Posted on May
7, 2018 by Jerri-Lynn Scofield
By Jerri-Lynn Scofield
It’s not exactly breaking news
to assert that big donors– such as the Koch Brothers– spend money to manipulate
public policy. Some expenditures take the form of political contributions,
while other funding seeks to shape the production and dissemination of ideas–
either through the media or in academia.
Last week, documents released
during discovery in a lawsuit filed against George Mason University provide a
window into the details of how this influence is exerted. The suit was filed by
the activist group Unkoch
My Campus, and out to compel George Mason University (GMU) to release donor
agreements, citing Virginia public disclosure laws. Emails and supporting
documentation are found here.
Wowsers! Let the games begin.
Antonin Scalia Law School,
Federalist Society, Corrupt Admissions Decisions
The NYT (here and here), WaPo, Truthout all featured coverage last week of the
disclosures. I found Truthout most useful for distilling the salient points
about donor influence at the recently renamed Antonin Scalia Law School,
following a $30 million anonymous donation. I’ll address the law school
situation first.
The Truthout account discusses
the role of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies– the
rightwing organisation that has had an outsize impact on judicial selection for
decades, most recently in the appointment of Neal Gorsuch to the Supreme Court–
in how the law school will use its windfall:
In the newly released emails
between Federalist Society leaders, the dean of the law school and other top
officials plot out additional ways to use the donation, communicating about a
“five-year plan” for the law school and candidates for new professorships, potential
students and judicial clerk positions.
So far, really nothing out of
the ordinary, this is business as usual for the Federalist Society. Some
further details from the Grey Lady story, What Charles Koch and Other Donors to George Mason University
Got for Their Money:
Emails disclosed by the
university show that Federalist Society officials were also involved in hiring
discussions and had suggested a student for admission. In turn, a professor at
the law school wrote the society asking for help securing recommendations for
prestigious federal judicial clerkships for students active in the society.
As is far from unusual in such
situations, the problem only arose with the cover-up, When asked by the faculty
what conditions applied to this anonymous donation, the provost tried to
obfuscate. Over to Truthout:
At a faculty senate meeting on April 6, 2016, George Mason
University Provost S. David Wu told faculty and university officials that the
donations came with “no strings attached, and the scholarship decisions are
made by GMU. The entire $30M is for scholarships for students and nothing
else.”
The story may have held– until
last week’s document dump. Oops! Truthout again:
The emails between donors and
the law school that were disclosed on Monday tell a different story. The
emails, which law school alumna Allison Pienta requested and then released
through UnKoch My Campus, show Leo and Butler sharing information about faculty
hiring, prospective law students, judicial law clerk suggestions, allocation of
the grant money and even about faculty taking leave to work in the Trump
administration.
We all know this goes on, of
course. Does anyone think that these extreme libertarian and right-wing ideas
are so widespread because they’re actually better ideas? No, I don’t think
so. If you do, I have some old Tsarist bonds I’d like to sell you.
But first, allow me a brief
aside: kudos to the people– largely students– who’ve organised to UnKoch their
university. Just like the students responsible for the gun movement,
they’re actually trying to address, do something to change things– rather than
throwing up their hands in despair — or capitulating to cynical realism– and
saying that’s just the way of the world, folks.
Restricting Academic Freedom:
Mercatus and the Economics Faculty
NC is primarily an economics
and finance blog, so what I’m most interested in discussing in this post is not
the goings on at the law school, but just how donor influence shaped academic
hiring and retention decisions, in the economics faculty and at the Mercatus
Center, described by WaPo as “a free-market research group that is based at
the university but is an independent organization.” In particular, I will note
the role of economist and Mercatus Center Director Tyler Cowen in at minimum
signing off on these funding agreements with the Kochs and other funders.
Cowen’s prominently highlighted in both the press release and underlying
supporting documents, but curiously — ahem– absent in both the NYT and WaPo
accounts.
These documents show Cowen– in
his role as general director of the Mercatus Center– signing off on agreements
creating Mercatus Center/Economics Professorships (see, e.g.,2003 Mercatus Smith Chair July 14, 2003;2007 Mercatus Smith/Koch Professorship June 11,
2007; 2007 Mercatus BB&T professorship (Boettke) June
11, 2007; 2007 Mercatus Smith Bastiat Professorship June 11, 2007; 2007 Mercatus BB&T Professorship Leeson (June 11,
2007): 2007 Mercatus Tullock Black Professorship August
8, 2007; 2007 Mercatus Fullinwider ProfessorshipAugust 8,
2007; 2009 Mercatus Charles Koch Professorship month
unclear/3/9; 2011 Mercatus BB&T Professorship (Boettke)
That these agreements violate
standard academic norms was conceded almost immediately after the documents
were released in an email GMU president Ángel Cabrera sent on April 27, 2018:
As a result of a FOIA request,
last week I was made aware of a number of gift agreements that were accepted by
the university between 2003 and 2011 and raise questions concerning donor
influence in academic matters. The gifts were in support of faculty positions
in economics and granted donors some participation in faculty selection and
evaluation. Except for the most recent one, these agreements have expired.
The agreements did not give
donors control over academic decisions, and all but the earliest of these
agreements explicitly stated that the final say in all faculty appointments
lies in university procedures. Yet these agreements fall short of the
standards of academic independence I expect any gift to meet. [ Jerri-Lynn
here: my emphasis.]
Since I arrived at Mason in
2012, I have made it a priority to have all gift agreements clearly uphold our
commitment to academic independence. As I have stated before, gifts may be
earmarked for programs, scholarships or faculty support, but donors may not
determine what is taught, what student is funded, or what professor is hired.
If these terms are not acceptable to donors, the gifts are kindly declined.
Two points: first, this is as
clear an admission as one could possibly expect from a university president
that norms of “academic independence” have been violated at his/her
institution.
Second, Cabrera asserts that
the problem has been corrected since he arrived at GMU. It’s hard to say
whether to credit this denial. The date of the latest disclosed agreement pis
2011. Absent access to subsequent agreements, we simply cannot know whether
Cabrera is telling us the truth. It’s a cliche but no less true that it’s
difficult to prove a negative. In the case of the law school (discussed above),
what the provost said the agreements said was simply not true. I suppose we’ll
have to wait to see how the litigation pays out before we know whether there
will be any more such agreements disclosed.
I’d like to delve a bit
further into just exactly how “these agreements fall short of the standards of
academic independence I expect any gift to meet.”
I’m no expert on the sort of
contract. But what leapt out at me was the role allowed for donors on the
selection committee– that set the initial shortlist of candidates; and the
advisory committee– whose members were drawn from the selection committee, and
who evaluated the professor’s work, and could recommend dismissal. As to the
second point, whether there were donors present or not, the role of the
advisory committee in annually assessing a professor’s work set off screaming
alarm bells for me.
Let’s start with selection.
Each of the 2007 and 2009 agreements specified:
2. Selection Committee. The
Selection Committee shall have five (5) members. The decision-making rule for
the Selection Committee shall be majority vote, except in the case of changing
or providing additional objectives or requirements, in which case the
decision-making rule shall be by unanimous vote. The members of the Initial
Selection Committee (i.e., the Selection Committee that chooses an Initial
Professor as defined in Section4,infra) will be: the President or Executive
Director of Mercatus or the most closely corresponding position, two (2)
members designated by the two donors that initiated the challenge, one of
whom must be a member of the GMU faculty, the Chair of the GMU department where
it is anticipated the Professor will receive the majority or all of his
appointment, and one (1) member of the same department, to be designated by the
department Chair. In addition to the Selection Committee, candidates will also
interview with specific members of Mercatus staff appointed by Mercatus General
Director (2007 Mercatus Smith/Koch Professorship June 11, 2007;
[Jerri-Lynn here. My emphasis.I’m quoting here from one of the agreements I
linked to above. The other 2007 and 2009 agreements are similar– if not
identical.]
Boiling this down “two donors
that initiated the challenge” means the donors– the challenge the agreement
refers to is the fundraising goal. This agreement gives the donor control over
two out of five members who do the initial selection of the candidate.
Now, it may be true, that the final selection is done according to the
normal academic norms of the institution. But by then, the fix would have been
in, and the selection committee would have enormous influence over who was
ultimately elected– simply by virtue of being allowed to make the initial
selection.
Now for more interesting
stuff. Okay, so the donor selects the candidate. Suppose that candidate
keeps his or her head down, and waits until s/he’s appointed to pursue academic
inquiries, without fear or favour. How would the donor exercise subsequent
control over the professor’s work?
I’m glad you asked.
Section 4 of the agreement
provides just exactly how an advisory committee– comprised of a subset of that
selection committee with two donor-approved members– will post facto sign
off on the professor’s work, as laid out below.
4. Advisory Board. An Advisory
Board shall be created and made up of three members of the selection committee
to be appointed by the Mercatus executive director to receive an annual summary
of the activities, accomplishments, and expenditures of the Professorship and
to review the administration of the agreement and a budget and plan for the
subsequent academic year. In doing so, it shall have the right to:
Consult with the Selection
Committee or the Mercatus Center or the grantor regarding the qualifications of
candidates for the Professorship;
Discuss with the Grantees and
their representatives/affiliates, their administrative officers or trustees,
the appointment of an occupant of the Professorship and any other matters
relating to carrying out the purposes for which the Professorship is
established;
Ensure compliance with the
terms of this agreement through appropriate administrative or legal channels;
Make periodic assessments of
the Professor’s performance and/or activities; an
Make a determination (based on
the individual’s performance or otherwise) that the professor filling the
Professorship is no longer qualified to do so, and upon this determination will
submit in writing to GMU and to Mercatus a recommendation that the professor be
removed from the Professorship (2007 Mercatus Smith/Koch Professorship).
The Advisory Board shall have
no authority or control, either directly or indirectly over the administration
of the Professorship or the selection of the occupant of the Professorship
except through its determination of an occupant’s continued qualification to
fill the professorship and shall only act as a body that has a continuing interest
in seeing that the terms and conditions of this agreement.
In Uncovering Koch Role in Faculty Hires, Inside Higher Ed
identifies in precisely what respect these agreements are unusual (to say the
least):
It is of course common for
donors who support professorships to specify the academic field or subfield. So
while the Koch family’s extensive giving to antiregulatory causes in politics
is controversial, it is not necessarily controversial that they fund
professorships in economics and even free-market economics. But academic values
have long held that donors don’t get to pick who holds chairs, or evaluate
them.
Indeed. I have nothing to add
so I won’t make this post any longer than it needs to be.
The Bottom Line
For the last word in what’s at
stake here, let me turn again to the WaPo account, quoting a GMU professor:
“It’s now abundantly clear
that the administration of Mason, in partnership with the Mercatus Center and
private donors, violated principles of academic freedom, academic control and
ceded faculty governance to private donors,” said Bethany Letiecq, an associate
professor of human development and family science at George Mason.
Letiecq, who is president of
George Mason’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors,
said she was bothered by language that indicated donors had power in faculty
hiring and a voice in decisions about whether professors remain at the school.
“These are all gross
violations of academic freedom,” she said. “Faculty hiring and faculty
retention are not the business of donors, in any way, shape or form.”
What Is To Be Done?
To answer this question, let
me permit me turn to Letiecq again:
But Letiecq, the George Mason
professor, said faculty members have been pushing Cabrera for information for
years, trying to figure out whether academic freedoms were being violated at the
school.
“And now we clearly understand
that they were,” she said. “And so, the next question is, what are they going
to do about it?”
That, my friends, is the
question.
No comments:
Post a Comment