A North Carolina education bill would be a disaster for research and pedagogy

[Razgovory]

It seems slightly odd to me that a matter such as the funding of professors re: teaching load would be legislated at the state level.

Or legislated at all.

Most of the higher education institutions are run by the state.  They exist because of legislation.

There is a distinction between being created by the state - all public universities fall into that category, and being run by the state.  I am not familiar with universities being run by government.  I am familiar with statutes which create the university and gives powers to a university president, board of governors, and senate to run the university.

I believe they are in fact, governed by the state as well.  A University may be able to set policy for itself (a lot government agencies can do this), but ultimately it is run by the state.

[DontSayBanana]

I agree.  Public universities still have to convince politicians that overall funding to the university should continue/be increased.  But this bill steps over the line from the government acting as a funder to the government making operational decisions as to how the university will function.

In the US, it already has for a very long time- it's just that usually it's answerable to the executive branch in the form of the various states' commissioners for higher education instead of the legislative.

Even there, though, state legislatures have been calling shots with conditional funding for quite some time now- what's unusual is just to see this level of micromanagement.  But then again, I come from New Jersey, where teachers at all levels are pretty much constantly battling the state government on the right to dictate how they operate their schools.

[grumbler]

I think that people are naive if they think laws like this haven't been proposed (and, probably, sometimes even passed) in other states and countries.  While higher education is a disaster in many places, I know of nowhere it is a disaster because lawmakers wanted university professors to teach more university students.

I very much doubt that this law is going anywhere, anyway.  The NC legislature would seem to have no incentive to drive the best-qualified research professors out of state (and those would be the ones impacted, since the teaching-type professors already teach close to the required load anyway).

[crazy canuck]

There is a distinction between being created by the state - all public universities fall into that category, and being run by the state.  I am not familiar with universities being run by government.  I am familiar with statutes which create the university and gives powers to a university president, board of governors, and senate to run the university.

That's the usual way it's done and probably is also in NC. But I mean the state isn't going to just fund something and look away. There will always be oversight. The fact that it's politicians is a flaw in the arrangement, but they're the ones with the money.

I agree.  Public universities still have to convince politicians that overall funding to the university should continue/be increased.  But this bill steps over the line from the government acting as a funder to the government making operational decisions as to how the university will function.

I'm not sure that the line has even been as clearly drawn as you suggest, at least not when it comes to American state universities.

Interesting.  What universities to you know of where the line is not as clear as I am suggesting?

[grumbler]

There is a distinction between being created by the state - all public universities fall into that category, and being run by the state.  I am not familiar with universities being run by government.  I am familiar with statutes which create the university and gives powers to a university president, board of governors, and senate to run the university.

That's the usual way it's done and probably is also in NC. But I mean the state isn't going to just fund something and look away. There will always be oversight. The fact that it's politicians is a flaw in the arrangement, but they're the ones with the money.

I agree.  Public universities still have to convince politicians that overall funding to the university should continue/be increased.  But this bill steps over the line from the government acting as a funder to the government making operational decisions as to how the university will function.

I'm not sure that the line has even been as clearly drawn as you suggest, at least not when it comes to American state universities.

Interesting.  What universities to you know of where the line is not as clear as I am suggesting?

Google is your friend.  First hit for "state legislature interference in universities" is http://www.aaup.org/article/responding-legislative-interference-university-governance#.VT6ejiFVhBc which gives examples from Texas and notes that

... legislatures, not satisfied with the role of oversight and audit, are increasingly using statutes to intrude directly into governance at the campus level with almost no meaningful input from faculty.

The second hit is http://www.aaup.org/article/publicized-instances-interference-law-school-clinics#.VT6fiiFVhBc and notes a number of instances (in a very specialized area), dating back to 1975.

The third hit is http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1696&context=aulr is a 2004 mongraph entitled "Legislators in the Classroom: Why State Legislatures Cannot Decide Higher Education Curricula."  It describes various state legislative initiatives to breach that line you say exists. 

I could go on, but you get the point.  While state legislatures have generally held back from trying to dictate to universities (they are not crazy and have other more pressing issues), there have been any number of cases which provide exceptions to that rule.  The line is not at all "clearly drawn" except in Michigan (and maybe a few other states, though only Michigan is singled out in the results I scanned), which has a constitutional prohibition on the legislature interfering in university operations.

[crazy canuck]

Ah, so I was correct.  The distinction I described is, or was, present in the US and now there is some controversy that legislators are crossing the line.  Thanks.

[grumbler]

Ah, so I was correct.  The distinction I described is, or was, present in the US and now there is some controversy that legislators are crossing the line.  Thanks.

Correct.  The line is not as "clearly drawn" as you believed.  You're welcome.

[crazy canuck]

Ah, so I was correct.  The distinction I described is, or was, present in the US and now there is some controversy that legislators are crossing the line.  Thanks.

Correct.  The line is not as "clearly drawn" as you believed.  You're welcome.

You mean the line has been clearly crossed.   The fact we can identify the line as having been crossed undermines your argument that it was not clear in the first place. 

[grumbler]

You mean the line has been clearly crossed.   The fact we can identify the line as having been crossed undermines your argument that it was not clear in the first place. 

You are going to try to weasel out of this no matter how many experts tell you you are wrong, aren't you? 

I'm done.  The cites I gave make it clear that many state legislators don't see the line that is drawn so clearly in your dreams.  Weasel away, but realize that everyone recognizes the weasel.

[crazy canuck]

You mean the line has been clearly crossed.   The fact we can identify the line as having been crossed undermines your argument that it was not clear in the first place. 

You are going to try to weasel out of this no matter how many experts tell you you are wrong, aren't you? 

When an expert tells me I am wrong I will consider their opinion.