by James A. Bacon

A group of James Madison University alumni has organized a new group, the Madison Cabinet for Free Speech and Accountability, to promote “freedom of  expression, intellectual diversity, and academic freedom on campus.”

The JMU group marks the fourth university in Virginia to organize in protest of the takeover of an institution by woke administrations and campus cultures. The others include The Jefferson Council (at the University of Virginia), The General’s Redoubt (at Washington & Lee), and The Spirit of VMI PAC. Virginia can claim more dissident alumni groups than any other state.

In the spirit of James Madison, the nation’s fourth president and primary author of the Constitution, the organization has two broad goals: (1) to maximize transparency, open government, and accountability from the university Board of Visitors and executive leadership; and (2) to increase tolerance, academic freedom and diversity of expression from and among students, faculty, staff and university leadership.

The administration of President Jonathan R. Alger has been widely criticized for its lack of transparency — not just by disgruntled alumni, but also by the student newspaper, The Breeze. In particular, The Breeze exposed how Alger and the Board of Visitors had skirted open meeting laws. Also, JMU under Alger has experienced explosive growth in the size of its Diversity, Equity & Inclusion bureaucracy and has faced charges of indoctrinating students with social-justice ideology.

The Madison Cabinet website highlights speech codes at JMU that infringe on the rights of students and faculty on both ends of the political spectrum.

JMU’s posting policy, which states that materials must be validated by “University Information,” appears to prevent students from posting without first clearing their materials through the university administration and obtaining sponsorship from a group or department.

Another policy bans all users of JMU information technology resources from using them for “political activities.” While JMU, as a public institution, should be prohibited from participating in political activities, students should not, the Madison Cabinet argues. Arguably, the policy prohibits students from using campus email or wifi to organize student rallies or comment about political candidates.

Additionally, says the group, JMU harassment policy does not conform to a Supreme Court ruling that “harassment” must be conduct so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive as to undermine a victim’s educational experience. JMU policies on sexual misconduct, bullying, and stalking detailed in the Student Handbook targets conduct that is severe or pervasive, not severe and pervasive.

The organization also advocates legislation now before the General Assembly. Bills include:

  • Cost study. HB 541 would provide for a study by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) to identify opportunities to reduce the cost of higher education in public colleges and universities. The study would examine teaching loads and faculty productivity, the impact of faculty research on tuition, the design and utilization of facilities, and other cost factors.
  • Programs of instruction. SB 1098 would prohibit Virginia higher-ed institutions from implementing new programs or instruction or new curricula for existing programs without first obtaining the approval of the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV), the House Committee on Education, and the Senate Committee on Education and Health.
  • Transparency. HB 1800 would require Virginia universities to report the number of diversity officers and government-relations officers employed by the institution, and the salary of each.
  • Procurement. In the bidding on competitive projects, HB 1743 would require written invitations to incorporate statements of qualifications for potential contractors relating to hiring, wages, and participation in apprenticeship programs.

While the Madison Cabinet’s main focus is JMU, organizers add a capability lacking in Virginia’s other alumni organizations: an intimate familiarity with the state legislative process. The Spirit of VMI PAC has donated to political candidates for office, and Jefferson Council President Bert Ellis is seeking state senate confirmation of his nomination to the University of Virginia Board of Visitors, but no alumni group has sought to influence legislation. The entry of the Madison Cabinet into the arena is a game-changer.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

33 responses to “The Alumni Rebellion Spreads to JMU”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar

    Who said conservatives hate regulation? 😉

    1. walter smith Avatar
      walter smith

      You
      We have no problem with laws, lawfully passed, as opposed to bureaucrats making political mandates, never-ending emergency declarations and Courts legislating by fiat.
      And if the law is stupid, which it seems many are, then we try to get rid of it.
      Or we could do like Dems and ignore it – see Sanctuary Cities and Pot…

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        VA tends to like zombie statutes that hang around, e.g., the one authorizing students to decline attending an integrated school ( now rescinded) and a constitutional amendment outlawing same sex marriage.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Well, they make a big deal about getting rid of excess regulation, then they replace it with more! 😉

          1. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Larry – do you know the difference between regulation and law?
            I assume you are just mixing the terms, but there is a difference.
            Meanwhile, I guess cuz we hate stupid Marxist “rules,” we hate all rules, right? That is your oh so sophisticated argument?
            How about we think your rules are stupid and we need less of them? Our rules make sense. Guess it matters whose ox is being gored. But I have no problem holding government and the academy accountable. I think that is a good thing, don’t you? You like to hold “business” accountable, but mandate all sorts of things for them to do because our legislators are so smart in running businesses, amirite?
            We need less government. These disclosure bills will expose some of the rot and maybe people will be more careful supporting more govt and more ridiculous academic BS. Jim Ryan still hasn’t answered whether it was fair for Lia Thomas to steal the medal from the UVA speaker. He is so “brave.”

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Sure I do but conservatives mix the two all the time! Regulations come from laws, right?
            In fact, conservatives often question regulations as “proper” reflection of the enacting laws.

            Well, the argument is about as sophisticated as the typical anti-regulation sentiment.

            “your rules”? ;-)… I should point you to this years GA and let you decide who “your” rules guys are!

            “holding accountable” is different things to different people and most decidedly to conservatives these days.

            Most of the laws and regulations in force, we need IMO. There are some dumb ones but both sides create them.

            Conservatives have claimed forever that they ARE .. “LAW and Order”. gotta have laws for that, right?

            The GA is getting back in session, I expect about 2000 proposals. Not untypical. Every year, another 2000 are proposed and yep your team does a bunch also!

          3. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Not my team Larry. I have little use for most.

        2. walter smith Avatar
          walter smith

          Then get them fixed if they bother you so much.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar

        You mean like telling the colleges what to do ?

  2. DJRippert Avatar

    I am always amazed that in all these higher education debates the runaway costs of tuition and fees are never the focus. The costs of DEI expansion are surely a driver of increased costs. A $25m expansion to the DEI program at a 15,000 student university would cost an additional $1,666 per student per year for example.

    However, runaway higher education costs predate the DEI movement by at least a decade, maybe more.

    Where is the transparency about runaway costs in general? Where is JLARC or some other budgetary authority in examining this issue?

    Perhaps these alumni organizations could add this to their topics of focus.

    Apparently, cost containment is possible. Purdue, an excellent university, managed to freeze its costs for quite some time. The net result? Considerable growth for that institution.

    Where is our General Assembly on the question of fast escalating costs for Virginia’s public colleges and universities? Where are the Boards of Visitors? Where are the alumni associations? Asleep at the wheel?

    https://www.npr.org/2022/09/06/1121201296/purdues-reputation-for-affordability-results-in-substantial-growth-for-the-schoo#:~:text=For%20a%20decade%2C%20Purdue%20University,price%20for%2036%20consecutive%20years.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      The runaway costs are caused by providing things that students want. Start with athletic sports and move on to restaurant-like dining halls, upscale dorms, and a slew of other amenities.

      Every time the GA gives out a pile of money for capital projects – that’s new buildings or upgrading existing buildings to provide more of
      what the students want. The state helps with the building cost, students pay for the operation and maintenance as well as the staffing.

      This is not a unique Virginia thing. In fact, Purdue is the outlier.

      There ARE other colleges without sports in the US and it’s the norm in Europe.

      But colleges here are competing against each other in trying to attract “customers” and as long as the amenities do attract the students and as long as they can easily get loans, it’s a done deal.

      Laws to “stop” it, what kind of laws?

      Are there any out there now?

      1. DJRippert Avatar

        That’s not a very good economic argument.

        First, you assume that there is a shortage of students trying to get into college requiring that colleges provide lots of expensive frills. While the future may well see declining applications, the past has not seen that.

        Second, the only reason the state should pay to build more physical facilities is because there are more students attending the university necessitating more physical space. If so, the costs of that additional physical space should be borne by the additional students without increasing the cost per student.

        Overall, I think the public colleges and universities in Virginia should be part of a state system like in North Carolina. One or two universities should be targeted as elite research based institutions with medical schools, etc. Those universities would be expensive t attend. However, several should be targeted as bare bones schools where students can get a good education at an affordable price.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          No assumptions at all. It’s right in front of you. Strong demand continues.

          I agree with your second point but it’s chicken and egg and the colleges argue that they need more facilities to attract more students.

          There actually are quite a few plain jane, inexpensive colleges out there right now.

          Few want to attend them.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Just for you DJ…

      https://www.chronicle.com/article/where-religion-and-neoliberal-diversity-tactics-converge?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=campaign_5922613_nl_Academe-Today_date_20230113&cid=at&source=&sourceid=&cid2=gen_login_refresh

      And here’s the teaser…
      “ That ethos of customer service has prevailed as universities are increasingly run like businesses. Ultimately, DEI is a management strategy, illustrated by the way the university skillfully pitted its “customers” (outraged students) against its “staff” (the adjunct instructor), directing conflict away from “management” (the administration). In years past, authoritarian Muslim states found similar utility in whipping up anger over international cartoon controversies in order to distract from their citizens’ domestic demands.”

  3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “JMU policies on sexual misconduct, bullying, and stalking detailed in the Student Handbook targets conduct that is severe or pervasive, not severe and pervasive”

    Really?… That is the position they are taking. We want to allow severe OR pervasive sexual misconduct, bullying and stalking… just not both… ?

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      “Additionally, says the group, JMU harassment policy does not conform to a Supreme Court ruling that “harassment” must be conduct so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive as to undermine a victim’s educational experience.”

      Seems pretty clear to me. In order for an arm of the state (like JMU) to declare something as harassment, it has to conform to the US Supreme Court determination of what harassment means.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Yeah, but wasn’t a justice what once said, “I don’t know what pornography is, but I’ll know it when I see it”? Or was it art?

        1. That quote was about a movie.

          United States Supreme Court
          JACOBELLIS v. OHIO(1964)

          “I have reached the conclusion, which I think is confirmed at least by negative implication in the Court’s decisions since Roth and Alberts, 1 that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments criminal laws in this area are constitutionally limited to hard-core pornography. 2 I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”

          -Justice Potter Stewart

          https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/378/184.html

        2. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Nope. It was harassment.

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Would love to examine that SCOTUS case in detail. If it is in regard to criminal harassment or civil awards, would it not be within JMU’s purview to set the standard a bit higher on campus? Additionally, the policy goes further than simply “harassment”. That being said, you are reading this position aren’t you? “We want more lax sexual harassment, bullying, and stalking standards for JMU.” Can’t see how this garners a lot of mainstream alumni or student support.

        1. DJRippert Avatar

          I agree that more detail on the Supreme Court ruling would be interesting.

          1. I think this is it.

            SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

            DAVIS, as next friend of LaSHONDA D. v. MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al.

            Held:

            “1. A private Title IX damages action may lie against a school board in cases of student-on-student harassment, but only where the funding recipient is deliberately indifferent to sexual harassment, of which the recipient has actual knowledge, and that harassment is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the victims of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school. Pp. 7—22.”

            https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-843.ZS.html

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Yes, I believe this is correct. So the definition cited in the article is the bar that must be met for a school official to be potentially liable for damages to the victim under Title IX. A far cry from defining what “sexual harassment, bullying, and stalking” entails. I don’t believe this definition would be valid in limiting what behavior the school allows or prohibits on their campus – just what they could be held legally liable for under Title IX.

          3. You may be correct.

            Students may also have legitimate concerns, however.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Fan. Fanatic.
      If she catches you hiding in her attic, you’ve gone beyond fan to fanatic.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Fan. Fanatic.
      If she catches you hiding in her attic, you’ve gone beyond fan to fanatic.

    4. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Fan. Fanatic.
      If she catches you hiding in her attic, you’ve gone beyond fan to fanatic.

  4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “The Madison Cabinet website…”

    Link? Not showing up on Google. Is it a Jefferson Council Only site access…?

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Madison Cabinet, eh?

      Well, at least it’s not yet another Thomas Jefferson Center, Institute, Council for/of the …

      Several years back when we were in Iraq, a populist cleric was killed/died and his followers carried his casket through the city. His followers swarmed the procession and the casket fell to the ground. The crowd began to tear the casket and body apart.

  5. James McCarthy Avatar
    James McCarthy

    IMO, the ever escalating costs of higher education will not yield to legislation or legislative studies. Cost effective and more easily affordable higher education requires a wholesale revolution starting with parents relinquishing the idyll to provide Johnny or Janie with the same experiences as theirs. Quasi-pro athletic programs are a luxury. They can be organized independent of institutions which can franchise the institution’s name for income. Non -in person and other distance learning are a future.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Could not agree more. It’s sorta like telling people they can’t like pickup trucks!

      😉

      here’s several hundred colleges that are under 10K a year:

      https://myfuture.com/search/results/college?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=&sort_career=&sort_college=tuition_lowest&sort_military=&cip_title=&state1=&state2=&state3=&state4=&state5=&tuition%5B%5D=less_than_10k&type_of_institution%5B%5D=public

      but it’s not what most kids and parents want.

      They want the pickup truck at 1/2 off!

  6. Bob X from Texas Avatar
    Bob X from Texas

    Someone needs to audit the Diversity departments at every college. All the diversity departments I have seen are very non diverse.
    This is Racist a d needs to stop!

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      GA is about to be in session….

Leave a Reply