UT-Austin attempts to calm faculty concerns over planned Liberty Institute

[ad_1]

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to date on the most important news from Texas.

University of Texas executives at Austin tried this week to allay faculty concerns about a planned on-campus think tank known as the Liberty Institute, weeks after The Texas Tribune reported that the university was using private donors and Lt a center dedicated “to the study and teaching of individual freedom, restricted government, private business and free markets”.

At a faculty council meeting Monday, Provost Sharon Wood reiterated that there are still many decisions to be made about the institute, which will receive over $ 12 million in funding from the state legislature and the UT System Board of Regents over the next two years.

The Faculty Council Chairs had presented University President Jay Hartzell with a list of eight questions about the university’s plans for the institute, its mission, and its structure. However, Hartzell was at an event in Dallas and did not attend the meeting.

In his place, Wood admitted to the council that the Tribune article “caused a lot of concern” on campus. However, she noted that the university did not provide information for last month’s story, which includes detailed emails and documents the Tribune received about pending file requests. The motion came after the university gave vague answers to students and ignored the Tribune’s questions about the center.

“So I want to talk to you about what the university is actually up to and try to clear up some of the misunderstandings,” she told the faculty.

Wood, the former dean of UT-Austin Cockrell School of Engineering, was named provost in June. She told the faculty that she did not have the answers to many of her questions because discussions about this center had taken place in the President’s office prior to her arrival. However, she described a more politically subdued proposal than the one discussed privately between donors, lawmakers, and school principals.

According to Wood, the goal of the institute is “to support and attract teachers”. She said it was an “investment in philosophy, politics and economics”. She said the idea has been debated among faculty and school principals for over a decade, originally under the direction of Tom Gilligan, who was dean of McCombs School of Business before heading the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, a conservative think tank that works outside the normal university structure. And she compared the new center to a department in philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford University.

“The goal is to provide students who push traditional boundaries and look at problems from multiple angles,” said Wood. “This enables them to better understand how the regulatory and legal environment will affect the markets. They also have the analytical and quantitative skills to solve complex problems and understand more economic factors. “

In August, the Tribune reported on Hartzell’s emails received through an open request to UT-Austin, as well as two suggestions from Patrick’s office that suggest more political – if not explicitly partisan – motivations among those involved to found the institute .

“[A] A growing proportion of our population lacks a basic understanding of the role that freedom and the private sector play in their well-being, ”a proposal said. “Too many Americans, especially younger students, have misconceptions about our political system and don’t even have a basic understanding of the moral, ethical, philosophical, and historical foundations that underlie a free society.”

A second proposal described the institute as one that “will educate thousands of students … on the moral, ethical, philosophical and historical foundations of a free society” and calls on the state to provide money for the project.

It is still unclear who wrote these proposals or when they were made. While they do not reflect the full range of discussions about the institute, they offer the best insight into the vision of some of those involved in its creation. Emails show that Hartzell has been involved in discussions since at least 2016.

Wood said the Tribune’s report “ignored the role of faculty leadership and faculty recruitment, as well as the development of new degree programs, and implied there was no interest among students.” She did not provide any information about these roles.

UT-Austin did not respond to an interview request or written questions sent Tuesday, including a request to provide a list of the faculties and students who were involved in the planning of the new center.

Despite the pending decisions, some professors remained skeptical of the new center. After Wood spoke, Professor Stuart Reichler of the College of Natural Sciences said the faculty’s primary concern was that the university would allow the legislature to politicize UT-Austin.

“You say we need third-party funding for this institute,” said Reichler. “It sounds like there are already funders, political donors, who are providing the university with money to hire people for these positions, to become part of this institute. I think our concern – or at least I read from the questions into the concern – why does the university allow itself to be politicized by the legislature? It seems like a very dangerous precedent for us. “

But one professor pushed the concerns of his peers, arguing that university programs like Centers for Social Justice and Diversity, Justice and Inclusion efforts were already political.

“It seems like you’re just treating these as ideas that you don’t want [on campus] as opposed to a broader principle, ”said Richard Lowery, finance professor at UT-Austin Business School.

In response to funding concerns, Wood noted that there are 15 different efforts on campus that are similarly funded by the legislature, including the McDonald Observatory and the Marine Science Institute.

She said no donors had been found for the new center. However, emails show that at least one donor agreed to donate $ 8.5 million to a new center in 2016. Bob Rowling, a conservative billionaire businessman and well-known UT Austin donor, confirmed that he and oil company boss Bud Brigham were involved in the project. Rowling told the Tribune in August that Brigham was the “real leader on the matter”. UT-Austin didn’t respond to a question asking Wood to clarify what she meant by her comment.

UT-Austin ignored interview requests and written questions from the Tribune. The leaders gave only a few details to the students, who also raised questions last spring.

When asked by a faculty member at the meeting why UT-Austin did not respond to the Tribune’s request for comment, Wood said she did not know.

Wood also told the council that the goal this year is to recruit three to five new faculty members who will teach interests in “philosophical foundations for individual and collective decision-making and choice, government regulation, legal and political implications for economic outcomes and individual decision-making.” “Have freedoms, market-building and welfare, and social prosperity and wellbeing, including innovation, entrepreneurship, business creation and job creation.”

She assured the faculty that all new professors would be hired within the framework of proper university protocols, which include deans, faculty chairs, and the faculty council. One of the suggestions from Patrick’s office had suggested that the center be run by an overseer made up of “alumni and friends … committed to the mission”. They would report to the President of UT-Austin and the system’s Board of Regents, manage donation funds, and help recruit the faculty.

Wood also told the faculty that the president’s office would find philanthropic support to recruit chairs or professors. She also said the university plans to take stock of existing courses to make a list of new courses that could be added. They expect a national search for the director. Wood said they also need to determine the institute’s official name, mission, and board and governance structure.

While some faculties said the outline Wood presented on Monday sounded reasonable, they didn’t feel that the university shared enough information and said that further discussion and detail was needed.

“I don’t think we know enough yet to know if the university is doing something inappropriate or bad faith here,” said Steve Vladeck, law professor and faculty board member. “But I don’t think the university helped itself in conveying information to the faculty. I do not think so [Monday’s] Meeting really helped in this regard. “

The Board of Directors of the Faculty Council asked Hartzell to present the new center to them.

If you appreciate reports like this, you have to be there for the 2021 all-virtual Texas Tribune Festival, now running through September 25th. Join in as big names in politics, politics, and the media talk about what’s next for Texas and beyond. Discover live and on-demand programming, including dozens of free events, at tribfest.org.

Disclosure: University of Texas at Austin, University of Texas at Austin – McCombs School of Business, and University of Texas at Austin – Texas Enterprise – McCombs School of Business have been funding supporters of The Texas Tribune, a non-profit, non-partisan news organization that is partially funded through donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the journalism of the Tribune. You can find a full list of them here.

[ad_2]