After a strenuous bike ride in Patagonia last week, I summoned the energy to crank out the first draft of an opinion piece that was published just a couple of days later in the Yale Daily News. The piece raises several questions about the Committee on Trust in Higher Education’s recommendation to amend Yale’s mission statement. Turns out, it is a good thing I didn’t wait to speak on this issue, because as I was waiting to board my return flight to JFK, I learned that the University had already adopted the Committee-recommended mission statement.
As a
procedural matter, the speed of adoption might be questioned. The President could have allowed a bit more
time for community response. After my
YDN piece appeared, I received a surprisingly large number of emails and texts
from colleagues, students, and alumni thanking me for writing it. This outreach suggests to me that the President’s
swift action foreclosed spirited and productive discussion that could otherwise
have taken place. It is now a fait
accompli – especially with students and faculty dispersing for the summer.
Nonetheless,
I write here to amplify two of the questions I raised initially.
What Knowledge?
With one
large exception (which I will discuss below), I predict very little will change
at Yale under the new mission statement.
Still, it would have been helpful if the Committee report had gone a bit
further in defining what types of knowledge are worthy to create, disseminate,
and preserve. Notwithstanding the
deemphasis on improving the world, Yale resources should continue to support
scholarship that makes prescriptive arguments.
Novel normative claims is knowledge worthy of University support.
[I am personally
reluctant to teach “oughts” in my law classes.
I focus more on what the law “is.”
I try to present and challenge normative arguments of myself and others
and let students decide what is best – sometimes papering over normative claims
with expedient frames (“Efficiency-minded lawmakers would prefer …”). In contrast, my scholarship, like most legal
scholarship, is awash with prescriptions and suggestions for legal reform, and
is worthy of University support.]
And given
that the central purpose of the Committee’s work was to restore public trust,
it would have been useful for their report to clearly affirm that Yale supports
the creation and dissemination of knowledge -- even if it reduces the public’s
trust in us. The math department will
not be teaching the President’s new approach to calculating percentage
reductions (also adopted by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services) even if going along with the White House might have increased public trust.
What Change?
As I said
in my original piece, mission statements can inspire, but they can also
meaningfully constrain how an institution deploys its resources. One might reasonably ask the President how,
if the old mission statement was misguided, University resources have been
misdeployed in the past, and how the new mission statement is likely to change
projects and initiatives going forward.
I predict
very little will change. We will not
shutter or diminish the schools’ programs in ethics or leadership – notwithstanding
those subjects’ deemphasis in the amended statement. Likewise, I hope we will not shackle the good
work of various clinical programs that teach students by applying their talents
toward improving the world.
The one
substantial change that has been taking place – both at Yale and at peer institutions– is the dismantling or rebranding
of all University programs related to diversity, equity, or inclusion. The Office of Diversity & Inclusion is
now the office for “Employee Engagement & Workplace Culture.” The Buckley Institute reports that, across the University, Yale
has “changed the names of 9 DEI-related offices.” The current administration has overseen what one
might characterize as a 1000% reduction in the number of employees with the
word inclusion in their title.
It would
be unfair to call Maurie McInnis the Neville
Chamberlain of university
presidents. But a central purpose of the
new mission statement seems to be a further scrubbing the term inclusion
from the University’s website. Indeed, putting
this word to bed may be the only concrete consequence spurred by the
changed mission. A reasonable person
might accordingly view the new mission statement not as an effort to enhance
public trust, but as a further form of pro-active appeasement.