Letters: The Tribune Editorial Board is correct about the gutting of degree programs at Indiana University
Gov. Mike Braun claimed that streamlining degree offerings 'will help students make more informed decisions about the degree they want to pursue and ensure there is a direct connection between the skills students are gaining through higher education and the skills they need most.' However, the reduction of degree programs was not based on skills: There was no discussion or analysis of the skills taught in any of the programs, nor any identification of 'the skills they need most.' The cuts were by the numbers and on such a rushed schedule that there was no time (or provision) for discussing the relationships linking skills, degrees and jobs.
Nor was there any explanation for the numbers chosen as thresholds for eliminating degree programs. Even worse: The numbers are one-size-fits-all, which means that they apply equally to the large flagship campuses and to the small regional campuses. If IU Bloomington, with more than 46,000 students, cannot meet the thresholds and has to eliminate or consolidate 116 degree programs, and IU Indianapolis (with more than 20,000 students) has to cut 50 programs, how much more will the university's five smaller, regional campuses, whose enrollments are fewer than 5,000 students and which serve many low-income and rural students, be hit?
The reduction of programs is, in effect, a reduction of opportunities that will disproportionately affect students from low-income and rural backgrounds.
Many of the programs being eliminated are housed within liberal arts schools. At IU Bloomington, the motto of the College of Arts & Sciences is: 'Question critically, think logically, communicate clearly, act creatively, live ethically.' My colleagues and I take pride in teaching students transferrable skills that will help them navigate a job market that artificial intelligence is changing by the minute. However, Indiana's Republican-dominated legislature is squelching these skills in the name of promoting 'workforce-ready skills' at the college and high school levels alike.
Younger generations are being prepared to be worker bees — for jobs that are disappearing. In the end, it's not just the students who lose with these cuts. The whole state does.The Tribune Editorial Board believes that, in protesting the Indiana University cuts, it is helping. However, the inaccurate reporting is hurting more than helping. I teach in the Art History Department at Indiana University in Bloomington. Despite what the editorial states, art history is not 'dead' at IU, nor is a commitment to consolidate or merge synonymous with 'dead,' as the editorial implies. Rather, 'consolidate or merge' means precisely what it says. Discussions are underway to consolidate the art history degree with one or more other degree programs. We are very much still in business.
Unfortunately, because of such irresponsible reporting, we are getting queries from across the U.S. and indeed the world that simply assume our demise. Recommendation letter writers think that they no longer need to send requested letters (they do); students believe they are no longer enrolled in their degree program (they are); and so on.
Despite our department being mentioned in the editorial, neither I nor, as far as I know, any of my colleagues were contacted to comment or to confirm or deny the editorial board's claims. Please feel free to contact us in order to bring more accuracy to your reporting.Thank you for your incisive editorial concerning the Indiana Commission for Higher Education (ICHE) destruction of its state university system.
I graduated from Indiana University in 1986. My four years there opened my eyes to other worlds, people and even areas of study I had never heard of before. Had I wished to, I could have studied and received a degree in Uralic and Altaic languages or folklore.
While I did take some philosophy classes, my major was history after I briefly dabbled in political science. You may wonder if anything I learned is directly applicable to my present life. The answer is none and everything. Studying something you are not familiar with may not be useful in your life or your job, but it will change the way you view the world, other people and cultures.
I can safely state that nothing I learned in three years of law school was ever directly applied to my career as a personal injury lawyer, yet the education I received in the alleged 'soft sciences' of history and philosophy is something I use daily in my interpersonal interactions, assessments of situations and people, and evaluations of situations.
The short-sighted destruction of 'nonpractical' degree programs only increases the territorial small-mindedness that universities have attempted to modify for years.
While the ersatz motto of the fictional Faber College in the movie 'Animal House' — 'Knowledge is Good' — is intended tongue-in-cheek, I would argue lack of knowledge is emphatically not good. Not for people, not for society and not for open minds.
Shame on Indiana.I'm writing in response to the July 4 article about paratransit services ('At odds over paratransit services,' July 4) and would like to broaden the topic of the challenges faced by those with disabilities. In 'To Kill a Mockingbird,' Atticus Finch teaches his daughter, Scout, about empathy. 'You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view … until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.' In my case, I would ask you to roll around in mine.
I use a wheelchair and have for many years. I applaud the important advances in accessibility over the last 34 years, which we will celebrate on National Disability Independence Day on July 26. There is, however, more work to be done to enable those with physical disabilities to participate fully in society. Many of the barriers are unseen by most people. It's only when you're faced with them that they become clear as day.
From my personal experience, I sometimes find restaurants or other places of business are about 80% there. That's to be commended. However, most people would not drive over a bridge that spanned only 80% across a river.
Here are just a few examples of partial accessibility. I have used a ramp only to find there is no electronic door opener, which prevents entry. Or, if there is an opener, there are other doors within the building that I cannot open. I also find tables and chairs so close together, I am unable to maneuver my wheelchair. Bathrooms can be especially challenging — 'handicap accessible' means more than a grab bar in a stall. I could go on.
I know everyone has good intentions, and nobody creates these problems on purpose. They just need better data.
I have two suggestions: Ask customers with disabilities to provide feedback on their experience at a restaurant or hotel. Better yet, invite people with disabilities to provide input during the design phase of a building. There are people with disabilities who stay home because they find going out too difficult. That's a shame. We can do better.
Moreover, improving accessibility will benefit customers and boost business. It would be a win-win situation. It's time to listen to Atticus.In his letter ('We need AI therapy,' July 6), Slingshot AI co-founder Daniel Cahn makes the case for therapy by artificial intelligence. The problem is that therapy is not solely about saying, 'Do this and don't do that.' The emotional connection between therapist and patient is integral to the process.
AI represents an inherent loss to the patient, as he or she is exploring intimate issues with a machine. One could argue that AI therapy is better than no therapy. I see that in the same light that I see arguments for AI lovers. I can't imagine that either is particularly satisfying.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
10 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump's trade wins shock the experts — who are blind to business reality
If America is in the midst of a trade war, the question we have to ask is: Are we tired of winning yet? President 'Donald Trump reaps $50bn tariff haul as world 'chickens out,'' reads the Financial Times headline. 'Only China and Canada have retaliated against US president's tariff war,' its subhead adds. 'In the Trump-dominated global economy, the US gets plenty but gives nothing in return,' reads a rueful post on X from Axios — another publication with an upmarket readership — promoting an article titled, 'Trump trade deals prove access to the US still matters above all else.' Populist publications have a different take on Trump's spate of trade victories. 'Trump's trade deal bloc — let's call it The Free World — now encompasses 57% of global GDP . . . 40% of total global trade in goods,' and '18% of the world's population,' according to Breitbart's John Carney. The president has only been in office six months, and his tariffs haven't even been in place that long, but already the results are undeniable. At a time when there otherwise seems to be no end to federal deficits, Trump's trade policy put the federal government in the black for the month of June, with a $27 billion surplus — and, as it happens, about $27 billion in tariff revenue. It's one thing that Trump so often surprises political opponents who underestimate him at election time and can't understand the root of his appeal. What's more remarkable is Trump seems to defy the very laws of economics — or rather, the law as laid down by economists. Other social sciences have lately lost credibility thanks to a 'republication crisis' that shows how the results reported in leading journals of psychology and other fields all too often fail to be repeated when experiments are conducted anew and data are re-examined. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Will the economics profession — whose mainstream is fervently in favor of free trade and is convinced tariffs are madness — face a similar reckoning for getting this test wrong? Trump can do things the economists say can't be done because he approaches trade the way he conducts his real-estate business: It's a negotiation, and leverage is what counts. Precisely because the United States has such an enormous trade deficit with the rest of the world — amounting to more than $918 billion in 2024 — other nations depend on access to our market as an outlet for their goods. The size and wealth of the American consumer base is unmatchable, and countries that get cut off from it can't easily make up the difference by selling more goods and services somewhere else. Whole industries in Europe and Asia would collapse without access to the American consumer. Trump is willing to give them access — for a price. Instead of using punitive tariffs to exclude foreign goods altogether, Trump is willing to strike a deal with anyone to allow goods to be sold in America at a price that makes the trade worthwhile for Americans and foreign companies alike. The hitch: The deal must be on terms favorable for American workers and industry. The president's arrangement with the European Union levies a 15% tariff on most EU goods — but that's peanuts compared to the 30% Trump was threatening if Europe didn't cooperate. The deal calls for new European investments of $600 billion in America, as well as for EU members to buy more energy and military equipment from us. The 15% tariff is higher than what European producers were paying before Trump returned to the White House — high enough that American producers will get some protective advantage, but not so high that foreign companies won't be able to compete. Start your day with all you need to know Morning Report delivers the latest news, videos, photos and more. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters That's crucial because competition is what keeps prices down for American consumers. Foreign firms can't easily 'pass on' a tax on their goods — which is what a tariff is — to the Americans who buy their products when those same Americans can choose from domestic producers instead. The modest protection a 15% tariff affords gives more investors at home a reason to put their capital into American companies — which is good for our workforce and consumers alike. It means more jobs and more goods; more money in Americans' pockets and more stock on the shelves, which keeps prices down. There's risk in all this, but the upside opportunity is much greater, as entrepreneurs here and abroad recognize. For the Europeans, it's a no-brainer: The American market is so rife with profit possibilities that a 15% access fee is a very modest cost of doing business. American businesses should recognize their opportunity as well — they're native to a market the entire world is desperate to be in, and they should use that advantage to the fullest, investing at home and making the sales that foreign firms are so eager to make here. In this trade war, all Americans are winning — except, perhaps, the overeducated prisoners of the Ivory Tower. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review and editor-at-large of The American Conservative.
Boston Globe
10 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Fishing groups push to postpone protections for endangered right whale
Golden, who played a role in the initial moratorium, said extending the pause would give the government the time it needs to craft regulations that reflect science. He also said it would protect Maine's lifeblood lobster fishing industry, which is one of the fishing sectors that would have to comply with rules intended to protect right whales. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Maine's lobster fishery has most recently been valued at more than half a billion dollars — and that's just the value of the catch. It also supports tens of thousands of jobs. It is an iconic part of our state's economy, heritage, and appeal to visitors,' Golden said in a July 22 letter to a subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee. Advertisement The extension of the moratorium was originally proposed by Alaska Republican Nick Begich. It's one of several changes to the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act proposed by Begich, who, like Golden, represents a state with a large commercial fishing industry. Advertisement The changes have drawn condemnation from environmental organizations and praise from commercial fishing groups. A group of fishing organizations, including the Maine Lobstermen's Association, said in a July 21 letter to the subcommittee that 'heavy regulation comes at a heavy cost.' The whales were once numerous off the East Coast, but they were decimated during the era of commercial whaling and have been slow to recover. They are also threatened by The
San Francisco Chronicle
10 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Nevada governor's race shaping up as a marquee battle in a state carried by Trump
LAS VEGAS (AP) — Setting the stage for what is expected to be a highly competitive fight for Nevada governor, Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford announced Monday he will challenge Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo next year. Ford represents the highest-profile Democrat to enter the still-emerging contest in a battleground state carried by President Donald Trump in 2024. In the election, Trump made gains among younger voters, voters without a college degree and Black and Hispanic men. 'Nevadans are suffering in an economy that is rigged against those trying their hardest to stay afloat,' Ford said in a statement. "I will work to lower the crushing cost of housing and prescription drugs, strengthen our public schools and ensure every community in Nevada is safe.' The Better Nevada PAC — which supports Lombardo — called Ford a 'radical' who has pushed a 'dangerous woke agenda' on Nevada families. Even with the primary election nearly a year away, the race is widely seen as a toss-up, in part because Nevada is narrowly divided between Democrats and Republicans. As in many parts of the country, residents continue to be stressed by the cost of living and a lack of affordable housing. The race will unfold during an unsettled time nationally, with Democrats still trying to recast their brand after 2024 losses in Congress and the White House. Meanwhile, recent polling found only about one-quarter of U.S. adults say that President Donald Trump's policies have helped them since he took office. The poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found underwhelming marks for the president on key issues, including the economy, immigration, government spending and health care. Lombardo, who is expected to run for reelection, would come to the race with the advantages of incumbency. Not surprisingly in a swing state, he has sought to fashion a generally middle-ground Republican reputation at a time when Americans are deeply divided by partisan politics. Last month, Lombardo unexpectedly vetoed a bill that would have required voters to show a photo ID at the polls — a conservative priority across the country and something that has long been on the governor's legislative wish list. If elected, Ford would be Nevada's first Black governor.
