Political Intrusion Research Articles

When the Smoke Clears

Mike Schmoker's aversion to planning, Mr. Cook points out, is actually a response to the widespread misapplication of the original concept. IT IS RATHER discouraging to see critics still firing broadsides at planning, an imperative as old as Western Civilization. Without exception, these salvos, whether prompted by misunderstanding or negative experience, lack both sensible tactic and sufficient charge, so they tend to quickly dissipate in clamor and smoke. Usually, they are little more than amusing distractions. But the discharge titled Tipping Point, by Mike Schmoker, which appeared in the February 2004 Phi Delta Kappan, may actually serve a serious instructional purpose. Amid a collage of original sources -- some taken out of context (my own, twice) -- Schmoker raises a number of legitimate complaints against the current applications of planning. In fact, the situation may be even worse than he alleges. Unfortunately, he deploys tendentious propositions and unfounded declamations aimed at debunking the whole idea, as if failure in practice means flaw in philosophy. Ironically, the article brilliantly serves the opposite of the announced thesis: it epitomizes the contemporary misconceptions and malpractices of strategos and, consequently, illustrates the urgency of remaining true to the original concept. Most misconceptions can be traced to the 1960s and the discovery by corporations (such as G.E.) of as a means of gaining competitive advantage in the marketplace. The nominal meaning of the word -- and, therefore, the original concept -- was immediately distorted by refracting it through the prism of the corporation and, of necessity, interpreting it in the context of The effect was permanent debilitation of the concept. Even today, the oxymoron strategic persists in the language and literature of business. And, sure enough, in that world, strategy is generally understood only as a management methodology to achieve preestablished goals. The most anyone is expected to do is think outside the box within the ever-present confines of the box. This misconception of is popularly manifested in Total Quality Management programs (Baldrige being the chief perpetrator). In education, it is reflected in curriculum audits and even in something called policy management. Here is the difference. Management is about compliance; is about creation. Management is about rationalistic science; requires intuitive imagination. Management is about probability; is about possibility. Management is about preserving the existing order; is about destroying existing structures to generate new formations. Management is about implementation; is about creating capacity for constant emergence. Therefore, planning is not long-range planning, even though most long-range corporate plans are commonly called strategic. This kind of planning always proceeds from an environmental scan or market research. The obvious issue is whether the locus of control is inside or outside the organization. This raises a point beyond the point. That is, only organizations can plan strategically. And for them, planning is not an option: it is a necessity. The first, and defining, requirement of a organization is that it be autonomous; that is, self-governing. Autonomous literally translates as self-ruling. There can be no degree or quality to autonomy; an organization is either autonomous or it is not. The corporate model of organizational structure adopted by education systems in the U.S. presupposes autonomy in that each school district has a governing board. Although that assumption is actively threatened today by political intrusion from state and federal governments, school boards still have a broad measure of legal authority, even though, in reality, they choose not to exercise it. …

Scientific Freedom and Post-War Politics: Australia, 1945-1955.

The Cold War was a tough time for some scientists. Most stayed in the no-man's-land of political neutrality. Others bunkered down with the Left. A few went further and joined, openly, the Communist Party. This provided cold war warriors with abundant and usually lethal ammunition. This article examines the position of two Australian scientists whose professional lives were blighted or thwarted due to that explosive mixture of Cold War politics and Communist Party membership. The international literature on left-wing scientists during the Cold War is bountiful but the Australian literature is sparse and inadequate. There is no equivalent, for example, of Werskey's pioneering work on British communist scientists (Hyman Levy, J.D. Bernal and J.B.S. Haldane)1, or Whitaker and Marcuse's exhaustive study of Canadian scientists under surveillance. What we have, instead, are brief discussions of the political impact of Cold War pressures on Australian science in biographies, organisational studies and other works with unrelated themes. Indeed the most systematic analyses can be found in unpublished studies by Rasmussen and Moran. Thus, the main objective of this article is to redress this oversight and, hopefully, illuminate some ways in which the politics of the Cold War impinged upon the lives of left-wing Australian scientists. In order to give sharper focus, the tale of only two scientists, Dr R.E.B. Makinson and Dr T.R. Kaiser, both of whom were members of the Communist Party, will be unravelled. There were, of course, a great many other Australian scientists, of whom the most notable was Marcus Oliphant, who believed their careers were diverted or derailed as a result of the Cold War atmosphere.8 Most were communist or left-leaning; some, as in Oliphant's case, merely liberal. Usually, evidence of discrimination remains circumstantial, conjectural or anecdotal. Victimisers rarely wish to leave footprints. But what is different in the case of Makinson and Kaiser is the existence of archival documents that provide explicit evidence of the political intrusion of the Cold War.

From Coordinating Board to Campus

Remediation of students' deficiencies in preparation, basic skills, and foundational knowledge has been an enduring, but largely ignored, component of curricula in colleges and universities in the United States. In recent years, however, policy makers have become more aware and less accepting of this state of affairs. While analysts document the extent of remediation - one regional study found that roughly one-third of freshmen students took remedial classes at 85% of the institutions surveyed (Abraham, 1992) and a national study uncovered comparable figures, 29% of freshmen at 78% of institutions (NCES, 1996) - legislatures and state coordinating boards have begun to consider and enact policies to dictate and contain remedial education (Lively, 1993, 1995a, 1995b). From their perspective, the presence of remediation at colleges and universities has increasingly come to symbolize the failure of the nation's precollegiate educational system, the eroding standards of American colleges and universities, and an inefficient use of public resources. State higher education coordinating boards, in particular, have become the policymaking bodies that translate concerns about remediation into operational imperatives for public colleges and universities. Boards are intended to be, in Berdahl's (1971) phrase, the suitably sensitive serving to advocate institutional interests and academic values and to buffer institutions from direct political intrusion while still pointing institutions in the directions preferred by the public and state policymakers. From an institutional perspective, boards have always intruded into their independent and autonomous operation. However, observers have suggested that the structures for coordination that came to prominence in and around the 1960s have, in recent years, combined with economic and social conditions to increase system coordination and centralized control in public higher education (see, for example, Clark, 1994; Hearn & Griswold, 1994; Kerr & Gade, 1989). What may at one time have been a mediator between institutional and external interests may since have become more of a proctor and surrogate that readily passes external demands through to institutions in the form of increasingly intrusive bureaucratic control mechanisms such as policy mandates. In this vein, a board's policy dictates to institutions about remediation raise a number of troubling issues. They appear to threaten campus autonomy, limit the ability to accomplish an institutional mission, and restrict the potential applicant pool and enrollment base. First, the type of course work offered and who must take it are fundamental questions for institutions of higher education. Answers to these questions say a lot about the nature of an institution and the professional identity of the people who work in it. We typically think of questions such as what is taught, to whom, and for how much credit as matters of institutional and, more specifically, faculty prerogative. Classic statements of governance such as the AAUP/ACE/AGB (1966) Statement on Governance of Colleges and Universities, tend to consider academic issues and, in particular, curricular topics as the domain of institutional faculty. In truth, the governance of institutions is not as segmented as this statement suggests, and multiple stakeholders are involved in the many decisions arising in the normal operation of higher education institutions. Even so, dictating remediation policy from the coordinating board level can appear excessively prescriptive and preemptive of the faculty role in overseeing the curricula of institutions. Second, remediation in higher education has a proud tradition. It is one mechanism that gives real dimension to access and equal opportunity in higher education. Remedial services have been vital tools in helping GI bill, disadvantaged minority, low SES, returning adult, and handicapped students succeed in college (Clowes, 1992, pp. …

Ethics in Assessing and Developing Academic Quality

Assessing quality in higher education makes important ethical assumptions, some of them questionable. A more satisfactory ethical view is required if assessing quality in higher education is to be sound. However, political intrusion in system‐wide assessment brings an influence which, preoccupied with market forces and technological development, goes beyond appropriate technical excellence to technicist excess. This generates a climate inimical to ethical quality and conflicts with academic work. Academic development units have a special role in regard to academic quality, but tend to be conceived of in a technicist way. A resultant managerialist‐technicist approach to their task is incompatible with ethical and epistemological virtues necessary to sound academic work and its development.

Federalism, Chinese Style: The Political Basis for Economic Success in China

China's remarkable economic success rests on a foundation of political reform providing a considerable degree of credible commitment to markets. This reform reflects a special type of institutionalized decentralization that the authors call “federalism, Chinese style.” This form of decentralization has three consequences. First, it fosters competition, not only in product markets, but also among local governments for labor and foreign capital. This competition, in turn, encourages local government experimentation and learning with new forms of enterprises, regulation, and economic relationships. Second, it provides incentives for local governments to promote local economic prosperity. Finally, it provides a significant amount of protection to local governments and their enterprises from political intrusion by the central government.

Managing Controversies over Science: The Case of Fetal Research<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1"><sup>1</sup></xref>

Managing Controversies over Science: The Case of Fetal Research<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1"><sup>1</sup></xref>

Populism and rent‐seeking in post‐apartheid South Africa

Abstract The Freedom Charter and the ANC's constitutional guidelines reveals that they rely upon a model of “populist democracy” which also justifies the status and policies of the National Party. Although ends differ, means for legitimising power are the same. A critique of “populist democracy”, based upon public choice theory, reveals procedural flaws and implementation failures of populist democracy. Having identified these problems, an alternative model is prescribed to serve as a constitutional framework. It is suggested that a set of rules be prescribed to constrain actions of the state rather than to seek “innovations” which prompt an enlarged political intrusion into the lives and livelihoods of citizens.

The American Indian and United States Diplomatic History

EVERYONE knows that the Indian has suffered a cruel fate in America. Faced with one of the great population movements of all time, he was pushed out of his traditional home by white settlers, ravaged by European diseases, and debauched by alcohol. His traditional life-style was challenged by the political and economic intrusion of a powerful and alien civilization, and ultimately even his cultural values were attacked by well-meaning missionaries and government officials determined to inculcate the values of middle-class America. To many Americans the plight of the Indian seems best summed up by that last desperate attempt to retain some sort of distinct identity, the Ghost Dance, and the Massacre at Wounded Knee which effectively snuffed out his final messianic protest. In addition to this palpable physical abuse the Indian has suffered in another, more subtle way, a way which seems trivial at first but which has enormous consequences for Indians and whites alike. Paradoxically, the Indian, the original settler of the United States, is a