Harry Targ
I don’t believe university presidents lose their
freedom to speak on issues of political importance when they assume their
positions. Consequently, I have not been as concerned as some members of the
university community about Purdue University’s new president, Mitch Daniels,
making repeated, visible, public statements about the issues of great debate in
the United States today. However, Daniels’ right to speak out on public issues is
complicated by several factors.
First, President Daniels is the first of six Purdue
presidents I have experienced who has visibly and purposefully addressed
political positions beyond those that have related directly to higher
education. I remember one president, Arthur Hansen, who spoke out clearly
against racism on and off campus. Other presidents addressed issues of
divestment of holdings in South Africa, sweatshops, and other issues raised by
students but these presidents commented because the demands made by students
and faculty related to university policy. Although I was on the side of those
who wanted the university to stand against U.S., university and corporate
complicity with the racist regime in South Africa and I wanted the university
to join the progressive national anti-sweatshop organization (which Purdue
ultimately did), the positions being advocated by critics related directly to
policies and programs involving Purdue University. President Daniels’ recent
remarks have addressed broad policies involving economics, the environment, and
health.
Second, the promise to avoid making political
statements, a high standard for a former politician, was made by Daniels
himself as he stepped out of the Indiana gubernatorial office and into the
university one. He said he would not be “political.” The standard was
articulated by him.
So what has happened since his pronouncement? He has
engaged in numerous public presentations on a broad array of political subjects
before a variety of conservative and corporate audiences. In addition, he has
appeared on numerous television programs crusading for a political agenda that
mirrors the approach to public policies advocated for years by leading and
well-heeled, conservative groups such as the Bradley and Heritage Foundations, and
the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). He has generally advocated
approaches to public policy articulated by conservatives in the Republican
Party (Adam O’Neal, Mitch Daniels Offers Rx for Runaway Spending,” (Real Clear Politics, October 30, 2013, http://www,realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/10/30/mitch-daniels_offers_rx_for_runaway_spending).
Among the issues that Purdue President Mitch Daniels
has addressed in national public spaces are the following:
-“reining” in “fixed costs” of entitlement programs
(Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) suggesting that “fixed costs” crowd out
university research and law enforcement.
-conceptualizing entitlement programs as a threat to
“research dollars, the NSF and NIH as well as so many discretionary activities.”
This, by implication, suggests that the only way to preserve funds for vital
research is to cut Social Security and medical programs rather than shifting
resources from the military or revising tax policies that privilege the rich.
-addressing energy policy by saying that “the
country that can’t build (the Keystone XL Pipeline) is not serious about
helping poor people.”
-proclaiming that the Affordable Care Act was a bad
deal for the young.
-and closer to his current position, arguing that
higher education “must show a high return on investment to stay in front.”
Summing up what mainstream economists would regard
as a problematic view of the federal deficit, which has been declining over the
last four years, and the issue of the debt, Daniels called the latter “the
largest non-military danger we have ever faced….the debts we are piling up are
right now an obstacle to growth. If interest rates rise, and some day they
will, just watch what happens both to growth and to the debt itself” (David
Cook, “Health-care law: ‘Raw deal’ for the young says Purdue President Mitch
Daniels,” The Christian Science Monitor, October
30, 2013, csmonitor.com).
As governor, contrary to his public image, Mitch
Daniels presided over the economic stagnation of the Hoosier economy including
real wages, declining support for public education, and the rise in poverty.
For example, as the Indiana Institute for Working Families has pointed out (August
23, 2013), one third of its residents are low income and for a decade have
experienced a decline in median household income. Even with a recent slight
decline in the rate of poverty, the number of low income Hoosiers has risen
since 2011.
While he was the first Budget Director for President
George W. Bush, the country experienced a shift from federal budget surpluses
to deficits, taxes for the rich were cut, and the United States launched two
wars. Although Daniels was not the primary decision-maker during Bush’s first
term, he clearly associated himself with policies that shifted the nation’s
wealth from the many to the few and embraced an ideology that warned of “debt”
only when it applied to programs that were designed to help the many.
In my view, Purdue President Daniels has the right
to express his political views even though he promised he wouldn’t, but others
have the right to evaluate those views, particularly as they advocate a public
policy that Paul Krugman correctly refers to as “a war on the poor.”
