Megan McArdle thinks the American Association of University Professors is making a mistake.
In her Aug. 10 column, “What the professors lost by winning with El-Sayed,” McArdle argued that the AAUP’s first-ever political endorsement — of Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary — risked reinforcing the perception of ideological politicization that has made universities vulnerable to attack. Her argument gets the central question right: Should professors respond to the politicization of higher education by retreating from politics, or by organizing politically themselves?
I believe engaging in politics is the only way to build power to defend the sector against the barrage of attacks from the Trump administration. The AAUP has become political because politicians are increasingly making decisions that determine whether higher education can survive.
For much of the 20th century, through a system of shared governance, faculty helped determine curriculum, academic standards and hiring. That model has unraveled.
State legislatures are now dictating curriculum and restricting academic freedom. Boards and administrators have centralized authority, and tenure has steadily eroded. Nearly three-quarters of college instructors now work in contingent positions.
The AAUP’s turn toward politics was thrust upon us. When workers lose their seat at the governing table, they speak collectively through unions and politics. Academic workers are no different.
The AAUP is affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers, a 1.8-million-member union. Its job is to build political power around the candidate who will fight for higher education. El-Sayed supports making college more affordable, rebuilding public investment and defending academic freedom.
Professors didn’t choose the battlefield, but we’re no longer willing to pretend we aren’t standing on one.
Todd Wolfson, Washington
The writer is president of the AAUP.
Back-to-school advice from a pro
I retired from teaching in June, and this is the first time in 30 years that I have not purchased back-to-school supplies for my own children or my classroom. So, I read Michelle Singletary’s Aug. 12 Color of Money column, “There’s a better way to purchase back-to-school supplies,” with interest. I have a few additional suggestions.
Many parent-teacher associations offer a school supply box. It may not always be the cheapest option, but purchasing it supports the school and saves parents time. If that option is unavailable, I would urge parents to stick to the school supply list and not purchase extras. That 64-count crayon box can become a distraction. Parents should also not opt for lower-quality brands than what the list requests. It could cost parents more money to replace supplies throughout the year if they don’t hold up. And, unless a teacher has specifically asked for it, don’t buy an individual pencil sharpener. They are the bane of custodians for a reason: Pencil shavings inevitably end up all over the floor.
Singletary noted that “when those shared supplies aren’t enough or run out, teachers end up spending their own money to fill the gap.” I know from my own experience how true this is. For parents who are able, ask your child’s teacher whether they have an Amazon wish list for their classrooms.
Purchasing school supplies is a growing financial burden for many families. These families should contact a school counselor or their child’s teacher. Many counselors collect extra supplies or can reach out confidentially to the PTA for support, and teachers often have leftovers from previous students.
The most important things parents can supply their children with are free: encouragement, a positive attitude toward learning and a library card.
Diane B. Norton, Fairfax
A Social Security crisis isn’t inevitable
The Aug. 6 news article “As Social Security benefit cuts loom, Congress wades into the crisis” presents the very premise that keeps this debate stuck: that the program’s future is a forced choice between cutting benefits and raising taxes. It isn’t.
Social Security operates on a pay-as-you-go basis. The bonds that the trust fund holds are simultaneously an asset to and a liability of the federal government, thereby offsetting each other, and have no bearing on the government’s ability to pay benefits. The $477 billion shortfall looks binding only because Congress has forbidden Social Security from drawing on general revenue. The military and civil-service retirement funds receive exactly such transfers as a matter of routine.
Congress does not need another commission to provide cover for cutting benefits. And it needs to stop treating a self-imposed accounting deadline as a fiscal cliff. Congress should protect scheduled benefits, let the fund draw on general revenues as other government retirement programs do, and invest in the capacity that genuinely supports retirees.
Edward Lane, Gardiner, New York
Letter submissions
Send letters to [email protected].
Submissions must be exclusive to The Post and should include the writer’s address and day and evening telephone numbers. Letters are subject to editing and abridgment. Please do not send letters as attachments. Because of the volume of material we receive, we are unable to acknowledge submissions; writers whose letters are under consideration for publication will be contacted.
The post Professors didn’t make a mistake by backing El-Sayed appeared first on Washington Post.
