As a minority administrator, I greatly appreciated “At the Ivies, It’s Still White at the Top” (The Chronicle, June 9). That said, I would like to suggest that The Chronicle conduct a more comprehensive and in-depth investigation on this issue by including non-Ivy League institutions, because formidable obstacles for minorities to become senior administrators permeate the entire academe in the this country.

Actually, we still operate in a system that resembles the medieval caste system: Leaders (or “kings” and “princes”) are determined based on their breeds (where they graduated, and who they studied, and are associated with); Ivy league colleges choose those from the Ivy League, while others also try to recruit those from the Ivy League in order to boost their “credibility,” but, to their great regret, only end up with those from non-Ivy League institutions. As a result, senior administrators in the academe might have become increasingly homogeneous in terms of academic and racial background.

Just my two cents…

Jie Chen
Dean
College of Graduate Studies
Professor of Political Science
University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho

Kudos to Brad Wolverton for “Bounced Around” (The Chronicle, June 3). It is supremely well written, relevant, and informative.  Moreover, it is obvious why Mr. Wolverton won the 2008 Dick Schaap Excellence in Sports Journalism Award.

Also, Tamika Moore should be congratulated for her excellent photographs that make the article come alive.

James A. Johnson
Southfield, Mich.

Congratulations to Stacey Patton for an excellent article raising concerns about diversity in the Ivies (“At the Ivies, It’s Still White at the Top,” The Chronicle, June 9). Numbers speak for themselves, and none of us is doing well enough.

In my role as deputy provost for faculty development and diversity at Yale University, I was glad to be interviewed as part of Ms. Patton’s research. Taken out of context, however, the quotes attributed to me do not convey what I intended to say. I pointed out that female and minority administrators have to go the extra mile to “fit in.” My comments were as an observer and advocate for generating institutional change and equity, not as someone giving advice for how to get and hold one of these jobs. I intended my comments to describe the problem, not to prescribe the solution.

Universities, including Yale, are seeking to improve search and promotion processes in order to increase faculty and administrative diversity. Doing anything less is to miss possibilities for excellence, because intelligence and competence are not distributed by gender and race. But so far our efforts have come up short.

There are no instant fixes, but acknowledging the problem is the first step. The rest is hard work: identifying and investing in talent early on, and making sure that the dominant culture, invisible as it is, doesn’t discourage worthy people from succeeding in their desired career paths.

Frances Rosenbluth
Deputy Provost
Yale University
New Haven, Conn.

We commend the U.S. Department of Education for creating its new panel on gainful-employment rules (“Education Dept. Seeks Members for Panel on ‘Gainful Employment’ Rules,” The Chronicle, June 12) to devise new standards to determine the efficacy of educational programs offered by for-profit colleges.

These colleges need to be held accountable for their high-pressure tactics and false claims. The for-profits have made targeting Iraq and Afghanistan veterans a big part of their business plans, and they bombard potential students with aggressive and persistent recruitment tactics promising guaranteed high-paying jobs. Instead, the programs drain veterans of their GI benefits and leave them with non-transferable credits, heavy student-loan debt burdens, and degrees that are not useful in their chosen fields.

These for-profit schools see veterans as revenue streams, because each vet represents tens of thousands of dollars in Post-9/11 GI Bill and other federal education benefits.

A student vet who has served America honorably and bravely should not be taken advantage of by profiteering institutions of higher education. Veterans’ interests should be represented on the panel, and the department should hold these colleges accountable for their predatory practices. If the for-profits have nothing to hide, they will welcome the opportunity to show the department just how high their job placement record is.

Matthew Boulay
Veterans’ Student Loan Relief Program
Mt. Kisco, N.Y.

So in my course on assessment in student affairs we watched a video of an interview of William Bennett, former U.S. Secretary of Education. What struck my instructor, classmates, and me was a comment Mr. Bennett made along the lines of “majoring in a field of study such as philosophy, as I did, is useless.” Apparently, being appointed U.S. Secretary of Education is not an indication of success in life, my instructor said.

What’s even more annoying is Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s threat to charge more for liberal-arts programs among the state’s colleges and universities than for STEM programs. What cure for cancer has he found? But he’s one of the people deciding whether the individual who may find this cure can afford to attend college and professional school one day.

Now I’m not against STEM education. It’s very salient to the sustainability of society. I studied the sciences in college and love it, actually. But I definitely would not be where I am today without a liberal-arts education, and neither would many others as well. Take a look at the following list. These liberal-arts-educated celebrities are among the most successful, famous, and influential people in this country and the world. I wonder what Mr. Bennett would say about them.

Cory Booker
Chris Christie
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Anderson Cooper
Angela Davis
Michael Eric Dyson
Nikki Giovanni
Melissa Harris-Perry
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Phillip Calvin McGraw (Dr. Phil)
Barack Obama
Michelle Obama
Sonia Sotomayor
Judith Sheindlin (Judge Judy)
Barbara Walters
Cornel West
Oprah Winfrey

Liberal-arts education in this country dates back to the origin of American higher education, and some have argued that it has run its course. As you can see above, however, liberal-arts programs have helped improve society. Threats to them need to end.

Henry W. Lewis III
Graduate Student
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Indiana, Pa.

Recently, a colleague at another university was told by one of his students that his class had been “the best course that student had ever taken in his life,” and that the student had learned things “that inspired and reshaped his entire conception of existence.” And yet, that very same student regretfully informed my friend that he had given him only average scores on the student evaluation form.

“You didn’t always lecture on the assigned material,” he explained. “You didn’t always get the tests back on time, and you weren’t particularly clear as to what the learning objectives were.” Then he added apologetically, “I guess those evaluation forms have to focus on efficiency or they wouldn’t be objective.”

Spoken like a true product of American Learning Systems Incorporated.

But this little anecdote does raise questions as to what student evaluations actually measure. Besides their statistical limitations, they don’t really seem to ask the right questions.

Albert Einstein once remarked that if you motivate students by fear of failure you will create a generation of timid followers.  If you motivate them by ambition for success, you will create self-centered narcissists. Either way your civilization won’t last more than another generation or two. The only true motivation for learning is a love and respect for the truth.

I won’t speculate here as to where we currently stand on this cultural trajectory. Let it suffice to say that truth and inspiration are not particularly high on our current course-evaluation forms, and if the trends continue in the direction they’re going, such concerns may soon be eliminated altogether—replaced by more pertinent queries such as “After taking this course are you better prepared to design and market your own solar car?” “Did the instructor help you integrate yourself more completely into the current global market?” and “Were the restrooms clean and the desk comfortable?”

In the hope of staving off a bit of the consumerist ethic creeping into our student evaluation forms and encourage students to take greater responsibility for their own educations, I offer this short list of replacement questions (collected from conversations with many friends and colleagues). Feel free to add your own or delete those that seem silly or redundant.

• Did my teacher see me as a person not as a category?

• Did the teacher help me appreciate the value of making mistakes?

• Did I feel the teacher’s criticisms and corrections were in the service of a worthy goal?

• Did the teacher encourage me to cultivate a tolerance for ambivalence and equivocation when circumstances demand them?

• Did the teacher help me understand that not knowing should generate curiosity and questioning, not guilt or shame?

• Given the opportunity to take this class again, would I demand more of myself next time?

• Did my motivation to do well shift from an interest in my grade to an interest in the material?

• Did the teacher help me understand the wisdom unfolding within my own lost illusions?

• Did the teacher assume an attitude of “intimacy, trust, and cooperation” as opposed to one of “dominance and submission”?

• Was the teacher ever surprised by what I knew?

• Was I ever surprised by what I learned?

• Did I ever get the feeling that what was transpiring inside class mattered outside the class?

• Did the teacher know what to do when the energy of the room dropped?

• Did the teacher remain committed to his or her subject despite my disinterest or apparent lack of comprehension?

• Did the teacher exhibit resilience in the face of my reluctance to participate?

• Did the teacher require me to weigh opinions that contradicted my own?

• Did the teacher favor the intrinsic and implicit over the concrete and material?

• Did the teacher encourage me to value the conversations I have with myself as much as the conversations that occur in class?

• Did the teacher avoid ideological cheerleading and group-think?

• Did the teacher augment my curiosity and encourage my impatience with the intellectual status quo?

• Did the teacher favor questions over answers, even when the questions remained unanswerable?

• Did the teacher show how a convenient half-truth can be even more destructive than an out and out falsehood?

• Did the teacher help in the recovery of irony as a useful analytic tool, while frequently modeling useful applications?

• Did the teacher help me probe the mystery of the commonplace?

• Did the teacher show how the subject we were studying is a form of the good and the beautiful?

• Did the teacher show how much the present is bound to the past?

• Did the teacher help me locate the injustices hiding within so-called justice?

Robert Inchausti
Professor of English
California State Polytechnic University
San Luis Obispo, Calif.

I just read “Colleges Can Help Transgender Students ‘Be Who They Are,’ Says Leading Doctor” (The Chronicle, June 2). Norman P. Spack is an amazing man. I can say this because my family knows him very well. I am proud father of twins, one is a boy and one is a girl. My beautiful daughter Nicole is transgender. She is a great kid, smart, confident, excited to learn, and willing to speak out to help others. She and her brother were featured on the front page of The Boston Globe in 2011. Willing to share their story to help the world learn more about transgender youth.

Nicole openly attended school as a transgender girl in the fifth grade. Unfortunately, she was quickly identified as someone to fear and she experienced severe bullying, harassment, and discrimination that changed her life. The discrimination, harassment, and bullying were intolerable. Our family went into hiding to be safe, a burden that no family should have to endure. Our children are still recovering. They now attend a safe and supportive school. They have a renewed love for learning and both are starting to think about college. Both have grand ideas of what college will be like and Nicole is hopeful that she will get a fresh start, a start that allows her to be who she needs to be in every way. As parents we want to be able to let go of the reins, knowing that she will be in a safe and supportive community.

We are hopeful that you can make this happen. Parents of transgender children need your help to make to make this happen. From experience we know there is still a great deal of work to do to support and protect transgender youth. Too many people still fear the unknown. Too many student groups, faculty and staff members, and administrators lack the knowledge and tools necessary to meet the needs of transgender students. There is so much more information and support available today to help your institutions be successful. Ten years ago I had to live and watch my child grow to understand her needs. The tools I needed did not exist, but today the resources are at your fingertips. All you need to do is ask for help.

At the lowest point, when my family needed help I reached out to the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community in New England and my friends at the University of Maine. I was received with open arms and tremendous energy. Learning from the amazing young people on campus, it became apparent that we all have the same hopes and dreams. I also learned more about many of the challenges transgender college students face as they try to fit in with their classmates and campus community.

Throughout all the bullying, harassment, and discrimination my daughter has endured and the stress my family lives with still this very day, the University of Maine leadership team has been in my corner, providing me with support and a few shoulders to lean on. Our campus LGBT community has become part of my family, strengthening our inner circle.

Unfortunately not all campuses are this supportive. We have a great deal more to do before Nicole starts touring college campuses. College students, faculty and staff members, and administrators are just starting to learn and master “Transgender 101.” My discussions with campus leaders and parents reveal that many institutions have a limited understanding of the real challenges and needs of this growing transgender community. It is time to bring our campuses up to speed to help support transgender students, faculty, and staff.

It is time to prepare for this new and rapidly growing generation of transgender students. Soon Nicole, her friends, and their parents will be visiting your campuses, looking for institutions that have addressed their request for new policies, procedures, housing, and health-care benefits.

Nicole and her friends will expect more because they are growing up together in our high schools and middle schools and they are living and learning together openly as transgender youth. They are helping their schools learn and their communities change. Through their courage, young wisdom, and innocent demands, I believe university leaders will come to the realization that providing these support systems is the right thing to do.

Administrators and student leaders need to meet with their transgender communities to learn more. The first conversations might include requests for housing and bathroom facilities, class-roster changes, and improved response to harassment. This is a good thing. This dialog will provide positive first steps to open doors to provide more education, education that will help people understand, accept, and support transgender people in their communities.

Colleges and universities are designed to challenge the mind, to promote new ideas, and be the catalysts for change. Transgender parents need your help to make sure change occurs before our children reach your campus communities. Please continue providing open dialogue that goes beyond asking for neutral gender bathrooms, that goes beyond promoting tolerance, and that establishes a climate that demands equal rights for everyone.

Transgender children across the nation are still facing discrimination and harassment in their schools and communities. When Nicole and her transgender friends step on to your campuses, they will demand equal rights and expect the same privileges that some in your community still take for granted. As a parent, a university community member, and advocate for civil rights, I ask you to continue to learn more and to please implement positive change for this new generation of students that will be quickly at your doorstep.

Wayne M. Maines
Director
Safety/Environmental Management, Transportation, Security
University of Maine
Orono, Me.

There are a few basic clarifications to make to “Can a Historian Head Berkeley’s Anthropologists? Department Is Split Over Interim Chair” (The Chronicle, May 31). The claim that appointing an interim chair from outside the department is “routine” is belied by the fact that in the often contentious and outspoken 100-year history of the anthropology department, it has never happened before.

The administration’s explanation that no other candidates were available to serve as interim chair is not credible: A senior member of the department who was chair twice previously was available and willing to serve as interim chair for one year. He was not consulted. That same person had just been entrusted with heading a search committee and had carried the search to successful completion through consensus building. Thus claims of major and irremediable factions and irreparable collective antagonisms in the department are not true. It may be the case that not everyone would have voted for that person, but that excuse applies as well to the administration’s decision to appoint an outside chair. Certainly no one voted on that move.

We are witnessing a general bureaucrat-driven disenfranchisement, in line with modes of intervention elsewhere in America. That this can happen with little or no transparent debate even at as prestigious an institution as the University of Californiat at Berkeley is symptomatic and a warning sign.

Paul Rabinow
Professor of Anthropology
Laura Nader
Professor of Anthropology
University of California
Berkeley, Calif.

“For Many College Presidents, Home Is an Uncalculated Benefit” (The Chronicle, May 12) says that, “because the presidents are obligated by their contracts to live in the houses, they don’t pay income tax on them.”

Where did that idea come from? I’m sure the article accurately reflects the understanding of most boards of trustees and of presidents themselves. (I’ve heard a president make exactly that point.) But that understanding doesn’t reflect the law.

The analysis required under the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulations is much more extensive. It’s true that, for the value of lodging provided by an employer to be excluded from the income of an employee, the lodging must be a “condition of employment.” But that’s only one requirement. The lodging must also be provided for the “convenience of the employer.” The Supreme Court has interpreted that phrase as meaning the benefit must be necessary “to the functioning of the employer’s business,” and the regulations give as an example a situation where the employee must be available to deal with emergencies. (Other examples seem to have no possible application to college presidents.)

Whatever the practice in the real world, I’ve never seen a serious argument that the typical presidential lodging is for the convenience of the employer. Most presidents are obviously not around to deal with emergencies; they’re away raising money. Of course they need places to entertain potential donors, but what, pray tell, is the business necessity for entertaining in the president’s home?

It’s time to reexamine the tax treatment of this common fringe benefit—one that is provided to folks who are hardly among society’s downtrodden. Is this anything other than an attempt to convert what should be taxable compensation into a potentially tax-free form? And the issue goes beyond college presidents: Some well-compensated museum directors are also provided free housing on the assumption that the benefit is nontaxable.

I might note that an earlier article in The Chronicle (“Pay and Perks Creep Up for Private-College Presidents,” December 9, 2012) made it clear that not everyone thinks lodging is tax-free. Jesse M. Fried, a law professor at Harvard University, was cited as defending the practice, in some circumstances, of colleges’ paying any income tax due on benefits provided to presidents. In the article’s words: “College presidents may incur some tax liabilities on benefits they are contractually obligated to accept, like houses and cars. If trustees believe it is important for a president to live in a university-owned home, they may remove the tax burden to ensure that the offer is as attractive as possible.” Whatever the merits of this “grossing-up” policy, some institutions must be getting the underlying tax analysis right.

Erik M. Jensen
Professor of Law
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland

Regarding “How the Education Department Would Limit Dating” (The Chronicle, May 23), let me point out that our United States Supreme Court, in interpreting constitutionally-protected freedom of speech, concluded in 1993—and amplified in 1999—that “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” conduct must be in evidence to be considered illegal sexual harassment in an educational setting. More recently, our Department of Education in Washington notified all colleges that male students alleged to have sexually harassed a female will henceforth have to prove their innocence, rather than have the assumption of innocence and be proven guilty. The Montana case now illustrates our government, by way of the Department of Education, has tightened the noose on both freedom of speech and on academic freedom by defining sexual harassment as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.”

Any student is now at risk simply because any other student can say that a conversation, if it had even a hint of sexual content, was unwelcome. Any faculty member—especially those teaching courses that involve the mention of sex in any of its forms, including historically accurate representations—is at risk because there is bound to be a student, especially one who receives a grade lower than expected, who finds the message unwelcome.

Colleges were once the main and initial protectors of both free speech and its first cousin, academic freedom. Yet they are strangely quiet about these government rules to strangle one of their very reasons for being. Why are professors not up in arms, why is that bastion of protective academic freedom, the AAUP, not railing against these serious moves to severely reduce freedom of speech and academic freedom? Worst of all, why has not one president of our vast  higher educational system taken a stand against this slow-moving, cancerous tyranny?

Robert V. Iosue
President Emeritus
York College of Pennsylvania
York, Pa.