What I Told the *Chronicle* About GMU

My Q&A with Alex Walters

While writing his recent Chronicle of Higher Education piece on the politics of George Mason University, reporter Alex Walters sent me a stack of thoughtful questions.

None of my responses made the final version of the article, but Walters has kindly given me permission to share his Q and my A. He’s in blockquotes, I’m not.

P.S. Prudentially speaking, my best response to Walters was “no comment,” but I’m trying to use my tenure nobly by loudly saying what every reasonable person in academia is quietly thinking.

---

Here you go, Alex, and everything I say is on the record. Happy to respond to any other questions. I am an open book!

I’ve heard from advocates who are worried by the number of Youngkin-appointed visitors with connections to the Heritage Foundation. Notably, they’re anxious about Lindsay Burke, who authored the education chapter of the foundation’s “Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership.” (Its proposals include eliminating the Department of Education, removing – from law, federal data, and executive branch rules – any definitions of gender inclusive of non-binary or trans students, and passing legislation banning various Critical Race Theory and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion concepts from university policies and curriculums.) Do you think faculty should be worried by a Heritage presence on the board?

Even if I had conventional far-left views, I would not be more than mildly worried about Burke, because he is just one visitor out of sixteen, and the Democrat/Republican ratio of social science and humanities faculty (and very likely the admins, too, though that question is much less-studied) is about 30:1. Being deeply worried despite your extreme dominance is practically the definition of "paranoia."

The correct story, in my view, is that far-left faculty feel "threatened" by anything short of 100% control of the university. And all of the allegedly horrible views you list are, at minimum, worthy of calm discussion.

Last Fall, GMU’s board requested the full tenure files of the proposed faculty for review, greatly expanding their level of oversight in tenure decisions. Overwhelmed by the amount of reading that would be necessary to review every single tenure applicant’s file, one Visitor suggested in February that the board be able to select candidates for further review and then read their entire files. Some faculty advocates objected to that, saying it was an overreach into tenure decisions by unqualified, politically-appointed Visitors. Do you agree?

I served on the oversight committee for Tenure and Promotion for many years, so I can say with confidence that this is more paranoia on the part of the "advocates." The real story is that GMU's standards for tenure, especially in politicized departments in the humanities and social sciences, are sadly low. Seriously, many people get tenure for publishing their dissertations (which were nearly complete when they got hired!) with a low-level university press, plus a few other articles in obscure journals. We are handing out tax-funded dream jobs for life. We need a lot MORE oversight to curtail this ongoing abuse.

My best guess is that the Visitors' additional scrutiny will be totally symbolic. I doubt they will overturn a single additional favorable tenure decision as a result. But I hope I'm wrong.

Faculty advocates also expressed concern over the board’s intention to eliminate the proposed Just Societies requirement. Has your department discussed that proposal?

Not formally, but I have discussed it with many colleagues.

If so, what do you think? Should departments include such courses?

No, I think the Just Societies requirement is terrible. As I've explained at length, it really does amount to forcing all GMU students to endure two courses of far-left brainwashing. All the claims about wanting a "conversation" or "dialogue" are empty promises the promoters have no intention of fulfilling. You might as well put the Catholic Church in charge of two mandatory courses on religion. They're too one-sided even to realize how one-sided they are.

Regardless of your feelings about the courses, do you believe the board should be involved in reviewing that curriculum, as they’ve requested?

Yes. The current system is deeply dysfunctional, with far-left political views treated as proven fact. I'd welcome almost ANY outside oversight on course requirements. Frankly, today's social science and humanities faculty (and closely allied admins) are about the last people on Earth you should trust to foster rational dialogue on anything. (More here).

Is there anything else important about this that I should know?

I'll leave you with this. A while back on Twitter, I proposed this hypothetical: "A public university has a Department of Creation Science. The administration tries to shut it down for teaching dogma in the guise of scholarship. Does this violate 1st Amendment protections of free speech?"

My position is that 1st Amendment protections REQUIRE the defunding of such a department, because is a thinly-veiled form of establishing an official religion. And the same goes for fields like Ethnic Studies, Women's Studies, and LGBT Studies. Like most organized religions, they're extreme intellectual monocultures that tolerate no serious dissent. As with my hypothetical Department of Creation Science, the real 1st Amendment violation is not second-guessing the demands of highly politicized departments, but using tax dollars to fund them in the first place.

Hope that helps, Alex! Good luck with your article.

--Bryan