Category Archives: academia

Strong Women Across America

My Tufts colleague Professor Miriam Nelson is a distinguished nutritionist, a scientist who has been leading federally funded research studies on food and exercise for almost 20 years. She has written many books and articles and serves on official expert bodies, such as the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee for the US Department of Agriculture.

Those are conventional measures of success and impact. But Mim Nelson knows that a whole range of factors beyond our individual choice affect our health: for instance, what food is available locally, whether the sidewalks are walkable, and how friendly local governments are to bicycles. These factors are tough to change, but people can address them collectively, and in doing so, they can gain friendships, skills, and confidence.

Instead of exhorting people to make better choices, Mim Nelson and colleagues are organizing communities for social change. We see that shift in some other fields as well–for example, the family therapy professor Bill Doherty has moved away from treating stress as a treatable personal problem; he now organizes suburban families to fight the causes of stress.

Mim has organized Change Clubs across America, mostly in rural communities and mostly composed of women. She and colleagues are now on a national tour called “StrongWomen Across America: Change Yourself, Change the World.” It is really an exercise in community-organizing, with a focus on nutrition and exercise and an emphasis on rural women. You can follow their progress through videos, photographs, and reflections on their tour blog page.

Syracuse University: slide or rise?

(Cincinnati) Although I grew up in Syracuse as a professor’s child, have visited the university as recently as last week, and know more than a dozen SU faculty, I am not really in a position to evaluate the administration of Chancellor Nancy Cantor. She has tried to reorient the university to serving “the public good.” That means making it more accessible to poor and minority students, supporting the redevelopment of the city of Syracuse in partnership with local citizens, and emphasizing scholarship that engages public issues. Her strategy has become a leading national example of “engagement” in higher education. Therefore, the debate about her administration (see, for example, this critical article in the Chronicle of Higher Education) has national implications.

Some results at Syracuse:

  • The proportion of US-born minority students has risen from 18.5 percent to 32 percent.
  • The proportion of incoming students whose family incomes qualify them for federal financial aid has risen from 20 percent to 28 percent.
  • According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, “the institution has spent tens of millions of dollars—and attracted much more—to revitalize this sagging Rust Belt city. It has helped refurbish parks, taken over an abandoned building where drug dealers once grew marijuana, and turned an old furniture warehouse into a new home for academic programs in art, drama, and fashion design. The university is encouraging professors to focus their research on the city, while giving free tuition to local high-school graduates.”
  • But the University has slipped from 40th to 62nd on US News and World Report‘s ranking of national universities. The Chronicle quotes some SU professors (all of whom I happen to know) who feel that the investments in financial aid and local redevelopment and the change in admissions standards come at the cost of academic excellence.

I hesitate to make my own judgment because everything depends on quality. Serving the public good is not a matter of intention alone, but requires intellectual excellence–a point very well argued in an Imagining America report by Nancy Cantor and several colleagues. I am too far removed from the scene to be able to assess the quality or impact of SU’s work. But I would make the following broader points:

1. The fate of Syracuse University is inextricably linked to the fate of Syracuse, a hard-hit, post-industrial city. The city’s condition affects the University in the most tangible ways. For instance, talented young faculty will not teach at SU unless the city offers them amenities and feels vibrant.

2. Addressing the condition of our shrinking, post-industrial cities is an immense intellectual challenge, requiring the very highest quality of scholarship across many disciplines. If SU can contribute to that effort, it will distinguish itself intellectually. Moreover, by focusing some of its attention on one great, complex, multifaceted public issue, the university can integrate knowledge and perspectives, becoming more than a shopping mall that offers miscellaneous courses and research products.

3. The diversity of a student body or faculty does not trade off against excellence. Diversity is an educational asset. To be sure, admitting a more diverse class (by race, ethnicity, and economic background) will mean admitting students who start with a wider range of academic skills–including some who are less prepared. But that means they can progress further while they are in college. The ultimate measure of excellence is not whether you admit the smartest kids, but what you teach them. US News & World Report makes little effort to measure “value added,” yet that is what every college should strive for. Competing to admit the students who least need higher education is no way to achieve excellence.

4. The potential dangers I see are: (1) harmful effects on the city if investments are misconceived; (2) failure to support a more diverse student body; and (3) reduced support for forms of scholarship, such as ancient or medieval cultural history or pure mathematics, that feel remote from public concerns. Sometimes these disciplines address live public causes–as in this example from the field of classics. But we do them a disservice if we assess them only on that basis. They have intrinsic rather than pragmatic value.

I raise these potential dangers not because I see them playing out at Syracuse, but because they require vigilance.

For a response to the Chronicle article, follow this new blog by SU graduate students.

bridging the chasm between scholarly discourse and public opinion

(Dayton, OH) With the exception of some pure research (which I admire), scholarship deals with matters of public concern and is valuable only if it has public impact. The scholarly consensus on climate change is having no impact on public opinion and is not even recognized as a consensus by the public. Such gaps (and there are many other examples) strongly suggest that there is something wrong with the way we operate in academia. The fault is surely shared by other institutions, such as the news media. But I say: no excuses. We professors have 2,000 institutions and 3% of GDP; we should be able to do something about mistrust, misinformation, or lack of attention.

I am moderating a group of Tufts faculty who are concerned about these problems and eager to address it in different ways. These Tisch College Faculty Fellows are profiled here. The come from Arts & Sciences, Engineering, the Medical School, the Dental school, and Veterinary Medicine. Their work is very diverse but all engage public audiences or partners. I hope we will develop models and proposals that are broadly valuable.

the future of classics

(in Washington, DC)

Just as maiden, standing on the shore of the ocean, follows with tearful eyes her departed lover with no hope of ever seeing him again, and fancies that in that distant sail she sees the image of her beloved … we too have, as it were, nothing but a shadowy outline left of the object of our wishes, but that very indistinctness awakens only a more earnest longing for what we have lost, and we study the copies of the originals more attentively than we should have done the originals themselves if we had been in full possession of them.

–Johann Joachim Winckelmann, “Greek Art Under the Romans,” ca 1764.

The desire to recover and imitate aspects of Greco-Roman civilization has been one of the great motivating forces–not only in what we (quite arbitrarily) call “the West,” but also in the whole Islamic world and in the Orthodox nations from the Baltic to the Pacific. People have sought to emulate a great range of Greco-Roman models. Charlemagne tried to patch together a semblance of late Romano-Christian law and religion. English gentlemen thought they lived like Pliny the Elder under a new Augustan empire. Wordsworth believed he would “rather be / A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn” (a wild Greek savage) than a modern consumer or trader. Czars imagined themselves Byzantine emperors; New England patriots saw themselves as plain-spun citizens of a new Athens.

My father, Joseph M. Levine, wrote several books about encounters with antiquity. He argued that efforts to recover the classical world generally had practical–political and cultural–motivations. Whether you were a citizen of an Italian Renaissance city-state, finding models in classical oratory, or an English Whig politician, admiring the Roman Republic, you had forward-looking reasons to recommend the study of something called “classics.”

Because of these practical projects, the discipline of classical philology became the first and most ambitious form of professional scholarship. But classical scholars discovered the diversity, fluidity, imperfection, and sheer alienness of ancient civilizations. They showed that classical models could not work for the present or future. Thus, repeatedly and especially in the 19th and 20th centuries, classics made itself irrelevant.

I have some classical training, and still prize it because of the insights I believe it offers into the history of post-classical civilizations. Writers as diverse as Ayatollah Khomenei, James Joyce, and Thomas Jefferson were steeped in classical sources; knowing those sources and the languages in which they were written helps us to understand our predecessors. But we should not long mourn the decline of an enterprise designed for large-scale, practical purposes once it no longer serves those purposes.

Classics today can seem a discipline with an immensely long apprenticeship, a vast array of prior literature to sort through before one can write anything original, a limited set of original sources, ethnocentric biases, a modest audience, and a diminishing market share. Yet my classicist colleague Gregory Crane, editor-in-chief of Project Perseus and a pioneer in the digital humanities, has shown that classics offers excellent opportunities for diverse people to construct new knowledge together. For example, Crane enlists Muslim seminary students in the Middle East to help annotate the classical Arabic texts that are essential for our understanding of Greek sources. Beginning students in the US can collate Greek manuscripts (via images); and travelers can record geographical information.

Crane notes that Greco-Roman civilization “remains a major source for every form of popular medium – fiction and non-fiction, film and prose.” People who enjoy Percy Jackson or HBO’s Rome may want real historical information and context. But

the sources about the ancient Greco-Roman world are particularly challenging to work with – the original sources are in Classical Greek and Latin, and our knowledge about the Greco-Roman world has appeared in every written language from areas spanning from Morocco to Afghanistan. The physical world of Greece and Rome has left impressive remains behind to this day but we must reconstruct our understanding of this physical world from archaeological finds spread across thousands of miles.

Fortunately, we now have “open content collections,” such as Project Perseus; and a “new decentralized culture of intellectual life has taken hold among students of the Greco-Roman world, with student researchers emerging as key participants in colleges and universities in the United States and Canada.” These scholars and students can serve the broad public by providing information and background to complement popular versions of classical civilization.

I think that Project Perseus represents the bright future of classics, not only because of its content, but especially because of the collaborative process that feeds it.

the chasm between public opinion and scholarly discourse

Via Kevin Drum, here is a table from the Pew Research Center that shows how much scientific consensus Americans perceive on the subject of climate change:

As Drum notes, there is a correct answer to this question. It is not a question about global warming, but about the proportion of climate scientists who believe that the climate is changing (for whatever reason). In reality, that proportion is very close to 100%. Yet only 14% of American adults chose the 81%-100% category. The median respondent thought that scientists are split about evenly regarding the very existence of climate change. Drum writes, “Hell, if it were really true that 60% of climate scientists believed in global warming and 40% didn’t, I probably wouldn’t believe in it either. But nationally, that’s what a large majority of Americans think. They think that within the scientific community, there’s roughly an even split among believers and deniers.”

To me, this kind of statistic raises a very basic question about how the university functions in the modern world. To be sure, participating in public debates and informing policies are not our only roles. If you are a pure philosopher, for example, then you are engaging in an activity of intrinsic value. But climate science is not about pure knowledge. Like most of the university’s work, climate science is an expensive, labor-intensive enterprise ultimately meant to advise human beings. So if we employ many thousands of highly trained experts, spend many millions of public dollars on this activity, and agree upon at least the fundamental facts, yet only 14% of our own fellow citizens recognize the consensus, there is a problem.

I do not claim that the problem is worse than it used to be, although I think it has novel features and causes. Forty years ago, most people watched Walter Cronkite and/or read the daily newspaper. So the challenge for concerned academics was to persuade the broadcast networks and print reporters to pay attention to and understand scholarship. Now the media landscape is fragmented, and all forms of substantive news reporting reach niche audiences. That is a different problem.

One common proposal is to teach our core findings better in k-12 schools. For instance, in my field, survey results of adults’ civic knowledge look abysmal, and the typical response is to demand civics classes in high schools. But 97% of American high school seniors already report taking American government or civics courses, thanks in part to standards that exist in all the states except Iowa (where most students nevertheless take the courses). Some states require difficult civics tests for graduation. The textbooks, tests, and standards are written or heavily influenced by academics–like me.  We could do a better job, but it’s folly to assume that by teaching a bunch of material to 16-year-olds, we can solve all the communications and knowledge problems for their subsequent seven or eight decades of life.

I don’t have solutions, but I believe the academy most “own” this problem. It is ours. We might start by lamenting the poor performance of the mass media, but we cannot stop with that. We have more than 2,000 institutions distributed across the nation’s communities, three percent of GDP, large endowments, skilled employees, and a generally accepted right to decide who enters the middle class. Those are assets that we must deploy to address the communications problem.