people are arguably every member of society. The battleground of social change in question is located in West Virginia, where its flagship R1 university has cut 28 programs from across its 355 majors and 143 of its 6,000+ full and part-time faculty. She is not alone in condemning what the consultants and administrators call, “rightsizing” the higher education institution (HEI). A wide audience has been following the case of West Virginia University (WVU), with many joining the local chorus of condemnation that includes: students, faculty, politicians, unions, taxpayers, even a notable from my neck of the woods, author Margret Atwood.

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.

CFA Is No Match for PSA: Professional Society vs Union Representation

Faculty of the California State University (CSU) system are once again fighting for a new employment contract. Not surprisingly, negotiations have not gone as hoped and so they are now moving to third-party mediation. Their union representative California Faculty Association (CFA) seeks a 12% general salary increase, better defined workloads, improved paid leave, and improved campus safety. From the point of view of faculty within the higher education institutional (HEI) model of university and college employment, the CFA has been doing much to improve compensation and working conditions.

This post goes through a 3-minute promotional video capturing and commenting on the various claims in support of CFA efforts, while providing links to PSA blog posts that elaborate the commentary. The principal source of testimonials is CSU employees classified as lecturers, who earn an income of between $62,016 and $83,352 on 12-month contracts and constitute at least 45% of the faculty staff, though they have very little say in the shared governance of the CSU system, which has no where near the number of faculty necessary to meet the general demand for HE.

PSA Takes Common Strategies to Logical Conclusions

Eleven years ago, I wrote this open letter to American academics offering the Professional Society of Academics (PSA) model for higher education (HE) (2012). Ten years ago, I wrote this to help the City College of San Francisco when its accreditation was to be pulled because its finances were tanking (2013). Nine years ago, I wrote this to help the City of Detroit during its urban collapse due to the 2008 economic recession (2014). Last year, I wrote this to help all troubled universities and colleges, using the Illinois examples of two now closed institutions, Lincoln College and Lincoln Christian University (2022). In between I have explained that according to the PSA model:

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.

Internationalization: Chinese Communist Party & Western Education (Part 1)

This is the first post in a three-part series that explores why nations such as the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia, Norway, Finland, France, Demark, Germany, and the like – what will hereafter be referred to as the “West” – should be very cautious about forming higher education (HE) relationships with China. At the same time, it explains how, compared to the higher education institution (HEI) model of universities and colleges, PSA can better serve internationalization goals while protecting the Western ethos of HE. Initial discussion emphasizes socio-political considerations and then turns to economic, while both sections engage academics.

Parts two and three of this series respond to social anthropologist Fei Xiaotong’s (费孝通) cultural self-awareness strategy for (inter)national harmonization and his claim that (Communist) China offers a better model for internationalization than does the West.

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.]

Higher Education Is Not A Game

[NOTE: The following is not a crisis call nor is it meant as an indictment of the integrity of the profession or any particular individual with in it. Instead, it is observation meant to raise consciousness and present PSA’s correction of the gaming problem in higher education systems around the world.]

The Nature of Higher Education Gaming

Gaming the higher education (HE) system is a form of cheating and cheating is a problem for all education systems, at all levels. Along with other known and yet to be conceived means, gaming occurs when: 1) Students exchange homework, use crib notes during exams, and engage in contract cheating such as hiring ghost writers for essays or “gunmen” (as they are called in China) to impersonate and take tests for them or even take the entire course or degree. 2) Teachers artificially inflate class averages, create inappropriately easy assignments or tests, take bribes to inflate individual grades, take bribes to accept students to athletic programs, and engage in acts of fraud and plagiarism in research publication. 3) Higher education institutions (HEIs) accept bribes to admit un(der)qualified students, lie about key stats that affect institutional placement on university ranking systems, admit un(der)qualified students who might contribute to collegiate sports, put pressure on faculty to (for instance) artificially reduce class failure rates.