Posted on 06/18/2015 1:29:28 PM PDT by Kaslin
Scott Walker has formed a Testing the Waters Committee, which I assume has something to do with Marco Rubio’s response to the State of the Union in 2013. (Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.) The new committee will provide him with an additional conduit to raise funds between now and when he announces his presidential bid in July. But at the same time, he’s making some other moves, particularly in the area of tenure for professors at public colleges and universities.
As Republican Gov. Scott Walker prepares to campaign for president as the man who tamed Wisconsin’s unions, he’s taking on a new labor fight: weakening tenure protections for professors at public colleges and universities.
Walker insists that by allowing the University of Wisconsin system Board of Regents, 16 of whose 18 members are appointed by the governor, to set tenure policies instead of having tenure protections spelled out in state law will help give the state university system more flexibility and financial leverage.
His effort could endear him to conservatives who are scornful of what they view as higher education’s ivory tower — a perception Walker has encouraged by suggesting that “maybe it’s time for faculty and staff to think about teaching more classes and doing more work” — but it has infuriated academics and others who consider tenure a vital protection of academic freedom.
Note that Walker isn’t proposing some sort of blanket ban on tenure. That’s probably a smart play, since such an unconditional declaration of war would be yet another bruising battle to engage in just as he’s getting ready to launch a national campaign. Instead of that, he’s proposing that tenure policy be set by the Board of Regents. The effect would probably not, in all likelihood, be the same as some sort of complete ban on tenure, but it could institute some long overdue reviews and corrections.
This will likely reignite the long simmering fight over the tenure system in general. The ivory tower elite will continue to insist that tenure serves the dual purpose of protecting educators from baseless accusations while ensuring that they are not beholden to the shifting tides of political opinion. As I’ve said in the past, the sad part of all this is that those would actually be fairly persuasive arguments in a perfect world. Students may behave maliciously and irresponsibly at times and could bring false accusations against an instructor. And inside of a state run system such as the colleges, it would be nice to think that teachers were all enlightened and pure of motive. Much like judges, it’s not difficult to imagine situations where elected officials put their thumbs on the scale in terms of appointments and hiring.
And yet, tenure turned out to be such a powerful and easily abused weapon that its downside eventually swamped whatever good it hoped to accomplish. The incompetent or even abusive were shielded along with the diligent workers. And rather than providing a nonpartisan safe space for academics, our universities largely turned into liberal or even socialist enclaves where no dissenting opinions would be allowed. The tenure system was simply a tool to cement that structure in place over generations.
Of course, Walker is being accused of doing this as some sort of “stunt” to burnish his conservative credentials as he moves into the primary race. But does anyone think those credentials really needed any polishing when it comes to conservative doctrine regarding unions and universities? Sounds precisely in character to me.
Agreed.............
Hey brainiacs of a feather stick together. :-)
BFF’s forever. :-)
Agreed. :-)
No answers to my questions?
You admit that you and CJ talk...but CJ denies it.
You girls need to get your stories straight.
Most of the FReepers I know....know what you both are about.
They are watching you....
once,
I've seen too many campaigns. Too many people lying...
CJ was inactive here for quite a long time. Just seems like old times...the Clinton years...the early Obama years...once again.
That said...let's say she is for Cruz. Why would a Conservative act like a Liberal Progessive Marxist Democrat to try and disembowel a fellow Conservative? Why try and kill off people that have done good jobs in this country...Done Conservative things...Survived a bunch of BS things in that state!!!????
I agree with your post...but I don't believe her for nothing.
I am trying to interject some objectivity into our evaluations of candidates based on their record. There is nothing “specious” in hard cold statistics. I do not want to spread the kind of failure exemplified by a state being 40th in job creation and 50th in new businesses to the rest of the country.
I don’t think Walker has done a good job fiscally for Wisconsin at all. Walker seems to have position changes based on political expediency fairly frequently. He was against ethanol before he was speaking to farmers in Iowa,. He sponsored a gun control bill when he was in the legislature. Take your pick of which of his immigration positions you like best.
Then there are the ethical issues. WEDC stinks to high heaven as an agency that rewarded Walker donors. Even in the union fight, Walker gave the unions that supported him a pass. Thank kind of political cronyism bothers me.
Whatever happens in the campaign, I think we need to carefully examine all the candidates’ records, because you can be sure the DNC will.
“BFF’s forever. :-)”
You betcha! :)
This is one article that I read on the sand fracking issue in Wisconsin and Walker’s role in it.
< ahref=”http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114320/frac-sand-mining-wisconsin-rides-fracking-boom";>Link</a>
You are not being objective at all. You post only negative articles, often from sources that are hostile to Walker. I have already demonstrated that job creation stats have little relation to actual employment stats, and you keep on trotting it out. Changing headlines from one describing Hillary Clinton, to one with Scott Walker’s name in it is not injecting objectivity. You did it again after a warning. I believe that is why you were suspended.
I don’t know where in the country you live, but you have not lived in Wisconsin, or worked there. I have. There is a reason why people on this board who actually live or work in Wisconsin like Walker so much. He’s been an exceptional governor.
Cruz is my #1, but I believe I can, and have, made points pro and con on both men.
WEDC dos not stink any more than all of the other state sponsored job creation agencies. It reprersents 6% of the deficit Walker eliminated in one year, and the % assistance of businesses benefitting from it corresponds roughly to Walker’s own margin. Just because Menards or Johnsonville gives money to the Walker campaign, it wasn’t to get the assistance, otherwise the 40% who didn’t donate would have gotten nothing.
Heck, WEDC isn’t even getting traction in Wisconsin. I mainly hear about it from you. The John Does were an effectively a colonoscopy of Walker and anyone who supported him.
Think Rudy Guiliani and his application of the "Broken Windows" theory.
The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Forbes, to name a few have published stats on Wisconsin’s poor jobs performance. I’m glad for those who live in Wisconsin who like Walker and I hope they get to keep him as Governor. I’m just not impressed with his record, his weak core on issues, and questionable ethics. I don’t want to see his act inflicted on the nation as a whole.
I didn’t start out with an unfavorable view of Walker, but his record has given me one.
BTW, the discussion here on FR was about the TPA and TPP and where the candidates stood. The article headline gave no indication that in the body of the article was a quote by Walker giving his position on those. I followed the rules which say to include the title of the article. In no way was I trying to change the content, but was trying to get the relevant content out.
As it turns out, another article came out following that buried quote, that gave Walker’s position in favor of TPA and TPP.
Personally, I don’t think any of the candidates are strong enough on immigration. I think we need to start with those who are receiving any kind of public assistance and deport them. It goes without saying that those who commit other crimes should be deported.
I did not intentionally break any rule. I just interpreted the rule that said include the headline in a more literal way than it was evidently intended.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.