Showing posts with label universities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label universities. Show all posts

Saturday, May 4, 2024

Free speech and universities

 At Stanford, recent event are helping us remember that our speech policy is the First Amendment.

That hasn't always been front of mind at Stanford, and now that it is, it is still distressing to see a student wearing a Hamas headband on campus, but it's worth remembering that freedom of speech is important, and important at universities. (The First Amendment is generally understood to also imply freedom of association, so you should feel free not to hire a Hamas supporter who graduates from Stanford.)

Here's the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Because the First Amendment only restricts government from abridging the freedom of speech, private universities (although not public ones) are entitled to have more restrictive speech codes.  But in California, the 1992 Leonard Law forbids private secular universities from restricting student speech  protected by the First Amendment.

In 1994, a court ruled (in the case of Corry v. Stanford) that a Stanford prohibition of certain "fighting words" when addressed to individuals violated the Leonard Law. Stanford's then president, Gerhard Casper, subsequently addressed the faculty senate, giving his thoughts on speech at a university:

Statement on Corry vs. Stanford University (by Gerhard Casper)

Here are his concluding sentences:

"Harassment, threats or intimidation continue to be unacceptable. Should they go beyond what is protected by law, we will invoke university disciplinary procedures. Otherwise, we shall continue to do what we always have done. We shall counter prejudice with reason. The work of reason is hard work, as is the work of building and maintaining a great private university. I invite all faculty, students and staff to continue the work of reason."

Saturday, November 11, 2023

Graduate hotels, and campus humor

 I've been spending some time at Berkeley this quarter, and have twice stayed at the Graduate Hotel adjacent to the campus, Graduate Berkeley.  The Graduate chain  of hotels has a business model in which they purchase an old hotel (in Berkeley it was the Durant), and update it in various ways. (As far as I can tell, every room has a poster from the movie The Graduate.)  They also feel free to take swipes at neighboring universities: a restroom off the lobby of the Berkeley hotel  includes some Stanford signage.


I notice that a Graduate hotel has recently opened in Palo Alto, near Stanford.  I'll have to stop there for a drink sometime.

Sunday, October 29, 2023

Transcript withholding by colleges and universities to be regulated

 Inside Higher Ed has the story:

U.S. Bans Most Withholding of Transcripts. The Education Department strengthens its oversight of institutions with a sweeping set of rules finalized this week.  By  Katherine Knott

"Afederal policy change could give thousands of students access to transcripts and academic credits their colleges have withheld because they owed the institutions money. The new rule, part of a broad package of regulations the U.S. Education Department unveiled Tuesday, could amount to a national ban on the practice of transcript withholding, experts say.

Institutions sometimes withhold transcripts to force a student to pay a balance on their account. Without their transcripts, students often can’t continue their education elsewhere without starting over, and they cannot apply for certain jobs. The practice has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years, with dozens of states enacting their own bans.

The department’s new rule is broader than what the agency proposed in May and would prevent a college or university from withholding a student’s transcript for terms in which a student received federal financial aid and paid off the balance for the term. Research from Ithaka S+R, a research and consulting group, has shown that about six million students have what are called stranded credits because of transcript withholding.

...

“For a large number of students and former students who are impacted by transcript withholding, this should solve a significant portion of the problem,” said Edward Conroy, a policy fellow at New America, a left-leaning think tank. “Because in most cases, even when former students owe larger debts, nobody owes a debt for the entirety of their degree. It might be for their last semester or something like that.”


Friday, October 27, 2023

HBS Dean Datar's statement about Hamas, Gaza, and antisemitism on campus

During World War II, many anti-Nazi people of good will  might have been disturbed by the firebombing of Dresden (sometimes said to be in retaliation for the firebombing of Coventry).   But I imagine that it would have been clear that their opposition to bombing the city of Dresden was not in any way support for the Nazi regime and its aims in the war and in the Holocaust. 

One of the disturbing things about current campus protests in support of the dire situation in which civilians find themselves in Gaza is that they often seem to be expressed as support for Hamas, and the goals that Hamas has so clearly expressed in words and in actions, to kill all the Jews living in Israel and perhaps elsewhere. Indeed the celebrations of Hamas began before Israel began to counterattack, while Hamas was still killing civilians in Israel.

Another disturbing thing is that American university leaders, who have often made clear moral statements about other matters, seem to subscribe to the view that regarding Hamas, 'there are fine people on both sides.'

I don't doubt that some demonstrators are supporting Hamas out of ignorance or indifference to its goals and its atrocities, not to mention of its mis-governance of Gaza.  But others are clearly anti-Semitic, and support genocide against Jews.

Harvard Business School's dean, Srikant Datar, has (in contrast to Harvard's top leadership), issued a statement that seems to me to include both recognition of the tangled politics of the Middle East, and a distinction between political opinions and hate speech. (Universities, which aren't government bodies, have some flexibility about regulating speech on campus, and don't universally protect hate speech, e.g. in general swastikas and nooses are condemned, even though the First Amendment to the Constitution limits what government bodies in the U.S. can do to curtail even hate speech.)

Here is Dean Datar's nuanced letter (that still manages to have relevant content):

Our Values 24 Oct 2023

 "Dear members of the HBS community,

Two weeks have passed since the horrific attack by Hamas on Israeli citizens. As I noted in my letter on October 10th, terrorist actions against civilians are not only unconscionable, they are inconsistent with our most fundamental values; as humans, we must condemn them. The atrocities carried out were heinous and they have left the Israeli and Jewish members of our community, and all of us, reeling.

The ensuing days also have been deeply unsettling as the conflict has escalated in the Middle East. Shock has given way to deep pain and grief, sadness, and anger. Many in our community are afraid: uncertain whether they are welcome at Harvard Business School, unsure how to engage in class discussions, and even feeling physically unsafe for themselves and their loved ones. In the U.S. and around the world, examples of antisemitic hate speech, graffiti, vandalism, riots, and fire bombings, as well as violence such as the stabbing of a young Palestinian boy and his mother in Chicago, have only heightened this fear. Other individuals are afraid in a different way: that what they say might offend or make people angry, that they don’t understand the history behind the current events, and that if they try to offer support or speak up, they will get it wrong and be seen as insensitive or even complicit.

Moreover, the pro-Palestinian demonstration that crossed from Cambridge onto our campus last Wednesday, which included a troubling confrontation between one of our MBA students and a subset of the protestors, has left many of our students shaken. Reports have been filed with HUPD and the FBI, the facts are being evaluated, and it will be some time before we learn the results of an investigation. But the protest has raised questions about how we address freedom of speech, hateful speech that goes against our community values, and security and safety for everyone at the School.

In this context, I am reaching out to all members of the Harvard Business School community to discuss these and other issues that are affecting our School and campus. This is my purview as Dean and this is my responsibility to each of you.

Our Values

“And Thinking” is the idea that we can go beyond traditional either/or dichotomies and think expansively about the challenges we face. Hearing the pain and anguish so many of you have shared, I have debated whether to apply And Thinking to the moment we are facing now—it may be perceived as being too equivocal, or the wrong moment. But, not saying And has perhaps kept me from saying things that are important to say.

Let me start, then, by acknowledging that antisemitism exists on our campus, and stating unequivocally there is no place for it here. We have a strong and deeply valued Jewish and Israeli community at Harvard Business School. In recent days, many have shared with me their anger at Harvard’s history of antisemitism and their dismay that it continues today. We can and must start by making a difference at HBS. Antisemitism is insidious and we simply cannot allow it to persist in any form. We must ensure that our Jewish and Israeli faculty, staff, students, and alumni feel not only safe and supported by our community, but also a deep sense of belonging and understanding.

And, let me say emphatically that Islamophobia exists at HBS, and has no place on our campus either. We have a strong and deeply valued Muslim and Arab community. We must ensure that these faculty, staff, students, and alumni feel safe, supported, and at home at our School; Islamophobia, too, is insidious and cannot be allowed. We must be a place that embraces diversity—of culture, of religion, of ethnicity, and of every other aspect of identity and experience. This is what enriches our classroom discussions and the learning environment, and this principle is codified in our community value of respect for the rights, differences, and dignity of others. We must ensure we live up to that value.

Let me also state that I condemn violence and hateful speech, words, and actions like doxing that damage the fabric of our community, detract from learning, and can incite violence. Some protestors at Wednesday’s demonstration held banners and chanted words widely understood to call for the end of Israel—inciting the eradication of a nation and its people. There is no place for hateful speech on our campus. It violates our community values—values that hold all of us to a higher standard than simply protecting free speech.

And, we must enable robust dialogue and the expression of divergent points of view. At a University whose motto is Veritas, we should strive to ensure that our arguments and claims are true and rooted in fact. But we must be okay with being uncomfortable, even offended, at times. We must allow peaceful protests, demonstrations, and gatherings, and I will defend the right to voice dissent without hate. This is a fundamental principle of a strong democratic society that respects civil liberties.

I believe that we can do more than one thing at the same time—and that we must do so now, when there are many values we must uphold. I also believe that, by doing so, we can come together as a community and deliver on the promise we make to the students who come to our School: an engaging learning experience, and an education in business, management, and leadership. Yet we must also create the space necessary to grieve, to console, to express, to understand, to challenge, to debate, and to inspire.

Action

It also is a time for action. Let me outline efforts either underway or planned to launch this week.

First, we will undertake an effort to understand the experience of antisemitism at Harvard Business School—investigating more deeply the concern I have heard that noxious elements of antisemitism persist on our campus and in our classrooms. After this assessment—which will engage faculty, staff, students, and alumni—is complete, we then will develop an action plan outlining specific steps we might take to address antisemitism at the School. The lessons we learn from this effort will help us examine other hidden forms of discrimination that persist at HBS, including Islamophobia. Throughout my time as Dean, I have expressed my aspiration that Harvard Business School be a place where every individual is able to be the best they can be. It pains me to acknowledge this is not our current reality, and so we must take on this work with energy and urgency. Toward that end, we will announce the leadership and composition of this group before the end of the month.

Second, I am mobilizing small groups of faculty, staff, and students to revisit and clarify aspects of our campus culture. One group will look at our classroom norms and how we continue to deliver our planned curriculum while providing opportunities to discuss and deepen understanding of the conflict. A second group will examine demonstration guidelines, ensuring we protect and balance our community values, rights of expression, restrictions on hateful speech, and the safety and well-being of every member of our community. This will necessitate developing a deeper and shared understanding of hate speech: what constitutes it, how we define it, and the repercussions for members of our community who use it. Both groups will be asked to develop recommendations we can implement quickly and modify as circumstances change.

Finally, we are taking additional steps to ensure the safety and well-being of our community. We have a sophisticated security plan as our baseline, including a state-of-the-art Security Operations Center that is staffed 24/7 and the ability, for example, to lock down a classroom, an office, or a building almost instantly. Campus security can be reached, night and day, by calling 617.495.5577, and HUPD is available at 617.495.1212 if any individual senses a threat to their personal safety. Both HUPD and HBS have increased patrols by officers and other security personnel. And our Operations team works daily with HUPD, local, state, and federal agencies to evaluate threat levels and to support events and campus activities in a coordinated way. While no credible threat has yet been identified, we are considering additional steps such as requiring ID-card access to more buildings on campus.

Additionally, two Harvard-wide Community Spaces—one to support Jewish, and one to support Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian community members—have been launched which aim to foster a sense of belonging through dialogue with peers. Gatherings have been scheduled through the end of the month and additional details can be found here in the Quick Links. The University also has published a Guide for Protecting Against Online Abuse and Harassment, which can be found here. We will work closely and individually with any student, faculty member, or staff member who comes to us with concern, and are open to other suggestions and ideas. We want our campus to be safe, secure, and vibrant.

Closing Thoughts

We must find a way forward. Why? Because if we can’t do it here—drawing on the strength of our community, the knowledge and experience among us, and the resources of Harvard University—then where else can this work be done? I recognize the grief and pain of so many at the School. I feel it myself. I also firmly believe that by educating leaders who make a difference in the world, and by learning and working together across our differences, we can contribute to peace and prosperity around the globe. Now is the time to recommit to our mission with a sense of urgency and purpose."

########

Earlier related posts:

Sunday, October 15, 2023

Sunday, October 15, 2023

Hamas, Gaza and American universities: more letters, and two speeches

 First, letters from the President of the Hebrew University to his counterparts at Harvard and Stanford:

“You Have Failed Us” Letters by Hebrew University Leadership to the Presidents of Harvard University and Stanford University

The leadership of the Hebrew University in a strongly-worded, unequivocal response letter to the presidents of Harvard and Stanford universities, following their weak condemnation of Hamas: “You have failed us, not only as Israelis, who are subject to the imminent threat of being subject to genocide, but also as leaders of an academic institution, who expect their colleagues to present higher moral standards and more courage.”

In a strongly-worded, unequivocal response letter jointly signed by Prof. Asher Cohen, President of the Hebrew University, Prof. Tamir Sheafer, Rector of the Hebrew University, and Prof. Barak Medina, was dispatched to the Presidents of Harvard and Stanford Universities. This letter comes in the wake of what the Hebrew University officials perceive as shockingly feeble condemnations from these revered institutions in response to Hamas’ recent barbaric assault on Israel and the grievous loss of life among the southern residents.

In their letter addressed to the Presidents of Harvard and Stanford, the senior officials of the Hebrew University made it unequivocally clear that there is no room for “balance” or justification when it comes to such a heinous assault by Hamas on Israel. They expressed their deep disappointment in the messages emanating from these universities under their leadership, deeming them to fall far short of the minimum standards expected of moral leadership, courage, and a commitment to truth.

The response letter proceeds to recount the distressing sequence of events that transpired in the southern region of the country, beginning on October 7, 2023, highlighting the war crimes and atrocities committed by Hamas against innocent civilians. It concludes with the stern statement, “you have failed us, not only as Israelis, who are subject to the imminent threat of being subject to genocide, but also as leaders of an academic institution, who expect their colleagues to present higher moral standards, and more courage.”

To read the full letters: https://en.huji.ac.il/news/letters-presidents-harvard-university-and-stanford-university

Letter to Harvard University

Letter to Stanford University

############

And here's a statement from some Yale faculty condemning Hamas but worrying about what comes next in Gaza:

Statement of Concerned Yale Faculty Regarding Crimes Against Humanity in Israel-Palestine

#########

Earlier:

Thursday, October 12, 2023

###########
I've spent my adult life in and around universities, and in many ways and at many times universities have been at the forefront of progress.  But for right now, as we brace ourselves for what may be coming, I'll let two elected political leaders, the Mayor of New York and the President of the United States, have the last words:



 



Thursday, October 12, 2023

Thinking locally about Hamas, and murderous antisemitism, on college campuses

 How should universities deal with controversy in the midst of horrors?

Both Harvard and Stanford are having troubles with talking about Israel and Hamas.  Below are two news articles, and a letter...

Here's the NY Times, on Harvard:

At Harvard, a Battle Over What Should Be Said About the Hamas Attacks. After a student group blamed Israel for the violence, Lawrence Summers, a former university president, condemned the leadership for not speaking up.  By Anemona Hartocollis, Stephanie Saul and Vimal Patel

#######

And here's the SF Chronicle on Stanford and Berkeley:

Stanford, UC Berkeley respond to Israel-Hamas war amid campus debates by Nanette Asimov

"Rather than condemn the brutal invasion by Hamas into Israel, some student groups at universities across the country are turning the message around, using posters, social media posts and statements in campus newspapers to criticize Israel for its historic hard line against Palestinians.

"And some prominent universities have let them.

"On Wednesday, dozens of faculty members, including three Nobel laureates, sent a letter to Stanford leaders condemning the university’s mild response to the crisis and to pro-invasion sentiments expressed on campus.

"The letter to interim President Richard Saller and Provost Jenny Martinez chastised Stanford not only for referring to the murder of at least 1,200 Israelis and more than 100 people taken hostage merely as the “Middle East conflict,” but also for failing to remove “extremely offensive banners” on campus calling for the abolition of Israel, and for standing by as Jewish students were targeted online after the invasion by Hamas.

“This situation calls for a clear condemnation of terrorism and a strong stance in support of basic human rights and dignity,” says the letter signed by faculty across many disciplines and by three Nobelists: Michael Levitt, who won for chemistry, and the economists Paul Milgrom and Alvin Roth.

##########

Here's the Stanford letter:

Dear President Saller and Provost Martinez,

 We, members of the Stanford community — faculty, staff, students, and alumni — feel the obligation to share our thoughts on the university's response to the recent events in Israel and Gaza. 

 Many members of the Israeli and Jewish communities on campus are experiencing the hardest, most stressful days of their lifetime. Many Stanford faculty members and students have been reaching out to their Jewish and Israeli friends and colleagues, to extend their sympathy and support. These past few days have been terrifying and incredibly painful for us all, and this acknowledgment is heartwarming and greatly appreciated.

 With that said, we must respectfully convey our concerns regarding the wording used in the messages sent by Stanford University as an institution, which, unintentionally, downplays the horrific gravity of the situation. Furthermore, over the last few days extremely offensive banners, calling to abolish Israel “by all means necessary”, have been on display in various spots on campus. Jewish, Israeli, and Zionist students at Stanford are being targeted both on campus and on Stanford-affiliated platforms. We are aware of some messages published by various University officials. However, the University has yet to take appropriate action against what is happening. 

 Since Saturday morning, Hamas has murdered more than 1,200 Israelis, many of them women, children, and elderly Holocaust survivors, in their homes and on the streets. Over one hundred more have been brutally kidnapped and taken hostage. These include young women paraded naked through the streets, toddlers ruthlessly snatched away from their parents, and elderly people in wheelchairs. The murdered and kidnapped are not just Israelis, they are also citizens of the United States, Brazil, Argentina, Nepal, Thailand, and Germany. These are not a result of “the Middle East conflict”, as stated in the University's message from earlier today. Rather, it is the result of a horrific, inhumane, terror attack by Hamas that has shaken the international and Jewish communities in a way we have not experienced since the darkest days of the previous century.

 While there may be an instinct to chalk this up to just another skirmish in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, it is imperative that all of us are able to understand the gravity of these acts and call out terrorism. Phrasing these acts as “the Middle East conflict” inadvertently suggests a moral equivalence between the actions of terrorists and of those trying to protect innocent lives.

 We believe that in an academic institution like Stanford, where critical thinking and accurate representation of events are paramount, it is essential to be mindful of the language we use. This situation calls for a clear condemnation of terrorism and a strong stance in support of basic human rights and dignity. Let us be clear, we are not demanding support of the Israeli government's policies vis a vis Gaza or the occupation, and in fact, many of us are ardent activists against these policies. Rather, as a bastion of critical and nuanced thinking, Stanford should be able to hold any and all of these positions while also unequivocally calling out unequivocal evil, as President Biden did earlier today. The Israel-Palestine conflict is complex and nuanced. Condemnation of the murder, rape, and kidnapping of innocent civilians should not be.

     We believe that Stanford should immediately take action: it must voice its unambiguous condemnation of the horrifying actions taken by Hamas these past days. It must reach out to Israeli and Jewish students on campus and voice a clear message of support in these dire times. The university must act, firmly and immediately, to prevent hate speech, including antisemitic voices on campus, which, unfortunately, has already seen troubling instances of antisemitism in recent years. The university must ensure the safety of our Stanford community, which includes our Jewish and Israeli members. The lack of appropriate response is deeply troubling to us, as faculty, staff, students, and alumni of this university. Stanford’s failure to act appropriately is unacceptable.

 Thank you for your attention to this matter, as well as for reaching out and offering us your support. We hope we can continue to engage in thoughtful dialogue. 

 Sincerely,

 Michael Levitt, Robert W. and Vivian K. Cahill Professor in Cancer Research, Department of Structural Biology, Nobel Prize Laureate 

 Paul Milgrom, Leonard and Shirley Ely Professor, Department of Economics, Nobel Prize Laureate 

 Alvin Roth, Craig and Susan McCaw Professor, Department of Economics, Nobel Prize Laureate 

 Anat Admati, George G.C. Parker Professor of Finance and Economics, GSB

 Lior Almagorl, esearch scientist (staff), Department of Structural Biology

 Itai Ashlagi, Professor of Management Science and Engineering

 Laren Becker, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Stanford SOM

 Gill Bejerano, Professor Computer Science and Developmental Biology

  ...

and dozens more signers, in alphabetical order...

Wednesday, December 22, 2021

Will unionization at universities change the United Auto Workers?

 There is an increasing presence of labor unions at American universities, which may well bring big changes to those universities. Here is an article from the Chronicle of Higher Ed suggesting that it may also bring big changes to some labor unions.

A New Force in American Labor: Academe--One in five members of the United Automobile Workers is in higher education.By Barry Eidlin, NOVEMBER 29, 2021

"But why would a philosophy major at UC Berkeley join a campaign to change how an auto-worker union chooses its leadership? As a tutor in the University of California system, Huang is a member of UAW Local 2865 — along with other academic workers like graduate-student instructors and “readers,” students hired to grade assignments. With 19,000 members, Local 2865 is now the second-largest local in the entire union.

"Organizing those members has been challenging. “It’s hard enough to get them to recognize themselves as workers,” explained Keith Brower Brown, a Ph.D. candidate in the UC Berkeley geography department. “It’s a whole other step to get them to embrace that they’re a part of this international union, and they have a stake in changing the leadership of the union.” To help colleagues take that step, Cyn Huang tries to connect the referendum to familiar issues: “You explain how the ability to elect top leadership could lead to better contracts, greater accountability, new organizing. It makes sense to people. Once they hear that, it’s pretty intuitive.”

"In recent decades, academic workers like Huang and Brown have become an increasingly large part of the UAW. This group — which includes undergraduate tutors, graduate-student teachers and researchers, postdoctoral fellows, and adjunct instructors — now constitutes roughly one-fifth of the UAW’s active membership."

************

The UAW has organized student workers at Harvard, and just reached an agreement on a new contract. Some details are here:

https://studentunionization.harvard.edu/contract-overview 

Thursday, March 18, 2021

Data use agreements, and university research policies regarding restrictions on publication

 Since the beginning of the year, I've been sent several Data Use Agreements from organizations interested in the possibility of sharing some of their data for research purposes.  I've had to decline the opportunity more than once, because of publication restrictions that conflict with Stanford research policies (and those of most other universities, I think, out of concern for academic freedom, and to keep academic publications free from selection bias concerning the research findings).

The relevant Stanford policies are here:   https://doresearch.stanford.edu/policies/research-policy-handbook/conduct-research/openness-research

The most relevant paragraphs are these:

"C. Publication Delays

"In a program of sponsored research, provision may be made in the contractual agreement between Stanford and the sponsor for a delay in the publication of research results, in the following circumstances:

"For a short delay (the period of delay not to exceed 90 days), for patenting purposes or for sponsor review of and comment on manuscripts, providing that no basis exists at the beginning of the project to expect that the sponsor would attempt either to suppress publication or to impose substantive changes in the manuscripts.

"For a longer delay in the case of multi-site clinical research (the period of delay not to exceed 24 months from the completion of research at all sites), where a publication committee receives data from participating sites and makes decisions about joint publications. Such delays are permitted only if the Stanford investigator is assured the ability to publish without restrictions after the specified delay."

**************

Alex Chan points me to this article in Science by some of our Stanford colleagues:

Waiting for data: Barriers to executing data use agreements  by Michelle M. Mello, George Triantis, Robyn Stanton, Erik Blumenkranz, David M. Studdert,   Science  10 Jan 2020: Vol. 367, Issue 6474, pp. 150-152 DOI: 10.1126/science.aaz7028


Here's a figure from the paper that makes clear that concerns about publication often are serious obstacles (and that concerns about indemnification clauses are frequent obstacles).



"The third set of issues relates to clashes between DUA negotiators over what is and is not acceptable in the contract. Negotiators reported that the most common and serious of these substantive issues related to provisions concerning information privacy and security, indemnification, and the definition of confidential information; provisions concerning publication rights and ownership of academic researchers' work product were less commonly in dispute but serious problems when they were. These are no mere matters of “legalese”; each implicates potentially important risks to the university and faculty member.

...

"Indemnification is another actionable area. At least where low-risk data are involved, university contract negotiators may be spending more time on these provisions than is warranted. If good privacy and security protections are in place, the risk of a data breach is low, and haggling over who pays in the unlikely event of a breach that causes harm should not obstruct timely data transfers for research. Yet, negotiators at 13 of 48 universities had walked away from a negotiation because of indemnification issues.

"When it comes to provisions safeguarding publication rights and ownership of faculty members' work product, on the other hand, universities must remain resolute. These provisions implicate core values of the university and of open science. A potential strategy for minimizing haggling over non-negotiable issues is for universities as a group to more clearly signal their unified position. Existing university policies setting forth institutional commitments to academic freedom and policies concerning IP are helpful in communicating norms, but even more helpful would be a universal DUA template."


Monday, March 18, 2019

Palgiarism detection, student data, and Ed Tech: the purchase of Turnitin

Here's a story that caught my eye in the Chronicle of Higher Ed, about the purchase of Turnitin, known so far primarily for plagiarism detection software:

Why a Plagiarism-Detection Company Is Now a Billion-Dollar Business

"Stamping out student plagiarism is big business. How big? $1.735 billion, to be exact. That’s the price that Advance, a privately held media, communications, and technology company, will pay to purchase Turnitin, the 800-pound gorilla of plagiarism-detection services.
...
"While its roots are in plagiarism detection, Turnitin actually has a broader portfolio. For example, it owns Gradescope, which offers AI-assisted grading tools, and Lightside Labs, which uses machine learning to provide feedback on students’ writing.

Chris Caren, chief executive of Turnitin, said the company’s next step is to become a platform for colleges and high schools to submit all types of student assignments, digital or on paper. It would then use AI to help instructors review that work to, among other things, spot at-risk students and devise remediation plans. The company is also developing Turnitin’s software to branch out into the STEM fields and detect plagiarism in coding, for example. In other words, it hopes to become a one-stop shop for all sorts of tech-driven teaching services."

Saturday, March 24, 2018

The NCAA cartel

The March 2018 issue of the Review of Industrial Organization is devoted to a Symposium: The NCAA Cartel

In the Introduction, Roger Blair begins by noting
"Becker (1987) once characterized the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) as a “cartel in Sheepskin clothing,” which seems to be an apt description. Under the organizing umbrella of the NCAA, the member institutions collusively exploit both monopolistic and monopsonistic power. "

Here's the table of contents