Earlier this spring, I was one of the leaders of the hundreds of universities and academic societies for the “Creative Call for Participation” published by the American College Association and the American College Association. Statement opposes “an unprecedented governmental excessive violations and political interventions now endanger American higher education.” It calls for freedom to determine on academic grounds who acknowledge, what teaches, how and how and whom, while carrying out constructive reforms and opening up of legitimate government supervision.
Deciding whether to make such a public statement deserves careful consideration. This is because by making a statement, higher education leaders may not reflect the views of all voters in their institutions.
The 1970s alum email reminded me of this. Alumni signed a statement on me, signed a statement for certain members of our university community (such as him) and banded alongside other higher education institutions that have become “propaganda and misunderstood liberals… [that] Publicly allow anti-Israel protests led by anti-Semitic educators… [and] Become another left-wing terrorist organization that supports Hamas. ”
The alum asked me to remove my signature from the AAC&U statement because he raised concerns. So far, a higher education leader has done so, most likely because of receiving comments from our alums.
I chose to reply to our alums to practice constructive engagement as stated in the AAC&U statement. My reply asked the alumni how long it has been since he last visited the campus and whether he knew that we had renovated the Hillel House on campus last summer due to the charitable generosity of some fellow graduates.
I asked the alumni if he had heard of the common ground plan that Alfred had developed in 2018 through the charitable support of our trustees. This is a necessary course for all of our new undergraduates, a group conversation promoted by a faculty or staff with two key goals: 1) Better appreciation of different backgrounds (including location, race and religion), our freshmen’s ideas for Alfred’s students are different, our freshmen have different students, our new students, our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students, and our new students are the necessary courses for all our new undergraduates, and our new students are the necessary courses for a group conversation, and our new students are the necessary courses for the first time. This is a necessary course for all our new undergraduates, and our new students are the necessary courses for the first time. This is a necessary course for a group conversation.
By promoting constructive participation, our shared foundational program may help prevent conflicts on many other university campuses following the October 7 terrorist attacks on Israel and subsequent wars in the Middle East. When members of campus communities develop meaningful relationships with each other, they are unlikely to retreat to the ideological corner when potential conflicts occur. Instead, they speak like friends.
I asked the alumni and I closed my email if he had any influential mentors as a student.
To my surprise, the alumni answered a particularly influential teacher tutor in the field of astronomy who gave him many applied learning opportunities and sparked a lifelong interest in stargazing, and he continued to do that from home. He also points out how his college education positioned his career success.
Since then, we have spoken over the phone. Although we still disagree with certain issues, we found some common ground.
We agree that higher education institutions are a powerful engine for the success of graduates and our nation’s prosperity and the health and well-being of our wider population. There are nearly 4,000 higher education institutions in our country – covering both public and private, including community universities, technical training institutions, art schools, religious institutions and HBCUS. This person can all find a place that provides powerful opportunities for professional and personal progress, social mobility, entrepreneurial innovation, access to health care, defense, social services and cultural products.
We agree that the core focus of higher education institutions should be to provide education for lasting value by developing knowledge and curiosity.
We also agree that like individuals and nations, universities do not always align toward wisdom. They can trip and benefit from constructive reforms. Our field of higher education can and should be a better audience for our public, more concerned with the cost of college and more on student success, and less on the success of our students.
However, despite the chance of being institutions of higher education, as Israeli historian Yuval Hariri points out in his recent book relationhas some powerful self-correction mechanisms, such as peer review. In contrast, authoritarian regimes lack this mechanism of self-correction when suppressing inquiries and criticism.
Consider Katalin Karikó, who immigrated to the United States from her native Hungary, and sewed it in her daughter’s teddy bear for $1,200 in cash to study mRNA. At the University of Pennsylvania, her hypothesis about the effectiveness of mRNA research has been ridiculed by most researchers around the world. She was deprived of her tenure position and was demoted. However, the research she has been doing is crucial to the development of a common vaccine and won the Nobel Prize in 2023.
Although we and our alums still disagree whether my signature should be posted in the AAC&U statement, we ultimately agree on the value of constructive participation and the key to making it a core value in higher education.
