deconstructionism, Lacanism, and moralrnrelativism—are ensconced in what passesrnfor higher education today. But studentrnradicals will try, pushing the envelopernof acceptability to new levels ofrnextremism.rnLast Veteran’s Day, for example, arngroup of about 200 demonstrators, ledrnby out-of-state rabble-rousers, filled thernfirst floor of the administration buildingrnat the New York State Universityrncampus in Binghamton to express theirrndissatisfaction with the state universityrnsystem. Led bv Sarah Murphy, whornidentified herself as a member of thernNational Women’s Rights OrganizingrnCoalition, these protesters said theyrnwanted “total student control” of curriculumrndecisions and the hiring and firingrnof faculty members. They also demandedrnopen admission; free tuition;rnexpansion of studies related to blacks,rnLatinos, women, homosexuals, andrnAsians; and the firing of all public safetyrnofficers on the 65 state university campuses.rnAs one might guess, university officialsrndid not say “no”; they didn’t havernany comment.rnThis response, or lack thereof, is preciselyrnwhat ails higher education. Therernis an unwillingness to call radical proposalsrnabsurd. University presidentsrnhope these ideas will go away, dissipaternlike smoke billowing in the air, but onlyrnon rare occasions are these ideas confrontedrndirectly and denounced. Radicalrnstudents want to run university campusesrnbecause they want the mantle of authorityrn—the legitimacy university liferncan confer—without the attendantrnresponsibility. If universities were egalitarianizedrnthen grades would be meaninglessrnas would all evaluation. Anyonerncould teach. And notions of objectivityrnand even knowledge would be filteredrnthrough the screen of radical sentiments.rnIf faculty members were hired andrnfired by students, then only those whornsay what students want to hear would bernhired and only those who violate the radicalrncatechism would be fired. Clearly itrnis political judgment that counts in suchrna setting, not scholarly judgment. Ifrnstandards for admission do not prevail,rnhow docs one decide who gains admission?rnAnd if standards for graduation dornnot exist, of what value is a degree? Thernonly valid response to the conditions espousedrnby the radicals is to give everyonerna degree and dispense with the charadernof any education. Similady, if there isn’trnany tuition for students attending thernstate university and the financial burdenrnis dispersed among the state’s taxpayers,rnthen doesn’t it stand to reason that thosernsame taxpayers should have somethingrnto say about university requirements, therncurriculum, and hiring and firing?rnWhat precisely does it mean to expandrnthe study of blacks. Latinos,rnwomen, homosexuals, and Asians? Doesrnit mean that Tom Sowell, Cervantes,rnJane Austen, Shakespeare, and Lao-tzurnwill be required authors? Or does itrnmean a radical sensibility, a sense of victimization,rnwill be imposed on those studentsrnwho are members of designatedrnminority groups?rnTo fire public safety employees is tornsuggest that public safety either is unimportantrnor can be sustained in somernother way. The number of criminal incidentsrnon state university campusesrnforecloses on the former explanation,rnand an alternative to public safety employeesrnlike student employees, i.e., radicalrnstudent employees, raises the specterrnof the student Red Guard.rnAny of the radical student proposalsrncan easily be exposed as illogical. Yet—rnand here is the rub—administrators failrnto do so. They often hide behind the canardrnthat “all” student proposals shouldrnreceive an adequate hearing. The consequencernof this administrative weaknessrnis that radicals keep pushing theirrnagenda in the hope that yesterday’s extremesrnwill seem like tomorrow’s moderation.rnThe strategy is to raise the anternso that the last hand actually looks reasonablernin the context of flowing events.rnAll the initiative in this scenario belongsrnwith the student radicals. The administrationrneither responds to demands, legitimizingrnthem in the process, or saysrnnothing, awakening the obvious suspicionrnthat it is cowardly and unwilling tornmake waves.rnWhat a college needs is an administrationrncapable of asserting and defendingrnthe principles on which the academyrnrests. Anything less weakens the foundationrnof a structure already eroded andrnsets the stage for the thoroughgoing radicalizationrnof higher education.rn—Herbert LondonrnSTUDENTS are becoming clients atrnan increasing number of public colleges.rnIndeed, staff members consider themrn”caseloads.” Programs such as “EconomicrnOpportunity Funds” (EOFs) existrnas pork barrels, doling out patronagernto middle- and upper-middle-elass employees,rnenforcing racist and sexist personnelrnpolicies, and acting as politburos.rnAdministrators and staffers openly displayrntheir feelings of superiority towardrninstructors, as well as an equally aggressivernanti-intellectualism. Such programsrnhave introduced a social work mentalityrnto colleges that seeks to do away with anyrnconcern for academic standards, fairness,rnor merit. As with social workers in thernfield, instructors and administrators putrnoff issues interminably—at taxpayer expensern—rather than force students torntake responsibility for their own successrnor failure. EOFs and allied programsrnhavp institutionalized the ideology ofrnvictimhood within a burgeoning collegernwelfare bureaucracy.rnAs the heart of the college welfare bureaucracy,rnEOFs claim to help studentsrnwho are “economically disadvantaged,” arncode for “black and Hispanic.” For 20rnyears these programs have dispensedrnmoney based on skin color and ethnicity,rnindependent of economic circumstance.rnEOF staffers and administratorsrnhave a proprietary interest in their studentsrnand freelv meddle in their personalrnand academic affairs. EOF administratorsrnand staffers have beenrnknown to use their power to carry outrnvendettas against professors whose politiesrnthey don’t like. They simply overridernstudent course decisions or encouragerncomplaints by student malcontents.rnThe unwritten personnel code ofrnEOFs is “no white males need apply.” Itrnis simply assumed that upper-middleclassrnmembers of affirmative actionprotectedrngroups possess magical insightsrninto the needs of poor black and Hispanicrnkids. The immediate power ofrnEJOFS derives from the millions of dollarsrnthey control at each school in student aidrnmoney and staff salaries. A secondary,rnand ultimately more substantial, powerrnsource inheres in the millions of patronagernjobs controlled by the “academic”rnprograms that buttress each school’srnEOF: English as a Second Languagern(ESL), “academic foundations” (remedialrnor basic skills) programs, and peerrntutoring centers.rnCollege-level ESL and remedial instructionrndidn’t exist before the 1980’s.rnNow two-year associate degree programsrnhave been bloated into five-year plans,rnwhile academic quality has declined precipitously.rnIncreasing numbers of studentsrn(and not all foreign-born) spendrntheir first two college years exclusivelyrnSEPTEMBER 1994/7rnrnrn