Without Comment: Judge Grants Mike McQueary's lawyers $1.7 million; had awarded McQueary nearly $5 million in November

(Pix credit HERE)

There is little need for comment here. . . . other than to remind people that sometimes the most important morality plays tend to unfold at the margins of larger events. And there is a great moral here, and perhaps substantial fodder for considering ethics over passion within university administrations, when large institutions facing events that pose substantial challenges.

On the U.S. Department of Education Final Program Review Determination Re Penn State's Clery Act Compliance Before 2011 and Its Assessment of a $2.9 Million Fine

"This letter is to inform you that the U.S. Department of Education (Department) intends to fine the Pennsylvania State University (Penn State; the University) a total of $2,397,500 based on the violations of statutory and regulatory requirements outlined below." So begins the official notification, with justification and explanation, of the largest fine assessed to date by the federal government against a university for violation of that cluster of statute and regulation usually shorthanded as the Clery Act.   It is possible that the University will contest this fine, though it is hard to speculate on what grounds. That alone might be cause enough to think about the implications of this fine and its underlying causes, as American universities consider these ramifications for their own operations.

To some extent, the letter, and the action was not unexpected by the wider community in the United States. It was a long time coming--the investigation began almost five years before.  What is especially interesting is both the odd logic of the letter and what it suggests, not about Penn State's failures before 2011, but those of the government itself. Equally interesting, perhaps more so, is the determination of the university itself, in its heroic efforts to move forward, to seek to obliterate the past, one might think, as if it never happened. One can only end an analysis of action and reaction with a sense that the lessons learned may well have been the wrong ones--both for the United States, and for the university it has sought to make an object lesson to advance its own agendas. 

The U.S. Government's letter may be accessed HERE.  

My thoughts follow along with the statement of high University officials follows and for background, the story as reported by the Associated Press.

Unionization Comes to the Learning Factory: The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York and Graduate Workers of Columbia– GWC, UAW. Case 02–RC–143012 (August 23, 2016)

Once upon a time, the University was a well ordered enterprise for knowledge production and dissemination.  But it has fractured and been reconstituted along corporate lines as education has become a commodity and the university a factory for the production and deployment of revenue and influence. The two categories--faculty and students--have also fractured.  Faculty have been divided into distinct classes whose politics has substantially eroded both shared governance and the effective protection of academic freedom.   But students have fractured as well.  Where once students were the objects of knowledge dissemination, they are now broken into at least three categories.  The first are the traditional consumer of the university's educational commodity. The other two are deeply transformative.  The first are the student athlete--who provide a valuable source of revenue to the university as a corporate owner of talent exploited in markets for sports entertainment.  The second are student consumers who are also  employed in the knowledge production and dissemination business of the university--the research and teaching assistants who perform much of the lower status research and teaching at the university.  In this capacity they serve simultaneously as a consumer of product (leading to the award of a degree) and as a factor in the production of knowledge or of teaching revenue to the university. 

It should come as no surprise, then, that as the university in transformed into a business, its productive forces would seek the protection of law to enhance their positions as employees or otherwise as holders of valuable commodities (teaching and knowledge) that are inputs in the production of university revenues. For students, protection against exploitation and bargaining for the protection of their interests have taken the form of efforts to unionize--efforts that have been vigorously resisted by the university (as they might by any other business enterprise).   In the efforts to unionize student athletes see here, here, here and here. Indeed, with the 2015 decision of the National Labor Relations Board dismissing efforts of student athletes to forma  union, the idea of the dual status of students within the university--as consumers and as labor--appeared to be rejected.

But the efforts of graduate and undergraduate students to unionize appears to have succeeded where the student athletes failed.  In August 2016, the "National Labor Relations Board issued a 3-1 decision in Columbia University that student assistants working at private colleges and universities are statutory employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act." (NLRB Press  Release). The NLRB holding on Columbia University was clear:

Thus, we hold today that student assistants who have a common-law employment relationship with their university are statutory employees under the Act. We will apply that standard to student assistants, including assistants engaged in research funded by external grants. Applying the new standard to the facts here, consistent with the Board’s established approach in representation cases, we conclude (1) that all of the petitioned-for student- assistant classifications consist of statutory employees; (2) that the petitioned-for bargaining unit (comprising graduate students, terminal Master’s degree students, and undergraduate students) is an appropriate unit; and (3) that none of the petitioned-for classifications consists of temporary employees who may not be included in the unit. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Regional Director and remand the proceedings to the Regional Director for further appropriate action.

The issues are far from a stable resolution.  Universities and their lobby will no doubt work the back rooms of legislatures, and the courts have yet to speak.  But it has become increasingly difficult for the university enterprise to run a business--athletic and knowledge based--without the obligation to recognize the character  and identity of its labor force. The fact that students might simultaneously serve in two capacities--as consumers of university products and as the labor used to produce that product--must be recognized and embraced. There are lessons as well here for faculty, especially as the university effectively dismantles shared governance and threatens academic freedom. 

The Press Release issued by the National Labor Relations Board follows along with links to the decision and the documents of the parties.  The decision--The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York and Graduate Workers of Columbia– GWC, UAW. Case 02–RC–143012 (August 23, 2016) can be accessed HERE. 

On the Penn State NCAA Sanctions Settlement--What Might it Mean for North Carolina . . . and the NCAA?

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2015)

This today from Penn State News:

Board of Trustees approves terms of proposed NCAA lawsuit settlement
January 16, 2015

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. – By a unanimous vote, the Penn State Board of Trustees today (Jan. 16) approved the terms of a proposed settlement of the lawsuit relating to the Endowment Act. According to the settlement, the July 2012 Consent Decree between Penn State and the NCAA has been dissolved, and all punitive sanctions eliminated.

Under the terms of the new agreement:
$60 million will be dedicated in Pennsylvania to helping children who have experienced child abuse and to further prevent child abuse. Of the $60 million, the Commonwealth will receive $48 million to help provide services to child victims. Penn State will use $12 million to create an endowment that will be a long-term investment in expanding our research, education and public service programs to help eradicate child sexual abuse. All parties agree strongly that caring for victims and providing support for programs that help address the problem of child sexual abuse is of paramount importance.
The compromise restores 112 wins to the Penn State football program.
All other punitive sanctions also have been eliminated.

This post includes the statements of Penn State University's President and the Chair of its Board of Trustees.  Some comments then follow, not on what this means for Penn State--that is fairly obvious.  Instead I focus on the potential consequences of this agreement for the NCAA and its current investigations into scandals at other universities. 

Report of the Student Conduct Code Task Force

The road to simplicity can sometimes be strewn with the wreckage of good intentions and knowledge excessively applied to judgment that might have been better ripened. In September 2012 I charged a special committee of the Penn State Faculty Senate with the task, one that I thought simple and straightforward at the time, to combine the many student honor codes and related principles into one simple to read student oriented document designed to permit an entering student who sought to "do right" with all the basic necessary information of expectations.  At the time I wrote:

I have also charged a Student Conduct Code Task Force, chaired by Keefe Manning. Its task is at once simple and yet likely highly controversial. Academic integrity and related codes of behavior and behavioral expectations for students, including so-called “Honor Codes” and conduct principles, have become an important regulatory tool for universities. Over the last decade, these codes, in all of their forms, have also presented a number of issues for universities, including issues of complexity, overlap, policy and code incoherence across units and campuses and the like. I have asked this committee to try to simplify this potentially overgrown regulatory patch and bring simplicity and order. The object is to be student centered, though sensitive to the important distinctive needs of particular areas—athletics in particular. But even so, these behavior commands ought to be written for the benefit of students and to help them do the right thing, rather than as an indulgence for the convenience or greater glory of our faculty, unit administrators or anyone else who sees in these an instrument for their own ends first. And the primacy of student dignity, as a species of human dignity, ought to militate against the temptation to see in these codes a means of social engineering that may threaten the long traditions in this country of preserving individual liberties. (Statement of Senate Chair Made at the October 16, 2012 Penn State University Faculty Senate Meeting)

 After some initial resistance by the committee, I expected to receive no report.  To my surprise, and on the day before the end of my term as Chair, I received  the Report of that Special Committee.  I appreciate the Committee's honest engagement with the charge and its willingness to try to explore possibilities as they came to understand it.  I am hopeful that further engagement by others may at some point and in some form bring us closer to the day when we might be able to provide a student just starting her academic career and eager to do right, not philosophy or ethics or an engagement in the complexities of cultural production and replication, but instead a simple set of rules to follow to do right.   The Report follows.

Informal Report: Faculty Senate meets for final meeting of 2012

-->

In its final meeting for 2012, Penn State’s Faculty Senate on Tuesday (Dec. 4) held a forensic session on faculty appointment ratios; considered a motion supporting university leaders, heard a report on initiatives to address student alcohol issues; approved revisions to standing rules pertaining to faculty athletics representatives and received several informational reports.

 
This post summarizes the events of that meeting and provides links to more information.

Senate to Consider Resolution in Praise of University Leaders

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

At its December 2012 meeting, the Penn State University Faculty Senate will consider the following resolution, proposed at the October Senate meeting by Senator Thomas O. Beebee, Liberal Arts: 

In light of the Freeh Report, the NCAA sanctions, and the conviction and sentencing of Jerry Sandusky, the Faculty Senate of the Pennsylvania State University wishes to convey its deepest sorrow in the face of these crimes, and to extend its sympathy to all victims of these proven criminal actions. The Senate furthermore hereby:

·   Expresses its support for President Rodney Erickson and the Board of Trustees in their efforts to bring greater transparency and accountability to university governance;

·   Affirms its commitment to furthering the cultures of excellence at Penn State: cultures of teaching, of scholarship and research, of service, of student philanthropy, and of student athletics;

·   Pledges its own best efforts, through its committee work, Senate Council, shared governance, and plenary meetings, to continually making Penn State a better place to work and live, and an environment where cultures of excellence can flourish.

What do you think?  Please either post comment here or send comments to me for distribution prior to the meeting.

Michael Bérubé: On the Road From the Paterno Family Professorship in Literature at Pennsylvania State University

Michael Bérubé explains why he resigned the Paterno Family Professorship in Literature at Pennsylvania State University.

The explanation appears in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Michael Bérubé, Why I Resigned the Paterno Chair, Chronicle of Higher Education, October 15, 2012.  The article is reproduced below. Professor Bérubé is now the Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Literature at Penn State.

Too Little but Maybe Not Too Late: Association of Governing Board's Report on Board Responsibilities for Intercollegiate Athletics

The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) "is the only national association that serves the interests and needs of academic governing boards, boards of institutionally related foundations, and campus CEOs and other senior-level campus administrators on issues related to higher education governance and leadership. Its mission is to strengthen, protect, and advocate on behalf of citizen trusteeship that supports and advances higher education." About AGB.

(Pix from AGB website)

The following is a link to a new report from the Association of Governing Boards (AGB) on board responsibilities for intercollegiate athletics released yesterday by the Knight Commission: Trust, Accountability and Integrity: Board Responsibilities for Intercollegiate Athletics (2012) ("AGB Report". It was put together by a group representing university presidents and board of trustees members.  It included no other constituencies and so remains very much an insider's project for insiders.  That alone should give pause.  To some extent this Report can be understood as a step forward.  However, for the most part it presents the sort of timid and overgeneralized approach that both creates  the appearance of forward movement and enough ambiguity to protect boards in their desire to change nothing but appear to speak to changing everything. If this is the best these grandees can do, then the locus of evolution of both the university and of college sports is much more likely to originate from others--principally the state, the media and critical consumer and user constituencies. That the university would willingness ceded control of its fate to others is sad, indeed. 

Donald Ford on Football Culture at Penn State

Donald Ford, Dean and Professor Emeritus at Penn State, has shared with me an important assessment, viewed through the critically important lens of history, of Penn State faculty culture surrounding PSU football.   

(Pix from This is where the Joe Paterno statue used to be)

Dean Emeritus Ford has kindly given me permission to post his thoughts, and I am extremely pleased to be able to share them.  These comments add a significant nuance to the "Statement by a Group of Past Chairs of The Pennsylvania State University Faculty Senate Regarding the Freeh Report, the NCAA Consent Decree, and Their Academic Implications August 28, 2012" and to my own critical endorsement of that statement (e.g., A Critical Endorsement of the Past Chairs Statement Regarding the Freeh Report and NCAA Consent Decree).   I really appreciate it.  I welcome comments and reactions.

Statement of the Penn State University Faculty Senate Chair Larry Catá Backer Regarding the NCAA Consent Decree and the Sanctions Declared by the Big 10

(Pix from Faculty Senate 101: An Introduction, Onward State, August 2010)

The Pennsylvania State University Faculty Senate renews its expression of deep sorrow for the pain and suffering of the victims of sexual misconduct, a sorrow we share with the Penn State community. The University Faculty Senate also renews its commitment to doing its part to help rebuild the University’s administrative and governance culture, ensuring that athletics remains a strong and vibrant part of an internationally reputed university that is equally well regarded for its cutting edge scholarship and research, excellence in teaching and service to our communities in Pennsylvania and beyond.

The University Faculty Senate is also specifically committed to helping to right the wrongs that were done and to improve policies to guide members of the university community in doing the right thing. To that end, individually and collectively, the University Faculty Senate rededicates itself to incorporating the highest ethical values in its own operations and in the conduct of each of its members throughout the three components of our mission—research, teaching and service. We also believe in the importance and educational value of athletics as a core part of that mission.

Like others, we believe that the Penn State University must accept responsibility, collectively, institutionally and, with respect to those who failed in their individual duty, personally as well. We understand that our academic peers and others will judge us, perhaps no less harshly than we will judge ourselves. We understand that the institutional failures of our leadership over the past decade and more will have significant consequences for the university community. The University Faculty Senate acknowledges its own failures—it must be more vigorous in affirmatively engaging its role in university shared governance.

Part of accepting responsibility involves accepting the judgment of our peers. On July 23, 2012, we have received the decisions of the NCAA and the Big Ten Council of Presidents and Chancellors on the scope of sanctions to be imposed on Penn State. We will respect those decisions and join President Erickson in accepting their consequences for the university and its athletics programs.

We appreciate the emphasis in the NCAA’s decision on the importance of guarding against unchecked and unaccountable power, and welcome the greater willingness of our Board of Trustees and senior administrators to include the University Faculty Senate in discussions and decision-making. This inclusion, which we expect to increase in light of the recommendations of the Freeh Group Report, the import of the NCAA decision, and the renewed commitment to open, transparent shared governance, will contribute to the stronger integration of the highest ethical standards, from the top of our administrative structures to departmental and athletic team officials. The University Faculty Senate has already begun to work with our athletics leaders to forge new and innovative ways to integrate athletics into the academic life of the university, innovations that we expect will respect the highest aspirational objectives of both sport and academics. We believe that Penn State will create the template for academic-athletics integration for the coming decades. That leadership role, we hope, will serve as a model for U.S. universities, whose programs may also require change to avoid suffering from the same structural deficiencies.

Going forward, the University Faculty Senate will continue work with the senior administrators and members of the Board of Trustees in implementing the decisions of the Big Ten Council of Presidents and Chancellors and the NCAA. We will be active participants in the construction of a more robust and integrative structure to incorporate athletics more intimately into the life of the university. This includes implementation of the Athletics Integrity Agreement, the Compliance Council it envisions, and the implementation of related recommendations of the Freeh Group Report.

This is a very sad moment in the history of this great institution. But this is an institution that can learn from its mistakes and emerge all the stronger for the experience. We cannot undo past harm, we can just do our best to do right by those who have been hurt; we can, however, improve ourselves to better avoid future harm. Along with all of the members of the Penn State community—faculty, students, alumni, administrators, board members and supporters—we will do our part to ensure a better future for Penn State.

Larry Catá Backer
2012-2013 Chair University Faculty Senate
W. Richard and Mary Eshelman Faculty Scholar & Professor of Law,
Professor of International Affairs

In Anticipation of NCAA Sanctions Against Penn State: Asymmetric Process in the Service of Gesture

It appears to remain as true today, as it has in every age, that emotional issues tend to put tremendous pressure on systems built to provide people with an assurance of fair process consistently applied.  The horrendous crimes for which Mr. Sandusky has been convicted is now producing its perhaps equally important and necessary secondary effects--these targeting the institutions that made it possible for Mr. Sandusky to act virtually unimpeded.  

(Pix from Possible Penalties for Penn State, Onward State, July 22, 2012)

On Monday, the NCAA will add to the mix by announcing a set of sanctions against Penn State.  The sanctions decisions, like those of the Paterno statue, come fast on the heels of the Freeh Group Report.  That Report, for reasons unknown, appears to be taken more and more as some of "Truth" that may be unquestioningly accepted, perhaps based on some sort of blind faith in the individuals who produced it, or perhaps as a matter of convenience, and without any sense of a need to test the findings of the Freeh Group Report or wait for the conclusion of judicial or other proceedings where accused or implicated are given the opportunity to respond.  This is a difficult exercise, especially in periods, like this one.  Circumstances appear to call for swift action because of the nature of the crimes committed and its offense against law and moral standards. But the danger has passed, and a rush to judgment merely substitutes one kind of danger for another. The call of emotion is excusable in children; but we are not children.  We each in our own way are expected to serve our university, community and society precisely in those hard cases where the temptation to eviscerate process in the service of emotional release runs deep.  

Yet these are neither ideas nor values that trouble those who are paid to do better at the NCAA.  Its leaders are poised to impose sanctions without even the minimal due process protections of a Committee on Infractions hearing.  Hysteria and strategic calculation are sufficient to overcome duty and principle, it seems.  Sad.  And the satisfaction of the mob appears to be  reward enough.  Sadder still.  

Though they are formally scheduled to release their decision on Monday, by Sunday afternoon, ESPN was reporting leaks of the likely sanctions.  The ESPN report is set out below in relevant part--the emphasis from the original are mine.  What the reader may find most extraordinary is the irony. . . . the case against Penn State's administration in the Freeh Group Report centered on the willingness to cede virtually all authority over athletics to a small, unchecked, and unaccountable group of university leaders. The NCAA appears to be doing exactly the same thing in order to end-run process and race to judgement for reasons unknown.

Removing the Paterno Statue--Statement of President Erickson

In this country, at this university and at this time, symbols appear to have become far more important than substance.  Intangibles--values, governance, conduct--are too difficult to grasp and much too complex to afford the momentary satisfaction of action-fulfillment.  And thus it is that the Penn State community and its spectators have focused almost unrelentingly on the issue of a piece of statuary that currently (but not for long) sits next to the Penn State football stadium.  The statue has been transfigured from a piece of metal-work in the image of a coach recently deceased to what to some may well be the incarnation of university itself.  Sad, but hardly unusual in these times.  But what to do?

 (Pix from Tina Hay, About the Paterno Statue, The Penn Stater, July 17, 2012)

A number  of solutions might have been considered.  The statue could have remained unmolested; it could have been modified to add additional statuary or commentary (perhaps an additional memorial) to remind one that the message of the image might be more complex; it could have been moved, perhaps to a sports museum and used as part of a teaching moment about the strengths and weaknesses of humans, their capacity for greatness and their propensity to err; it could have been melted and turned into medals or other objects for sale to the faithful; it could have been stored in the way that family embarrassments were once hidden from view in the early 20th century  (recall the family circumstances in Kafka's Metamorphosis); it could have been removed pending a determination of final disposition. 

The University President has made his decision on the matter.  President Erickson also expressed views about the removal of the Paterno name from the library, something that might also be further discussed in the future. The University Faculty Senate played no role in either decision. As an individual, I respect these choices and present President Erickson's announcement here without  comment.

Drawing the Wrong Lessons From the Sandiusky Scandal for Institutional Reform and Athletics: John Feinstein on "The Lesson of Penn State"

John Feinstein has written an interesting opinion essay that is worth considering.  John Feinstein, No Pedestals for Coaches, The Washington Post, July 13, 2012 (republished in the Washington Post on July 15, 2012 as "The Lesson of Penn State" and also published elsewhere under a variety of titles. See, e.g.,  John Feinstein, The Coaching Lesson of Penn State, The Washington Post News Service and Bloomberg News, July 15, 2012. 

(From Mike Jensen, Colleges look at management of sports programs in wake of Freeh report

The Philadelphia Inquirer, July 15, 2012)

The essay is worth reading both for the point is makes and perhaps more importantly for it own analytical failures.  While the essay rejects the idea of the "leader" coach, it is still far too invested in the ideal of the "leader" president, and indeed, in the ideology  of singular leadership at a university, to suggest much but a substitution of one potential weak link in governance for another.

Penn State's Cultures of Silence: A View From Outside In and Inside Out

The Sandusky scandal has produced a number of distinct stories about Penn State.  For some, Sandusky represents the story of a predator that betrayed a trust; for others it is the story of administrative arrogance in the face of bad conduct by a protected inferior, for still others it is a story of managerial indifference.  Like an accordion, the reality of the Sandusky story can be expanded or contracted to suit the needs and objectives of the speaker.

(Pix of Frank Noonan, from Dennis Owen, State police head stands by criticism of Paterno, Penn State, ABC 27 News, July 3-4, 2012)

Each of these versions of the Sandusky story produces a different focus and reaction.  For some, it requires focus on education and training respecting pedophiles and the management of children on campus, for others it is an indictment of the cultures of administration, for still others it is a conformation of the collusion between administrators and boards.  For many, the trial and conviction of Mr. Sandusky, coupled with an emphasis on training in the management of children on campus is sufficient and that, now resolved, should permit Penn State to resume its pre scandal operations as if little has changed.  For Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Frank Noonan, the problem runs both deeper and in another direction--in the cultivation of cultures of reprisal and silence that remains a troubling part of university life.  This is story related in a recent news story.  Dennis Owen, State police head stands by criticism of Paterno, Penn State, ABC 27 News, July 3-4, 2012.

This post considers that story and its implications for Penn State in general and the Penn State University Faculty Senate in particular. 

Reflections on the Verdict in Commonwealth v. Sandusky

President Rodney Erickson has released a  Message from President Rodney Erickson on Sandusky trial verdict, Penn State Live, June 22, 2012, that I referenced in a prior post. The focus of the university has been, as it should, on the victims, the procedural fairness of the investigation and trial, the societal issue of child sexual abuse, and in the wake of the verdict, on making things right.  These are critically important areas of concern that ought to top the university's immediate agenda.  

But these events, and its lessons, also touch on broader themes that ought not to be lost. Speaking for myself, I briefly reflect on some of these broader institutional lessons and challenges that ought, as well, not be forgotten, as the university moves forward.

Sandusky Verdict In--Guilty of 45 of 48 Counts

(Pix from Kevin Johnson, Sandusky convicted on 45 of 48 charges in sex-abuse case, USA Today, June 22, 2012)

"Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky has been found guilty of 45 out of 48 counts of child sexual abuse involving 10 victims." (Kevin Johnson, Sandusky convicted on 45 of 48 charges in sex-abuse case, USA Today, June 22, 2012).

What follows is the statement the university released (Statement From Penn State, ESPN.com,  June 22, 2012).

Without Comment: Ex-Penn State Officials May Face More Charges

The trial of Jerry Sandusky has started.  See Colleen, Jerry Sandusky Trial: The Major Players, ABC News, June 11, 2012. (For Penn State's Statement at the start of trial CLICK HERE).

(Pix of Messrs Curley, Spanier and Schultz 

from Ex-Penn State officials may face more charges, Today--MSNBC, June 11, 2012)

But the attention of public officials and private litigants may now shift to members of the administrative apparatus of the university. This morning, MNS-NBC aired on its Today Show a segment on possible developments that might lead to more scrutiny of and possible charges against Penn State officials.  Reproduced below are the transcript of the Today Show segment and the University's response.

Made to Market Education and Professionalization in University Education

I had earlier considered the issue of "professionalization" in education, focusing on many people's favorite stalking horse--athletics.  I suggested that the University of Kentucky coach, who was moving aggressively toward a new model for his players, focused more intensely on market ready players (that is ready for employment in the sports player market, though perhaps less so for supporting labor market roles in the sports industry), might suggest an unfortunate exaggeration but not an aberration in the movement of university education toward a more "made to market" approach to program and course development.   (Irony and Incoherence in the "Professionalization" of University Education, May 22, 2012).

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

The issue of professionalization (as the term is applied to sport), then, is part of a larger movement toward a different kind of relationship between education (and the way in which it develops its "product") and the global wage labor market. I write now only to suggest that this dynamic relationship is evidenced not merely in sport but also most acutely in the professional schools.  My focus today is on that effect in the field of law studies and its effects on the development of pedagogy, course content and programs for law schools.   It touches on the role of labor markets in the construction of educational programs, made more complicated (though not exceptionally so) when public regulators also have a power to intervene in the development of programs of education delivery.

Irony and Incoherence in the "Professionalization" of University Education

The Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) is an alliance of 59 faculty senates at NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision schools; for more information about COIA.  It has recently posted a response (reproduced below) to certain moves by the Athletic Department of the University of Kentucky.  See John Calipari, Forming a Non-Traditional Schedule for a Non-Traditional Program, CoachCal.com, May 6, 2012.

(From http://www.aseaofblue.com/)

The reasoning of COIA is sound, if we mean what we say about the presumptions and objectives if university education as a good in and of itself with connection to but not a direct subordinate connection to the needs of the labor markets into which a university would like to insert its graduates.  But I am not so sure we do mean this.  The professionalization of sports may be objectionable because it has become perverse through the application of the logic of the connection between student, program and employer markets to an unreasonable limit.  But to such that the professionalization of education is itself something that is either unique to sports or necessarily always wrongheaded may be to miss the point of some other related movements in university education that do not produce the same amount of hand wringing.