Business In Society
SHARE BUSINESS IN SOCIETY
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

Professor Cole, the Honorable George J. Mitchell Professor of Law and Public Policy at Georgetown University, begins with the colossal conundrum of free speech on the internet:

“The First Amendment protects speech from interference by public authorities, (emphasis added)  but some of the most powerful forces controlling speech are private (emphasis added)  – the large social media platforms such as X, Facebook, and Instagram. Like the apple in Eden, social media has simultaneously brought us knowledge and introduced (or exacerbated) a host of problems …”

Fittingly, Professor Cole points to Emily Bazon encapsulating the dilemma: “When it comes to the regulation of speech, we are uncomfortable with government doing it; we are uncomfortable with social media or media titans doing it. But we are also uncomfortable with nobody doing it at all.”

(It is not incidental to add dimensions to this calculus: How will these Supreme Court decisions be applied in the context of the just fully-enacted (February 17th) , vast foreign internet regulations of the European Commission Digital Services Act with its international reach and “main goal … to prevent illegal and harmful activities and the spread of disinformation …” https://bit.ly/4aqEcW7 .)

To be fair, Professor Cole points out that the social “media giants” have been trying: “Every social media platform has a content moderation policy that guides what can and cannot appear on its sites and what content it promotes or demotes.”

All in, Professor Cole favors “antitrust enforcement and laws that promote competition … (which) would address the concentration of economic power without regulating free speech and should face few First Amendment obstacles….But whether antitrust efforts succeed or not, the principal responsibility for reform of  content moderation policies will have to lie with the platforms themselves.”

Highly desirable: “‘uninhibited, robust and wide-open debate’”.

“It’s messy. It’s far from ideal. It will sometimes mean that people exposed to communications that deeply offends them, and that some voices and messages will get more amplification than others. But that is the price of freedom – now as much as it was in James Madison’s day.”

A virtual debate:

“Resolved: E.S.G. needs – and deserves – a robust, spirited, and informed defense.”

[E.S.G. in the current corporate social responsibility lexicon: ”Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) is a set of considerations, including environmental issues, social issues and corporate governance that can be considered in investing.” Wikipedia]

E.S.G. critics and sceptics now abound. And media helps them flourish.

Here’s one of the many examples: New York Times 2/20/24: “More Wall Street Firms Flip-Flop on Climate Pledges.” https://nyti.ms/4bR1pSD.

“Wall Street’s retreat from earlier environmental pledges has been on a slow, steady glide path for months, particularly as Republicans began withering political attacks, saying the investment firms were engaging in ‘woke capitalism’ … in the past few weeks things accelerated significantly.”

The story details how three “giants of the financial world” have altered their ESG commitments.

Perspective

The current corporate social responsibility/sustainability global zeitgeist – and its pillar, E.S.G./socially responsible investing – have evolved significantly over many decades.

(We started tracking it in the Seventies (sic): in “Organizing for Corporate Social Responsibility”,  The Presidents Association, Inc./ American Management Association, Special Study No 51, Winter 1972-1973.)

Long fast-forward to today: In various forms and priorities, many national and international organizations facilitate vast sums of E.S.G. investments annually.

A few of the many formidable organizations that facilitate E.S.G./social responsibility investing today:

CERES https://bit.ly/4bSzeTA

“The Ceres Investor Network includes more than 220 institutional investors managing more than $46 trillion in assets. We work with our members to advance sustainable investment practices, engage with corporate leaders, and advocate for key policy and regulatory solutions to accelerate the transition to a just, sustainable, net zero emissions economy. Our global collaborations include Climate Action 100+, The Investor Agenda, the Paris Aligned Asset Owners, and the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative.”

Climate Action 100+ https://bit.ly/42OwaUh

“Climate Action 100+ is an investor-led initiative aiming to ensure the world’s largest corporate greenhouse gas emitters take necessary action on climate change. Through Climate Action 100+, approximately 700 investors responsible for $68 trillion in assets under management are engaging companies on improving climate change governance, reducing emissions and strengthening climate-related financial disclosures, … to create long-term shareholder value”.

Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility https://www.iccr.org/about-iccr/

“Our guiding principle as shareholders is that sustainable corporations must look beyond the next earnings report to account for the full impact of their businesses on society, and must view the well-being of all of their stakeholders …

“An initiative of ICCR, the Investor Alliance, is a collective action platform for responsible investment grounded in respect for people’s fundamental rights. With over 220 institutional members representing over $12T in assets in 20 countries, it builds investors’ capacity to embed human rights into corporate and investor actions …”

United Nation Global Compact

For its vast CSR-committed signatories recommends:

“Integrate the Principles of Responsible Investment” https://bit.ly/3wxW3f7

“Launched in 2006 by UNEP Finance Initiative and the UN Global Compact, the PRI provide a voluntary framework by which all investors can incorporate ESG issues into their decision-making and ownership practices and so better align their objectives with those of society at large. Over 1,500 investment institutions have become signatories, with approximately US$ 62 trillion assets under management.”

Summing up

E.S.G. innovation continues to evolve. One of many examples: A new advance in the “G” portal: “Millions of Fund Investors Are Getting a Voice” https://nyti.ms/3Pjy4qz

New policies at “three giant fund companies have given scores of millions of investors, with $4.6 trillion in assets, a way of expressing their views on corporate issues…”

One of the investing options being offered is “explicitly for investors who require companies to behave ‘in a socially and environmentally responsible manner’…The changes could greatly affect the alignment of power in the corporate universe.”

A recent summary assessment from Morrison Foerster, a highly respected Austin, Texas national law firm https://www.mofo.com/ with a specialty In E.S.G. law:

“ESG is not dead – despite all of the noise in the press. ESG and Sustainability—in various forms—have survived, reinforcing its longevity but with more clarity, standardization, transparency, and accountability. It is true that, during 2023, the ESG and sustainability space experienced significant attacks on multiple fronts, increased politicization, and redirected attention from stakeholders. Stakeholders became more interested in how a company stacks up against its claims versus whether it was making ESG considerations at all. Regardless of the headwinds, three predictions from 2022 proved true: ESG regulations multiplied across the globe, industries continued to converge, and fragmentation is waning, positioning specific elements of ESG and Sustainability as priorities for boards, management, and investors for years to come.”

Or, channeling the famous quote attributed to Mark Twain (some say it’s a misquote):

“The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”

 

Vladimir Putin is running Vladimir Lenin’s 1919 “playbook” with 2024 weapons – especially advanced communications technology.

They share these “plays”:

A movement born of socio-political turmoil.

A cult leader.

Regional/global ambitions.

Assault on democracy in favor of autocracy.

Violation of international law.

A torrent of lies (“disinformation” in the current vernacular).

Brutality.

Evidence: This becomes apparent with two brief synopses on Russia today and on the 1919 Soviet “Comintern” (International Communism).

 

First, excerpts from a new current analysis by Washington Post columnist Catherine Belton:

“Russia is working to subvert French support for Ukraine, documents show”

https://wapo.st/47s6g9s

“… We have to change all the governments … All the governments in Western Europe will be changed,” Jean-Luc Schaffhauser, a former member of the European Parliament for Le Pen’s party, said in an interview. “We have to control this. Take the leadership of this…

For Schaffhauser, such ambitions are part of a decades-long effort to forge an alliance between Russia and Europe, the prospects of which, however distant, were shattered by Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. But now, as Kyiv’s counteroffensive — and Western funding for it falters … and rise of far- right, Schaffhauer and his Russian associates see fresh opportunities…

Russia has been increasing its efforts to undermine French support for Kyiv — a hidden propaganda front in Western Europe that is part of the war against Ukraine, according to Kremlin documents and interviews with European security officials and far-right political figures…

Jean-Luc Schaffhauser, then running to be mayor of Strasbourg, with Le Pen in March 2014 and Kremlin connections with a host of far-right parties across Europe, including in France — are worrying some European officials ahead of European Parliament elections in June. Josep Borrell, the E.U.’s foreign policy chief, warned at a conference this month that those elections could be “as dangerous as the American ones,” driven by “fear” in response to growing inequality and security threats.

‘Europe is in danger’, he said…

Moscow’s goal is to undermine support for Ukraine and weaken NATO resolve … The effort parallels similar interference in Germany, where the Kremlin has attempted to marry the far right and the far left in an antiwar alliance …

In 2023 … [strategists were ordered] to increase ‘the fear of direct confrontation with Russia and the start of World War III with Europe’s participation, and to boost the number of those who want ‘dialogue with Russia on the construction of a common European security architecture’…

Rhetoric from Russia allies like Schaffhauser — who maintains connections across the country’s far right — about the cost of the Ukraine war is increasingly being combined with the idea that it is an American adventure, and that France needs to assert itself as a great power and restore relations with Russia…

For part of the French establishment, the vision of France leading a grand Europe together with Moscow is ‘a dream which will never go away,’ said Sylvie Kauffmann, editorial director at Le Monde and author of the recent book ‘Les Aveuglés,’ or ‘The Blinded Ones,’ about how France and Germany misread Putin in seeking to build close ties with him…

Concerns are also growing that the Kremlin could seek to exacerbate mounting tensions over the Israel-Gaza conflict, a senior European security official said, adding that  Russia was willing to exploit a wide array of political issues…

In November, French officials said Moscow’s fingerprints were found on an attempt to fan tensions between France’s Jewish and Muslim communities.

French authorities called the effort ‘a new operation of Russian digital interference against France and part of ‘an opportunistic and irresponsible strategy aimed at exploiting international crises to sow confusion and create tensions in France and Europe.”

 

And this summary of Lenin’s “playbook”:

 

The Commintern, 1919

“The Communist International (Comintern), also known as the Third International, was an international organization founded in 1919 that advocated world communism, and which was led and controlled by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.[3][4][5] The Comintern resolved at its Second Congress in 1920 to ‘struggle by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the state’.[6] The Comintern was preceded by the dissolution of the Second International in 1916.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_International

The victory of the Russian Communist Party in the Bolshevik Revolution of November 1917 was felt throughout the world and an alternative path to power to parliamentary politics was demonstrated. With much of Europe on the verge of economic and political collapse in the aftermath of the carnage of World War I, revolutionary sentiments were widespread. The Russian Bolsheviks headed by Lenin believed that unless socialist revolution swept Europe, they would be crushed by the military might of world capitalism just as the Paris Commune had been crushed by force of arms in 1871. The Bolsheviks believed that this required a new international to foment revolution in Europe and around the world.

The Comintern was involved in the revolutions across Europe in this period starting with the Hungarian Soviet Republic in 1919.

The OMS was the Comintern’s department for the coordination of subversive and conspiratorial activities. Some of its functions overlapped with those of the main Soviet intelligence agencies, the OGPU and the GRU, whose agents sometimes were assigned to the Comintern. But the OMS maintained its own set of operations and had its own representative on the central committees of each Communist party abroad.[56]

In 2012, historian David McKnight stated: ‘The most intense practical application of the conspiratorial work of the Comintern was carried out by its international liaison service, the OMS. This body undertook clandestine courier activities and work which supported underground political activities. These included the transport of money and letters, the manufacture of passports and other false documents and technical support to underground parties such as managing ‘safe houses’ and establishing businesses overseas.’”

 

Clearly – tragically – this is not football, or any other game.

It is history – ugly history – being revisited.

Until it is stopped.

“Mideast War pushes employers to extend diversity programs to faith groups.

Workers are asking employers to respond to rising Islamophobia and antisemitism. But office discussions about religion are difficult.”

That’s the alarming headline and sub-head on a new digital edition New York Times major business-section featured report.

https://nyti.ms/4aiPtIF

The horrific Gaza war is, of course, causing vast humanitarian injury and global divisiveness. Only one example: American colleges and universities have been the locus of hundreds of “freedom of speech” protests and demonstrations, some of them threatening, only few of them constructive.

But now,  this toxic global social wave has reached the workplace. The Times article’s assessment of developments since the start of the Israel-Hamas war:

“Executives are facing mounting calls from their workers to talk about faith in diversity programs. They’re scrambling to ensure the safety of their Jewish and Muslin employees.”

Supportive new research by The Grossman Group – Harris Poll concludes that, “…just 1-in-5 employees reported that their employer shared an official internal statement on the issues in the Middle East and only about 1-in-6 employees reported that their manager directly communicated with them.” [Emphasis in the original] https://bit.ly/3ROqpBS

Major nonprofit organizations long active in combatting discrimination and societal division are trying reduce the impact of this dangerous workplace turmoil , according to the Times:

“The Anti-Defamation League’s “Workplace Pledge to Fight Antisemitism” … has more than 200 signatories newly (subscribed)… It asks companies to address antisemitism in their #D.E.I. programming, speak out against hate on social media, provide religious accommodations and support Jewish employees…

“The Council on American-Islamic Relations [publisher of ‘Work, H.R. and Palestine’],  has fielded over 2,000 reports of anti-Muslim hate, including in workplaces, since early October. The swell of Islamophopic incidents has reminded some … of what Muslims experienced at work after Sept.11 attacks …”

Obviously, progress in addressing this centuries-old ideological conflict will not come quickly or easily. However, everyone – anywhere – concerned with such roiling conflicts – should at root consider adopting the “Pledge to Listen” promoted by the nonprofit organization Millions of Conversations (“Restoring the Prominence of a Peaceful Public Square”),  now gaining adherents in companies :

“I pledge to listen to others who hold different opinions, views, or beliefs. I will try to understand their reasons and their perspectives and will respectfully express my own in return.” https://bit.ly/3TkCqjT

It’s a personal as well as a company commitment. That’s s a start.

 

For a few moments, put aside the current highly divisive debate on whether companies should take public positions on political and social issues and consider this:

 

A growing number of companies in the U.S. and Europe are offering their employees seminars on democratic principles and the dangers of conspiracy theories – civics training that is nonpartisan and entirely voluntary for employees.

 

https://nyti.ms/3FzHM2A

 

The New York Times reports that there are now sound business reasons, as well as civic responsibilities, for companies to undertake such initiatives:

 

“Businesses are finding they need to bolster their employees in the face of increasingly vitriolic political debate. Seminars on civics and democratic principles – such as the importance of voting or recognizing the dangers of disinformation, conspiracy theories and hate speech – have become a way to ensure healthier relationships in the workplace and society as a whole. In addition, reports show that economic growth is higher in stable democracies, and liberal border policies allow companies to attract skilled immigrants.”

 

There is reason to hope that this extension of the corporate social responsibility mandate has promise. A cottage industry of counseling organizations has recently evolved to assist hundreds of companies interested in this new employee – and society – benefit:

“Groups like the Business Council for Democracy and Weltoffenss Sachsen in Germany and Civic Alliance for the Leadership Now Project in the United States organize workshops …provid[ing] research and webinars and support civic education and get-out-the-vote efforts – all of it nonpartisan.  Most are nonprofit organizations, backed by independent foundations or a group of businesses that rely on their political independence as a selling point.”

 

More broadly, ,  leading national associations of communication professionals could well become vehicles for promoting this socially positive initiative widely. For example, in 2021, The Public Relations Society of America, with some 21,000 participants  – professionals, educators, and students – established its “Voices4Everyone” program to encourage civic engagement and civility in discourse – as well as addressing disinformation and diversity, inclusion and equity.

https://voices4everyone.prsa.org/

 

Its mission: “V4E supports a national conversation building mutual understanding, trust, and civic engagement through more inclusive civil discourse.”

 

 

As for corporate motivation, “Steven Levine, director of the Civic Alliance,  a nonpartisan coalition in the United States of over 1,300 businesses, including Microsoft, McDonald’s, Target and Ecolab [ offers this]: ‘Companies have seen themselves in recent years as an important collective stabilizing force in helping ensure that norms of democracy are upheld.’’’

To help defuse the current culture wars and develop student citizenship, Stanford University’s School of Humanities and Sciences is introducing a new first-year core curriculum, “Civic, Liberal and Global Education”.

 

https://stanford.io/3r3EdOr

 

The curriculum “seeks to celebrate the diversity of students … while incorporating many of the important political and ethical aspects of citizenship…”

 

The first quarter included “Why College?”, a course on the value and role of a liberal arts education.  The current quarter examines “Citizenship in the 21st Century”.  Coming in the spring semester: the course, “Global Perspectives” with “examinations of issues that are global in scope like climate change and immigration”.

 

In presenting the rationale for the new core curriculum, school faculty leaders Debra Satz and Dan Edelstein explained its model for addressing current social tensions and cultural war divisiveness. https://bit.ly/45P3lI8    (Pay wall)

Excerpts:

“It is rarely a priority of employers or for job seekers … to promote the skills of active listening, mutual reasoning and open mindedness… We need to reinvest in it…. universities have a moral and civic duty to teach students how to consider and weigh contrary viewpoints and how to accept differences of opinion as a healthy feature of a diverse society. Disagreement is in the nature of democracies.

 

“By structuring its curriculum around important topics rather than canonical texts, and by focusing on the cultivation of democratic skills such as listening, reasonableness and humility, we have sought to steer clear of the cultural issues that doomed Western Civ…. it is  our belief that by restoring a common curricular foundation centered on democratic skills our students need to live in a diverse society, they will turn to more constructive ways to engage with those whom they disagree than censorship or cancellation.”

 

A new dimension or encore for liberal arts studies?

“We believe that the world is big enough for both countries to thrive. “

(Treasury Secretary Janett Yellen, July 9, 2023 news conference.)

“China and the U.S., Still Adversaries, Are Talking. That’s a Start…”

“Treasury Secretary Janett Yellen … said the two sides would pursue ‘more frequent communication’ despite their deep differences.”  https://nyti.ms/3rkt63A

 

[Skeptics, please hold your fire.]

 

Relations between nations, especially superpowers, can, of course, be extremely complex, fluid, fragile, – and, too often dangerous. And current U.S.- China relations seem to oscillate among these geopolitical portals almost daily. However, there is a potential antidote – admittedly long-term – to this and many such international confrontations: Soft Power/Public Diplomacy.

 

The good news is that U.S. Soft Power/Public Diplomacy is now being conducted not only by U.S government agencies, but also by many American organizations, institutions, non-profits and individual citizens. With the U.S. reputation (”image”) now improving abroad, and public opinion mounting in importance, it’s time to double-down on such public relations commitments – and not only with China – to capitalize on this momentum.

 

Globally, there is renewed interest in Soft Power/Public Diplomacy. An excellent summary has just been presented in the current edition of Foreign Policy.com by acclaimed international journalist J. Alex Tarquinio:

“Soft Power Is Making a Hard Return”,   https://bit.ly/44k3PV7  . A few of her many valuable insights:

“Although the modern vernacular of soft and hard power implies opposition, since earliest civilizations it has been more of a continuum.”

 

“The world has changed markedly in the more than three decades since political scientist Joseph S. Nye popularized the term ‘Soft Power’…The information age has modified the nature of soft power but not human nature.”

 

“Soft Power may be pricey, but world leaders continue to pour money into a range of cultural offerings because they can’t be certain what will resonate.”

 

“Today, many world leaders still reach for sports, language, food, music, and movies to advance their interests.”

 

“The term ‘Soft Power’ evokes more than wishful thinking, although that was certainly part of its appeal after the barbarism of the 20th century. Alongside other forms of persuasion, it can help a country cut deals, win friends, or join new clubs.           Or not.”

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Definitions: “Soft Power is the ability to co-opt, rather than coerce (in contrast with hard power). It involves shaping the preferences of others through appeal and attraction.” https://bit.ly/3OUrczS

“Public Diplomacy is that form of international political advocacy in which the civilians in one country use legitimate means to reach out to the civilians in another country in order to gain popular support for negotiations occurring in different diplomatic channels.” – Wikipedia https://bit.ly/3Odazhb

___________________________________________________________________________

 

Here is some of the good news on current U.S. Soft Power/Public Diplomacy:

 

It is well-rooted.

“The potency of U.S. public diplomacy is integrally connected to the American people. The role of the private sector in American public diplomacy is indispensable. To be most influential,[it] should tap into and mobilize these private actors as much as possible… the United States should find new ways to engage private actors and employ technology, media, and the private sector expertise.”  – Kristin M. Lord, 2009 .   https://bit.ly/45pSxPR

 

It is protean, in play with many diverse agents, each with distinct objectives (humanitarian, geopolitical or both), cultures, operations and outcomes. Here are just few:

 U.S. Department of State – The Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs (ECA)

(ECA was created in the State Department in 1999 as the “inheritor” of some (but, unfortunately, not all) of the formidable Soft Power/Public Diplomacy resources and influence of the U. S Information Agency – the powerful U.S. global dialogue engine before and during the Cold War.)  “Global Ties Network” –     https://bit.ly/3OiZo70

A recent report:

“Over last year, more than 600 citizen diplomats from non-profit organizations across the United States restarted in-person programming for the U.S. Department of State’s International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP)… helping more than 3,900 international leaders connect with small businesses, schools, state and local government representatives and others in their communities to trade best practices on tackling the global issues of our time, such as democracy, combatting disinformation, global health and more … The Global Ties Network is the largest and oldest citizen diplomacy network in the United States, made up of people from all over the country who are committed to people-to-people diplomacy.”

 

United States Agency for International Development (USAID)   https://www.usaid.gov/

Where humanitarian and geopolitical missions coalesce.

“USAID’s work advances U.S national security and economic prosperity, demonstrates American generosity, and promotes a path to recipient self-reliance and resilience.”

 

Participation in multilateral soft power/public diplomacy

       Cultural Diplomacy:  “The Institute for Cultural Diplomacy supports and promotes international programs in music, art and other cultural exchanges… As the move towards more socially responsible business practices gains momentum, the ability to understand and embrace the different values and needs of diverse cultures and societies becomes ever more important.”   https://bit.ly/3sbuVA5

United Nations Global Compact Business for Peace:  “Businesses need socially stable, healthy, and economically viable markets to succeed. While the primary responsibility for peace, security and development rests with Governments, businesses have a critical role to play in contributing to the stability and security in conflict-affected and high-risk areas.”   https://bit.ly/45bnaIZ

 

Can fundamental public relations principles be applied successfully here? Is Soft Power/Public Diplomacy,  in effect,  “public relations writ large” – very large? Is it, literally, ( even if awkwardly stated), “inter-nations public relations”?

 

Two leading national academic institutions appear supportive of this linkage:

At the University of Southern California, “The USC Center on Public Diplomacy (CPD) was established in 2003 [emphasis added] as a partnership between the Annenberg School for Communications and Journalism and the School of International Relations …The study of public diplomacy is a new and expanding field. CPD defines it as a public, interactive dimension of diplomacy which is not only global in nature, but also involves a multitude of actors and networks …Marketing and public relations notions such as branding have been incorporated by public diplomacy scholars to great effect … the concept of soft power … has, for many become a core concept in public diplomacy studies …

“Thus, CPD sees public diplomacy as an emerging, multi-disciplinary field with theoretical, conceptual and methodological links to several academic disciplines – communication, history, international relations, media studies, public relations, and regional studies, to name but a few.”    https://bit.ly/44J7ah8

Syracuse University addresses this linkage admirably in its course, “Public Diplomacy and Global Communications, MA” https://bit.ly/3QHVhUy .

“The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs and the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications offer an 18-month multidisciplinary graduate program leading to the Master of Arts (M.A.) degree in Public Diplomacy and Global Communications. Students complete one half of their course work in the Maxwell School’s Department of Public Administration and International Affairs and the other half in Newhouse School’s Department of of Public Relations.” Courses include publicrelations research, writing and campaign planning/execution as well as “Issues for 21st Century Public Diplomacy”.

Marketing for the course has been quite engaging: “It’s easy to change the world for the worse. It’s harder to change it for the better. We’re here to teach you how to do the hard part.”

 

Finally, there is this:

An introduction to the recently published book, “Soft Power and Great-Power Competition”, https://bit.ly/3Qu4fos ,   a collection of essays by Joseph S. Nye, , offers this stirring point of view:

“Ultimately, the US-China relationship is a cooperative rivalry’ where a successful strategy of ‘smart competition’ is necessary and cooperation on transnational challenges like climate change, pandemics, cyberterrorism, and nuclear proliferation, will serve to benefit not only China and the US, but the world as a whole.”

 

Or, to put it more succinctly,

“Give peace a chance.” {John Lennon, 1969)

 

“Sometime this month, our nation’s highest court will hand down the latest of its long (although for many, not eagerly) awaited decisions addressing a legal issue at the core of America’s cultural divide.

“This case – more accurately two cases – concern the use of race in admissions programs at colleges and universities.”

That is the informed opinion offered last week by Peter K. Rofes, professor of law at Marquette University Law School.

He is not optimistic. He predicts a “civil disobedience of the American university.”

https://bit.ly/3J5ALc2

Of course, Professor Rofes is by no means alone in addressing the potential national impact of these affirmative action decisions.

One of many current alarmed influentials, New York Times columnist David Brooks, has just offered this urgent suggestion: “…maybe we can all take this moment to reimagine the college admission process itself, which has morphed into one of the truly destructive institutions in American society.”   https://nyti.ms/3N0Ot17

He supports, at length, a proposal to “replace the race-based system of affirmative action with a class-based system… to give preference to applicants from economically disadvantaged families [to] address a core inequality in society.” The proposal appears to be similar to the commonly used “need-based scholarships” which provide financial aid related to family ability to pay.

American colleges and universities have long addressed race in admissions – a tragically divisive, seminal issue – with a broad spectrum of creative policies. For example, The New York Times reports that, “The University of California system seems to have cobbled together a softer version of economically driven affirmative action. By spending about $50 million per year and targeting top students from low-income neighborhoods, the universities have attracted a competitive student body that is economically and ethnically diverse.” https://nyti.ms/3MZzZhL

Similarly, creative admission policies such as “first in the family to attend college” scholarships also address the basic issue, as noted in today’s NEWSDAY editorial on the new super generous $500 million gift to Stony Brook University by James and Marian Simon: “In the best first-generation tradition, Stony Brook has attracted many students from immigrant families. More funding and even greater stress on excellence will increase Stony Brook’s reputation as a steppingstone to the American dream.” Big gift to Stony Brook can let it soar – Newsday

[I’m pleased to note that on a much more modest scale, my alma mater, Manhattan College, has just established a “first-to-attend” scholarship in its School of Liberal Arts.}

The current landmark College Affirmative Action Cases –

In “What will the Supreme Court decide in the affirmative action cases?”, last week columnist Ashley Banks presented a succinct summary of these cases:  https://on.thegrio.com/43Rmdou

“Last fall, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases where Students For Fair Admissions filed suits against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) and Harvard University, alleging both universities gave Black and Latino students advantages to gaining entry to the universities based on race…

“The lawsuits also alleged that UNC discriminated against both white and Asian Americans and that Harvard discriminated against Asian Americans during the college admissions process.”

A key issue in such cases: Whether race is one of several/many factors or “determinative” in the admission process.

The College Board last year filed an amicus brief in the cases with this summary: “America’s higher education institutions have long recognized and cultivated the educational benefits of diversity. And for over four decades, this court has recognized the essential role that diversity serves in achieving educational missions and outcomes.” https://bit.ly/3oPbiNb

But iconoclast Professor Rofes is not buying a “Cumbia” outcome. In forecasting “a civil disobedience of the American university”, here is his prophesy:

“Later this month, the nation’s highest court will tell the nation’s colleges and universities once and for all to stop perpetuating race-consciousness in their admission programs.

“Do not for a moment believe that the pronouncement will serve to end such race-consciousness.

“Why?

“Because the resistance to that command – a resistance that will unfold for decades out of view of Americans and those whose collective job is to deliver news to Americans – will be anything but fake..”

(“The views he expresses are his alone and should not be attributed to Marquette University.”)

 

 

Let’s hope for a  much more harmonious outcome.

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

[Update, Monday, June 12, 1PM – In the wake of last week’s potentially far-reaching SCOTUS decision on Alabama Voting rights, a contrasting analysis: “ … for now, it seems that a majority of the court isn’t ready to decree that race can never be a factor in a remedy for a historical wrong.” https://wapo.st/3MX2ooS ]

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

That’s the gripping capsule summary of a new seminal analysis by New York Times guest columnist Bret C. Devereaux: “College Should Be More Than Just Vocational Schools” https://nyti.ms/43l57zO

Or to be blunt: Will liberal arts studies adapt enough – and fast enough – to survive the current attacks on it?

There is, of course, much at stake. Deveraux, a teaching assistant at North Carolina University, is eloquent in his summation:

“Higher education, with broad study in the liberal arts, is meant to create not merely good workers but also good citizens. Citizens with knowledge of their history and culture are better equipped to lead and participate in a democratic society….We should not dismantle the educational assets that built America’s 20th-century success.”

He contends that we are dismantling it: “… a bipartisan coalition of politicians and university administrators is now hard at work attacking it – and its essential role in public life – by slashing funding, cutting back on tenure protections, ending faculty governance and imposing narrow ideological limits on what can be taught.”

All this at a time when cultural wars are straining the bonds of democratic societies. Tragically, liberal arts studies are under attack and undervalued in today’s roiling, deeply divided society that is in great need of mutual understanding, tolerance, and cooperation.

An antidote to this miasma : Carleton College history professor Clifford Clark captured the essence of liberal arts studies:

“The educational philosophy that animates the liberal arts is grounded in the belief that not only are there are many ways of viewing the world, but that each lens is worthy of consideration…a liberal arts education ideally makes us better able to consider, understand, and be moved by perspectives and visions that differ from or own, be they those of a neighbor or another person who may be geographically distant from us.”

Adapting to the times–

Liberal arts studies in universities has evolved in many waves over the decades – indeed, over the centuries. So, it should not surprise that at many schools it is once again adapting to historic societal change. Objective: Achieve the delicate balance between traditional liberal arts emphasis and topical curriculum attuned to current careers and employment. Examples:

“Carleton College (Northfield, Minnesota), … is the latest example of a liberal arts college adding technically based apprenticeships to prepare its students and graduates for early-career employment in the business sector.” (Forbes) https://bit.ly/43fwTOd

At Arizona State University, “a new interdisciplinary major [will] start in the fall: ‘Culture, Technology, and Environment.’” (The New Yorker).

 The Manhattan College School of Liberal Arts is introducing a new B.A. in a criminology major in the fall, as “a response to both internal demand and larger national trends in higher education.” https://bit.ly/3GwaOBa

A survey of the 125 member institutions of the Annapolis Group of Liberal Arts Colleges https://www.annapolisgroup.org/ would no doubt add quite substantially to the list of such innovative, topical, recent or planned additions.

“Connections”

There is an “aesthetic bonus” inherent in many of these new liberal arts academic offerings.

Mathematician-author Sarah Hart explains it in “The Wonderous Connections Between Literature and Math” https://nyti.ms/43gSOV3 :

“… the more holistic connections between mathematics and literature have not received the attention they deserve … .the two fields are inextricably, and fundamentally , linked. …

“Good mathematics, like good writing, involves an inherent appreciation of structure, rhythm, and pattern…

“As a mathematician, it’s been one of the great joys of my career to uncover and explore these connections…Great literature and great mathematics satisfy the same deep yearning in us: for beauty, for truth, for understanding.”

Finis.

Published by

John Paluszek

Status is online
Executive Editor at Business In Society
liberal arts democracy