Good post + I appreciate your nuance in the problem definition.
Wrt "That all sounds great. But then how do we reconcile the Yale position on institutional restraint with the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, which describes its work as explicit climate advocacy, to,
. . . develop evidence-based communication strategies, tactics, and tools that can catalyze climate action. We build and deploy tools that help countries, campaigns, and companies build public and political will for climate action."
Unsure the CCC's mission statement can be seen as evidence for climate advocacy (the CU examplr in prev post though does). Sounds more like developing solutions-agnostic, evidence-based tools that can used for climate action (which can mean very different things depending on users).
Climate action is also an SDG. Should there perhaps be room for coupling research to the SDGs in a policy-agnostic way? Sustainable cities and communities (SDG11), affordable and clean energy (SDG7) etc are all top level goals that require evidence-based solutions + value-based judgments. Contributing with policy-agnostic tools, knowledge and solutions does not automatically qualify the research efforts as advocacy.
Roger linked the 29 universities that signed on to the FIRE policy on institutional neutrality. I take it as a sign of positive change that this list includes Harvard and Penn. The presidents of both these universities were forced to resign—ostensibly for not coming down hard enough on student expressions of anti-semitism. It is also perhaps a positive sign the University of Colorado Boulder is also a signatory.
Dear Roger, it is true that for institutions to ‘really’ change, this must happen from within. In this case, fundamental cultural changes need to happen. But would you not agree that the odds of this happening as a result of mostly internal dynamics are near zero? My guess is that the congressional investigations I mentioned in response to your earlier post (at the federal and the state level) are necessary first steps to get these balls rolling. And yes, although necessary that will not be sufficient. In the mean time let’s keep celebrating Christmasses and New Years.
I don't see the real value of American universities, except for research. We need more professional vocation to get students out of "controlled" classrooms and into the real world. Learning about life, humanities and science, stems from engagement in the cauldron.
I think short-term focal courses interspersed with application on the outside is a model that removes embedded institutional creepiness and fixed revenue streams. America requires young people with grounded character over brain snatching propaganda.
How can American universities sustain themselves in such numbers, when their value is diminished in correlation to declining student populations? But they will resist, not reform, efforts to tear down these walls of prestige and linger on until the buildings crumble too.
This has been a fascinating and very sad series of articles. I started my career as a professor but left academia very quickly to seek fame and fortune in the oil biz. I am very glad I did so. No one should have had to put up with what you did. I am very pleased you are out of academia and wish you great success with your Substack.
I personally do not think academia is capable of internal change. Even if professors wanted to (and many secretly do), universities are not run by them. They are run by large, bloated administrations who have a strong vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Change will only come if or when it is forced upon them by state and federal governments.
Although I have been out of academia for many years, I started my career as a research geologist and still have many colleagues that are still in the bubble. Several have confessed to me that they are secret republicans. Now to be clear, I barely know these guys. But they can tell me things that they cannot tell those with whom they work with every day.
It is quite depressing to watch the slow death of once great institutions
Roger, I have enjoyed this series of articles and agree with most of what you have said. You started this final essay by rightly saying that the starting point is the problem definition - not considering the solutions. Might that point be that universities don't realise they have a problem? Are the financial consequences of their actions causing them pain? Don't they dismiss the accusations of bias and lack of diverse opinions as just more populist rhetoric? For sure the voices echoed on your substack are getting louder, as is the political intent to 'do something'.
Will this be enough to ignite academia's desire for change, or have we gone beyond that point, and will it require more draconian actions?
Does academia really have a desire to change? For the most part I don't think that they do. It will need to be a forced change. I don't know if Trump/Maga has the answers, but the liberal dems sure don't.
It's not just academia, it includes entrenched government agencies, media and corporate rent seekers as well.
This is not just a US problem. It's seen in most developed countries. As just one example a Canadian university called Royal Roads has courses leading to a degree in Climate Change Leadership.
I completely agree that universities need to act in some way and I also agree that universities need to do this on their own; it can't be imposed.
But some of the things you say here make me pause. E.g., "Much like the behavior change climate advocacy center at the University of Colorado Boulder that I discussed last week — which seeks to change how people behave and consume — operating a campus program focused on climate advocacy is clearly not institutional neutrality."
I don't know. Or at least, I would need more clarification. Let's say we have a food institute that focuses on healthy eating and does engage in advocacy/communication work about good diets. It seems to me that prohibiting an institute like this would not work; people work in food science because they have strong beliefs about food and nutrition. It's hard to draw the line between "science" and "advocacy" in this context. It can probably be drawn for climate change which is much more overtly politicized. But I'd be curious to hear your take.
I’m very sorry to say that food and diets are at least as much politicized as climate. And for a langer time too, partly because food is such a deeply cultural issue. If you like Roger on climate, you’ll like Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholz on Unsettled Science (on Substack). Check out Uncertainty Principles, which Taubes’ recently started on Substack.
Thank you! Just subscribed. I think what you're saying was also was my point which is that in practical terms, it is impossible to create a research program that is not "advocacy" of some sort. Especially in science that has policy-relevance and therefore some level of controversy, advocacy of some sort is inevitable (and at the very least, accusations of advocacy or being the shills of some group--which is the same thing because it casts a cloud over the research).
It think it is possible for researchers to be far less political/partisan than they are today; I am still struggling to figure out how that would happen and I would be curious to see Professor Pielke clarify what he means by this and perhaps to give a few examples of programs that are successful at not doing advocacy.
UF has redefined itself over recent years. Though some of my liberal friends hate the changes the board and president has brought most do. Here is their mission statement. Educate
Enable students to lead and influence the next generation for the benefit of society, culture, and the economy
Research
Create new knowledge and technologies, and perform research that has an impact
Serve
Share the benefits of research and knowledge for the public good
Contribute
Contribute to a diverse and well-qualified citizenry, workforce, and leadership
The university's core values include: Commitment to society, Service to the nation, Creative risk-taking, and Looking for inspiration and new ways of doing things.
The university's vision is to create an unstoppable momentum to strengthen the community and reward all with a better life.
UF has departed from its liberal ways. The president and board has done an excellent job of ridding itself of woke. Also the governor deserves some credit.
Reform from within universities is very dubious. They are actually expert at deflecting reforms. I have some experience with this when I ran an attempt to rein in extravagant spending on building by the University of California in the 1990's.
The University of California suborned the California master plan for higher education and lied continuously. I once asked the president of the university when they were going to stop the racist practice of giving preference to minorities they liked (blacks) in opposition to the state constitution. He told me never.
I think the best solution is to cut off their air supply (money). That's all they care about and they will shape up any way desired very quickly. We're dealing with narrow minded intellectual snobs. Bullies fold when confronted with forceful opposition.
Unfortunately, cutting off their air supply hasn’t worked … the state of California provides an appalling 12-13% of the budget of the University of California. So, one might wonder, exactly how did the state manage to incinerate $298B in 2024, without supporting the UC (or fixing the roads or any number of other basic governmental functions)?
And of course the lack of funding has done nothing to temper the leftism of the institution.
These are great if gentle suggestions, Roger. On a less gentle note, why does tenure exist? If a professor is adding value, that will surely be noticed.
I have enjoyed reading this series. A recent article by David Brooks in The Atlantic (December 2024 issue) entitled "How the Ivy League Broke America" is a very good read that approaches education more broadly than just universities, focusing on meritocracy and how it has changed the way education in America has evolved.
1) I cannot tell you the frustration that commercial meteorologists (and, I suspect NWS managers when having a beer outside of work) have with universities. They'd invite us to "career day" to speak to the students about our companies and then tell us all the reasons they cannot teach meteorology students to read a radar, make a forecast of a snow storm, or design weather instruments that actually work*. One professor at OU (my alma mater) said, "What do you want us to be, a vo-tech?!" Well, yes. Students of meteorology don't sign up solely to learn equations or to become clones of their professors.
If you want a quality education for actually working in the field (as opposed to research), a student is far better off going to a South Alabama or a Valpo than an OU or PSU.
2) The Yale Climate Communications group is exactly what a university should NEVER do. A focus group in southern Oklahoma -- with Yale paid by advocates of a ballot measure -- is the equivalent of selling political toothpaste and far outside of the mission of a tax-sponsored, state university.
There have been numerous occasions where their "communications about climate" have zero scientific credibility. For example, they keep contending tornadoes are getting worse even though there is ZERO evidence this is true. Roger has done work showing the trend is normalized tornado damage is DOWN and, as of today, we continue with the longest streak in history without an F-5 intensity tornado (11.5 years and counting).
Yale is selling its soul to allow this group to operate on campus with the "Yale" name and logo.
The above said, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah and a wonderful 2025 to all of you!!
*Someday, I'll explain about the ASOS anemometer and wind vane fiasco due to the lost art of weather instrument design.
"For example, they keep contending tornadoes are getting worse even though there is ZERO evidence this is true."
I have a good friend who teaches at a major university. He is brilliant scientist and is considered by his colleagues to be one of the two best researchers in his field in the world. He is not woke!!! But he is absolutely convinced that hurricane intensity has increased due to human activity. I have shown him the NOAA data. I have sent him several scientific papers on this subject. Heck, I have even quoted the IPCC report to him.
But he just cannot get there. It is like arguing evolution with a creationist. Climatism is a religion for him.
As for tornados, F3 and larger tornados have decreased since 1950. But you already know this
Your comments about not learning meteorology in meteorology classes were eye opening.
I like
Good post + I appreciate your nuance in the problem definition.
Wrt "That all sounds great. But then how do we reconcile the Yale position on institutional restraint with the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, which describes its work as explicit climate advocacy, to,
. . . develop evidence-based communication strategies, tactics, and tools that can catalyze climate action. We build and deploy tools that help countries, campaigns, and companies build public and political will for climate action."
Unsure the CCC's mission statement can be seen as evidence for climate advocacy (the CU examplr in prev post though does). Sounds more like developing solutions-agnostic, evidence-based tools that can used for climate action (which can mean very different things depending on users).
Climate action is also an SDG. Should there perhaps be room for coupling research to the SDGs in a policy-agnostic way? Sustainable cities and communities (SDG11), affordable and clean energy (SDG7) etc are all top level goals that require evidence-based solutions + value-based judgments. Contributing with policy-agnostic tools, knowledge and solutions does not automatically qualify the research efforts as advocacy.
Roger linked the 29 universities that signed on to the FIRE policy on institutional neutrality. I take it as a sign of positive change that this list includes Harvard and Penn. The presidents of both these universities were forced to resign—ostensibly for not coming down hard enough on student expressions of anti-semitism. It is also perhaps a positive sign the University of Colorado Boulder is also a signatory.
Dear Roger, it is true that for institutions to ‘really’ change, this must happen from within. In this case, fundamental cultural changes need to happen. But would you not agree that the odds of this happening as a result of mostly internal dynamics are near zero? My guess is that the congressional investigations I mentioned in response to your earlier post (at the federal and the state level) are necessary first steps to get these balls rolling. And yes, although necessary that will not be sufficient. In the mean time let’s keep celebrating Christmasses and New Years.
Merry Christmas, Roger! All best wishes for a prosperous, productive and interesting New Year.
I don't see the real value of American universities, except for research. We need more professional vocation to get students out of "controlled" classrooms and into the real world. Learning about life, humanities and science, stems from engagement in the cauldron.
I think short-term focal courses interspersed with application on the outside is a model that removes embedded institutional creepiness and fixed revenue streams. America requires young people with grounded character over brain snatching propaganda.
How can American universities sustain themselves in such numbers, when their value is diminished in correlation to declining student populations? But they will resist, not reform, efforts to tear down these walls of prestige and linger on until the buildings crumble too.
This has been a fascinating and very sad series of articles. I started my career as a professor but left academia very quickly to seek fame and fortune in the oil biz. I am very glad I did so. No one should have had to put up with what you did. I am very pleased you are out of academia and wish you great success with your Substack.
I personally do not think academia is capable of internal change. Even if professors wanted to (and many secretly do), universities are not run by them. They are run by large, bloated administrations who have a strong vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Change will only come if or when it is forced upon them by state and federal governments.
Although I have been out of academia for many years, I started my career as a research geologist and still have many colleagues that are still in the bubble. Several have confessed to me that they are secret republicans. Now to be clear, I barely know these guys. But they can tell me things that they cannot tell those with whom they work with every day.
It is quite depressing to watch the slow death of once great institutions
Roger, I have enjoyed this series of articles and agree with most of what you have said. You started this final essay by rightly saying that the starting point is the problem definition - not considering the solutions. Might that point be that universities don't realise they have a problem? Are the financial consequences of their actions causing them pain? Don't they dismiss the accusations of bias and lack of diverse opinions as just more populist rhetoric? For sure the voices echoed on your substack are getting louder, as is the political intent to 'do something'.
Will this be enough to ignite academia's desire for change, or have we gone beyond that point, and will it require more draconian actions?
Does academia really have a desire to change? For the most part I don't think that they do. It will need to be a forced change. I don't know if Trump/Maga has the answers, but the liberal dems sure don't.
It's not just academia, it includes entrenched government agencies, media and corporate rent seekers as well.
This is not just a US problem. It's seen in most developed countries. As just one example a Canadian university called Royal Roads has courses leading to a degree in Climate Change Leadership.
I completely agree that universities need to act in some way and I also agree that universities need to do this on their own; it can't be imposed.
But some of the things you say here make me pause. E.g., "Much like the behavior change climate advocacy center at the University of Colorado Boulder that I discussed last week — which seeks to change how people behave and consume — operating a campus program focused on climate advocacy is clearly not institutional neutrality."
I don't know. Or at least, I would need more clarification. Let's say we have a food institute that focuses on healthy eating and does engage in advocacy/communication work about good diets. It seems to me that prohibiting an institute like this would not work; people work in food science because they have strong beliefs about food and nutrition. It's hard to draw the line between "science" and "advocacy" in this context. It can probably be drawn for climate change which is much more overtly politicized. But I'd be curious to hear your take.
I’m very sorry to say that food and diets are at least as much politicized as climate. And for a langer time too, partly because food is such a deeply cultural issue. If you like Roger on climate, you’ll like Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholz on Unsettled Science (on Substack). Check out Uncertainty Principles, which Taubes’ recently started on Substack.
Thank you! Just subscribed. I think what you're saying was also was my point which is that in practical terms, it is impossible to create a research program that is not "advocacy" of some sort. Especially in science that has policy-relevance and therefore some level of controversy, advocacy of some sort is inevitable (and at the very least, accusations of advocacy or being the shills of some group--which is the same thing because it casts a cloud over the research).
It think it is possible for researchers to be far less political/partisan than they are today; I am still struggling to figure out how that would happen and I would be curious to see Professor Pielke clarify what he means by this and perhaps to give a few examples of programs that are successful at not doing advocacy.
“I’m of the view that major universities should be in the business of vocational education.”
That’ll preach Brother… Amen!
UF has redefined itself over recent years. Though some of my liberal friends hate the changes the board and president has brought most do. Here is their mission statement. Educate
Enable students to lead and influence the next generation for the benefit of society, culture, and the economy
Research
Create new knowledge and technologies, and perform research that has an impact
Serve
Share the benefits of research and knowledge for the public good
Contribute
Contribute to a diverse and well-qualified citizenry, workforce, and leadership
The university's core values include: Commitment to society, Service to the nation, Creative risk-taking, and Looking for inspiration and new ways of doing things.
The university's vision is to create an unstoppable momentum to strengthen the community and reward all with a better life.
UF has departed from its liberal ways. The president and board has done an excellent job of ridding itself of woke. Also the governor deserves some credit.
Reform from within universities is very dubious. They are actually expert at deflecting reforms. I have some experience with this when I ran an attempt to rein in extravagant spending on building by the University of California in the 1990's.
The University of California suborned the California master plan for higher education and lied continuously. I once asked the president of the university when they were going to stop the racist practice of giving preference to minorities they liked (blacks) in opposition to the state constitution. He told me never.
I think the best solution is to cut off their air supply (money). That's all they care about and they will shape up any way desired very quickly. We're dealing with narrow minded intellectual snobs. Bullies fold when confronted with forceful opposition.
Unfortunately, cutting off their air supply hasn’t worked … the state of California provides an appalling 12-13% of the budget of the University of California. So, one might wonder, exactly how did the state manage to incinerate $298B in 2024, without supporting the UC (or fixing the roads or any number of other basic governmental functions)?
And of course the lack of funding has done nothing to temper the leftism of the institution.
These are great if gentle suggestions, Roger. On a less gentle note, why does tenure exist? If a professor is adding value, that will surely be noticed.
I have enjoyed reading this series. A recent article by David Brooks in The Atlantic (December 2024 issue) entitled "How the Ivy League Broke America" is a very good read that approaches education more broadly than just universities, focusing on meritocracy and how it has changed the way education in America has evolved.
Roger, this was excellent.
I have a two-part comment.....
1) I cannot tell you the frustration that commercial meteorologists (and, I suspect NWS managers when having a beer outside of work) have with universities. They'd invite us to "career day" to speak to the students about our companies and then tell us all the reasons they cannot teach meteorology students to read a radar, make a forecast of a snow storm, or design weather instruments that actually work*. One professor at OU (my alma mater) said, "What do you want us to be, a vo-tech?!" Well, yes. Students of meteorology don't sign up solely to learn equations or to become clones of their professors.
If you want a quality education for actually working in the field (as opposed to research), a student is far better off going to a South Alabama or a Valpo than an OU or PSU.
2) The Yale Climate Communications group is exactly what a university should NEVER do. A focus group in southern Oklahoma -- with Yale paid by advocates of a ballot measure -- is the equivalent of selling political toothpaste and far outside of the mission of a tax-sponsored, state university.
There have been numerous occasions where their "communications about climate" have zero scientific credibility. For example, they keep contending tornadoes are getting worse even though there is ZERO evidence this is true. Roger has done work showing the trend is normalized tornado damage is DOWN and, as of today, we continue with the longest streak in history without an F-5 intensity tornado (11.5 years and counting).
Yale is selling its soul to allow this group to operate on campus with the "Yale" name and logo.
The above said, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah and a wonderful 2025 to all of you!!
*Someday, I'll explain about the ASOS anemometer and wind vane fiasco due to the lost art of weather instrument design.
Mike Smith
"For example, they keep contending tornadoes are getting worse even though there is ZERO evidence this is true."
I have a good friend who teaches at a major university. He is brilliant scientist and is considered by his colleagues to be one of the two best researchers in his field in the world. He is not woke!!! But he is absolutely convinced that hurricane intensity has increased due to human activity. I have shown him the NOAA data. I have sent him several scientific papers on this subject. Heck, I have even quoted the IPCC report to him.
But he just cannot get there. It is like arguing evolution with a creationist. Climatism is a religion for him.
As for tornados, F3 and larger tornados have decreased since 1950. But you already know this
Your comments about not learning meteorology in meteorology classes were eye opening.
Well put
Don’t forget Miss State! About a third of broadcast meteorologists have ties to there.