In which Piers writes something serious

This is also lengthy.  Pardon.

The disturbing thing about the meeting the other day, when I get down below the gut-level disagreement and discomfort with the tone set by El Presidente, is more abstract and ultimately more significant and far reaching.  The entire session was marked by one of the most basic problems I see even in my English Composition classes, and I am distressed that I didn't see better performance--better thinking--from my highly educated and credentialed colleagues:  there was a whole ton of assertion, and almost no actual argument.

I won't even go into the issues I have with the document that dominated most of our discussion, though it also exhibits the problem I identified above.  There are good things and silly things in that document, as is the case with any committee-created manifesto. 

But when it came to three discussions--one revolving around firearm legislation that will be revisited this year, and the other two about changing funding formulas to which we as an institution are answerable--I heard a remarkable lack of reflection or even curiosity.  In other words, I heard people interested in winning a battle rather than understanding what is true.

Example 1:  One of my colleagues opined quite loudly that the new funding formula will eventually be applied in such a way that university programs will be evaluated based on the income levels of their graduates.  And that certain departments (including his own) will eventually be stripped of funding as a result.  I don't know all the ins and outs of university funding, but perhaps he might have considered that this is the third funding formula that the state has used in the six years I have been at this institution (and he's been here for decades)?  And perhaps there should be a level of accountability if we wish to use state funds?  Perhaps it's not a terrible thing if a department has to make its case for its own significance?  I don't know.

Example 2:  Several colleagues expressed the fear that if guns are "allowed" on university campuses, "people are going to be shot."  Now, I don't have all the information, but the following might be questions we would want to answer before we proclaim that there will be Fallujah-style running gun battles in our hallways:

• To whom would the legislation apply?  Permit holding faculty & staff?  Students?  Everyone? 
• How frequently do permit-holding gun owners pull handguns on other people, or shoot them, or even attempt crimes with their legally-owned weapons?
• Is there a mechanism in place to stop a student or employee from carrying an illegally-held concealed weapon into class or into a faculty office?  What is that mechanism?
• What is the ratio of firearm-related crimes when legal and illegal holders are compared to each other?
• Is it possible that administration and campus safety oppose the initiative because it makes their lives simpler from a bureaucratic/institutional standpoint (which may be enough reason to oppose the initiatve) rather than a safety standpoint?
• Is it in fact true (as is often claimed) that in a standoff situation, a law-enforcement officer would be unable to tell who was the aggressor and who was the law-abiding citizen acting in self-defense?

I do not know answers to these questions, but I'll bet those answers can be discovered.  These are the kinds of things that need to be investigated if one is going to make anything more valid than an emotional pronouncement.  We may find guns and gun-holders to be icky, which is fair, but that's not the same as an argument against proposed legislation.

Example 3:  there will be a lot of discussion this year about the "Responsibility" of the state to "Fund Higher Education."  Apparently, the way this will be approached is by attempting to bully the state legislature into doing what they "should do."  You'll note that there is no argument being made here, nor is there a sense (and this was addressed by a colleague during the meeting) that in order to put more money toward the university, money is going to have to be taken from somewhere else.  Let's not even address the thornier problem of whether or not the "traditional" four-years-directly-out-of-high-school model actually applies

I don't know answers to tough questions like these.  It seems that some of my (usually quite vocal) colleagues, however, are so sure that they do know the answers that they fail to recognize the importance of making the argument.  They are sure that anybody with half a brain thinks as they do.  This set of ideological blinders is one of the most unattractive, even destructive, features of academic life.