Diehl defends academic publication by showing oppositional claims to be fundamentally myopic. Academic publication, according to Diehl, cannot be assessed by immediate,
quantitative metrics such as financial contributions to the college or university. The supplemental topos of academic research and publication having value is demonstrative of Diehl’s primary topos, substantiating the claim that business models cannot account for unique practices central to higher education. For example, in the opening sentences of his response to the Solutions, Diehl reminds readers that research cannot be assessed like any other (business-like) practice because an article or book does not need to be “immediately lucrative” to have value.63 In effect, Diehl asks stakeholders to withhold judgement regarding the utility of academic research. The
103
rationale for this request is that any piece of academic research, regardless of its immediate utility, might prove invaluable in the future. Under Diehl’s interpretation of scholarship and research, the notion that academic work might eventually be noteworthy is non-falsifiable. All attempts to demonstrate fruitlessness can be rebuked as myopic, having cast judgement too eagerly.
While working to defend publication and research throughout academia, Diehl pays particular attention toward the humanities, arguing that the Solutions would be uniquely problematic for these fields of research.
We are especially concerned it will inhibit research in the humanities and we take issue with the idea that the value of research can be judged by its immediate impact or reduced to a monetary figure….As in other disciplines, the impact of most humanities research is not immediately observable, nor guaranteed. It tends to work cumulatively over time and, for the most part, requires no start-up funds, research labs, or expensive equipment.64
Diehl builds upon his argument that publishing’s contributions are not immediately observable by showing that some of the greatest thinkers in human history once faced attacks similar to those levied by the Solutions. Citing examples including “Voltaire, Hume, and Adam Smith,” Diehl stipulates that “These scholars’ impact was not fully known for decades or centuries, just as the value of much of today’s scholarship can’t be measured immediately.”65 This need for scholarly freedom to research and publish is then situated within contemporary contexts though
64 Diehl, Maintaining Excellence and Efficiency, 7, 8. 65 Diehl, Maintaining Excellence and Efficiency, 8.
104
the citation of an op-ed piece by Jo Ann Hackett and John Huehnergard, two humanities professors at the University of Texas at Austin.
How can you hope to understand the modern Middle East without knowing the history of the region? Without knowing that some of the same arguments that plague the region today have been going on for thousands of years? Arguments over water rights, over tribal boundaries and entitlements, over the universal justice that was promised with each new ruler — and was denied again and again.66
In both Diehl’s own words and those provided by Hackett & Huehnergard, this line of argument features an overarching appeal to history. By referencing historical figures such as Vico and Hume (Diehl) and long-past crises (Hacket & Huehnergard), these arguments successfully demonstrate the utility of historic research, but fail to convey the contributions of more contemporary thinkers. Diehl finds himself in a bind here. If his argument holds true (that scholarship is rarely appreciated until long after it is written) then he is thusly incapable of producing compelling evidence of usefulness among contemporary academics. Upon analysis, the claim that contributions are rarely self-evident appears less compelling than a potential alternative line of argument wherein multiple contemporary thinkers are shown to have contributed to issues and concerns in ways that have radically bolstered humanity.
Despite solid arguments in defense of research and publication, the ambiguous nature of academic publishing that Diehl presents makes this aspect of the Response necessarily dependent on academia’s ethos of expertise. By saying that publication has value, but admitting that the
66 Diehl, Maintaining Excellence and Efficiency; Jo Ann Hackett and John Huehnergard, “Two Texas
Professors on Why Academic Research Matters,” Austin American-Statesman, May 14, 2011, accessed August 10, 2016, http://www.statesman.com/opinion/insight/two-texas-professors-on-why-academic-research-matters- 1475412.html.
105
average person cannot predict nor observe this value, Diehl asks readers to trust the expertise of authors and their peers. While this is likely the best line of argument available to defend
academic publication (particularly in the humanities), it is also problematic given the Solutions’ topos of academics being untrustworthy and unaccountable.
By appealing to expert knowledge within academia, Diehl’s topos of academic research and publication feeds into critiques of academic elitism. The “wait and see” contributions offered by academic research are likely unconvincing to audiences that are skeptical toward academics. Diehl appears to push against this problem by showing that, even if not immediately useful, academic publication does not hinder other goals of higher education (undergraduate education, moves toward accountability). In listing the accomplishments of the University of Texas-Austin, Diehl includes support of “innovative research” as a prime reason why the Solutions are not currently necessary.67 This commitment to research is juxtaposed with the university’s continued capacity to “provide a world-class education, secure successful learning outcomes, [and]
maintain high graduation rates,” showing that these interests do not necessitate a zero-sum tradeoff with one another.68 This line of argument also bolsters Diehl’s topos of current policies surpassing the Solutions’ goals, showing that, even with academic publication, higher education is operating beyond its critic’s expectations.
67 Diehl, Maintaining Excellence and Efficiency, 1.
68 This position is furthered by Diehl’s citation of a 2005 report commissioned by the University of Texas
at Austin focusing on curricular reform. The portion of this report quoted in Diehl’s response states, in part, that “A great research university has more than one priority” and that “Research is essential and, in turn, it enriches teaching at all levels.” William Powers, Report of the Task Force on Curricular Reform (Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, 2005), 4. Though not referenced in Diehl’s response, this 2005 report continues by stating, “Research and core undergraduate teaching are the responsibility of all faculty.” Powers., Report of the Task Force
on Curricular Reform, 17. This position runs counter to the Solutions’ claim that tenured research faculty do not
typically incorporate undergraduate education into their professional lives Diehl, Maintaining Excellence and
106
As a final point regarding the utility of academic research and publication, Diehl shows that students benefit from emulating academic research initiatives. This mimesis is evidenced at the University of Texas at Austin where “80 percent of University of Texas at Austin
undergraduates have conducted academic research,” a figure which Diehl uses to demonstrate how research experience can improve overall learning outcomes.69
In short, Diehl defends academic publication through a multi-pronged approach wherein the non-quantifiable contributions of humanities research is defended while simultaneously readers are encouraged not to conceptualize publication as a zero-sum tradeoff with teaching and learning outcomes. This line of argument further substantiates Diehl’s primary topos of
academia being opposed to business models by curtailing attempts to systematically quantify and categorize academic’s roles.
3.5 CONCLUSION
Diehl’s Response to the Solutions sought to quell institutional support for Sandefer’s reforms by demonstrating the continued success and stability of the University of Texas at Austin. Similar to the Solutions, Diehl’s Response utilized a series of topoi that were not explicitly highlighted as primary lines of argument within the response document. Building upon the primary topos of the classroom not being a marketplace, Diehl’s supplemental topoi can be listed as including:
• Academia does not need reformed
• Higher education requires tailored reform models
107
• Academic research transcends commodification
This conglomeration of topoi can be read through hierarchical topos theory as a focused refusal to accept business practices in academia (see Fig. 4).
Figure 4 Diehl’s hierarchical topoi
Readers of these topoi will note a central theme: academia is a unique sector that requires loose organizational structure where individual institutions and academics can operate in accordance to their particular needs, doing so within a concern for immediate utility in their research. This perspective is seen in Diehl’s position that academic research has inherent value, even if that value may only be discovered in the distant future. The perspective is further supported by the belief that there are no universal models for education because each institution has a different inclination and structure. By uncovering each of the above topoi¸ we can begin to understand the foundational assumptions that have resulted in Diehl’s support of existing academic policies.
Whereas chapter two showed the Solutions’ are focused on teaching “a central set of truths,”, Diehl’s philosophical underpinnings appear to emanate from a form of epistemological
108
pragmatism. The latter of these camps approaches knowledge as both situationally-contingent and subjective. Mendelson explains:
When the epistemological pragmatism…is translated into discursive practice, the result is an approach to argument based on the recognition that if knowledge is local and partial, knowing subjects will naturally produce opposing claims (antilogoi) and that some of these oppositions can be equally well defended… antilogical practice maintains that by purposefully placing opposing claims in juxtaposition rhetors can not only minimize the unfair advantage of a
conventionally stronger position but also generate a consensually supported proposition that both adjudicates conflict and leads to prudent action.70 When juxtaposed, the ideological tenets of the Solutions (grounded in canonical truth) and Diehl’s Response (rooted in epistemological pragmatism) illuminate how and why the controversy in Texas was more a philosophical dispute than it was pedagogic or economic concern. Perhaps it is the overlay of particular policy proposals (the Solutions) and their counter- proposals (the Response’s support of existing policy) that resulted in the overshadowing of these ideological roots. Regardless, Diehl’s response, while substantive, failed to resolve the ongoing controversy over higher education in Texas.
Diehl’s Response is central to the larger Texas controversy due to its systematic rebutting of Sandefer’s Solutions, but, despite this nuanced response, Diehl did not quell the ongoing controversy regarding higher education in Texas. Shortly after its publication, Diehl’s Response was heavily criticized by supporters of the Solutions. The Texas Tribune quotes a member of Rick Perry’s staff, explaining the Governor’s sentiment:
109
University faculty and their allies should join the reform efforts and recommend ways to innovate, improve graduation rates, and enhance accountability and efficiency at Texas colleges and universities,” said Perry spokesman Mark Miner. “We all have an obligation to meet the needs of Texas students, employers, taxpayers and our fast-growing economy. Resisting reform and accountability is an unsustainable recipe for mediocrity and stagnation.71
Other defenders of the Solutions were cited in the Texas Tribune, questioning the work hours invested in the project and the cost of Diehl’s Response, asking if taxpayers were being billed for time invested in the effort.72 These provocations point toward a larger controversy that played out following publication of the Solutions, an argument2 that was intensified by Diehl’s Response and other responses to Sandefer’s proposals.
The following chapter explores the larger controversy that developed in response to the Solutions, examining how the topoi in the Solutions and Response were picked up by external interlocutors. While there is a litany of sources available, topos theory allows a meaningful cataloging of claims within these documents.73 By exploring what lines of argument were adopted by other institutions, news outlets, and citizens, chapter four captures the essence of discourse within the larger controversy, uncovering the foundational arguments made by a diverse set of communicators. Following analysis of topoi in the public controversy surrounding the Solutions, this dissertation will examine the theoretical and rhetorical implications of this
71 Reeve Hamilton, “UT Dean Rejects 'Seven Solutions' in New Report,” The Texas Tribune, July 6, 2011,
accessed March 4, 2016, https://www.texastribune.org/2011/07/06/ut-dean-rejects-seven-solutions-in-new-report/.
72 These questions were posted by Michael Quinn Sullivan, president of Empower Texans, a conservative
advocacy organization that includes Solutions author Jeff Sandefer on its board. Hamilton, “UT Dean Rejects 'Seven Solutions.'
110
study of topos, offering insights into how the Solutions controversy might promote the development of stronger arguments in defense of liberal arts education.
111