I was speaking with the wife of a social acquaintance the other day who is a mucky-muck at a prestigious graduate school at a prestigious university (hint, we have only one round these parts). She was talking about the long term risk that universities face by admitting so many foreign students, particularly Chinese students. (Just in case any readers are aching to make the phony racism charge here, the woman in question is Asian-American.*) The lament stems from the apparently well-known fact that Asian students, particularly Chinese, do not have a culture of institutional loyalty, especially as it pertains to "giving back". Basically, higher ed mucky-mucks are worried they are churning out all these grads who won't ever donate money later on in life as they become successful. Maybe, I guess. I really wouldn't know anything about it.
What I do know, is that higher ed mucky-mucks might want to worry about churning out a large group of graduates that might not ever donate later in life as they become successful. I call this group...men. The reason that men might get turned off of loyalty to their respective institutions could be the crappy treatment they receive at the hands of
said institutions. If you're viewed as a cretinous predator the moment you step on campus, are denied basic rights of due process, and are forced to sit for judgement by a bureaucracy dominated by radical, anti-male ideologues...are you gonna develop an affection for that institution that would lead you to support that institution with your hard-earned (and these days, harder to come by) dollars? I'm inclined to say no. Universities, however, don't seem to be worried. If they were, they'd be fighting this
tooth and nail.
In a letter dated
May 9, the federal government dramatically expanded the definition of
sexual harassment on campus. In the 31-page letter, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in the U.S.
Department of Education, informed the president of the University of Montana,
Royce Engstrom, that they were "pleased to confirm the resolution" of an
investigation into how the University had handled allegations of sexual
misconduct. The stately bureaucratic prose did not distract much from the main
point: via this letter, the Executive Branch of the Federal Government was
imposing a startling change. Essentially
it said that from now on the Feds would treat as "sexual harassment" any "unwelcome
conduct of a sexual nature." And it eliminated the requirement that actions or
speech had to be "offensive" according to reasonable standards and objective
evidence to be deemed actual "harassment."
Alas, they are not. In fact, they probably welcome it. I guess they feel the government will give them endless subsidies, who needs those male donors...? This is both wrong and foolish. Let's assume that the higher education establishment in America is just out to maximize future donations and is not concerned one iota with the fair treatment and due process rights of their male students (pretty darned good assumption based on the evidence), universities ought to be sucking up to their male students. It seems that more and more educated American women are opting out
of the the work force and the intense career paths that lead to outsized financial rewards. Thus, on current course, it will be the men who will be making and controlling the bulk of the potentially charitably donable wealth. (Note, this lack of long term thinking seems to be a trend
You would think that this basic level of strategic analysis would be achievable at the modern American university, however, you would be wrong.
* More specifically the woman is Korean-American, which may mean that racism is
at work here, given that we know of the raging ethnic animosities that pervade the Asian world, but that don't fit the Americanized victimologist paradigm of racism.