Universities once believed themselves to be sacred enclaves, where students and professors could debate the issues of the day and arrive at a better understanding of the human condition. Today, sadly, this ideal of the university is being quietly betrayed from within. Universities still set themselves apart from American society, but now they do so by enforcing their own politically correct worldview through censorship, double standards and a judicial system without due process. Faculty and students who threaten the prevailing norms may be forced to undergo thought reform.In a surreptitious about-face, universities have become the enemy of a free society, and the time has come to hold these institutions to account.The Shadow University is a stinging indictment of the covert system of justice on college campuses, exposing the widespread reliance of n kangaroo courts and arbitrary punishment to coerce students and faculty into conformity. Alan Charles Kors and Harvey A. Silverglate, staunch civil libertarians and active defenders of free inquiry on campus, lay bare the totalitarian mindset that undergirds speech codes, conduct codes, and life bureaucracies, through which a cadre of deans and counselors indoctrinate students and faculty in an ideology that favors group rights over individual rights, sacrificing free speech and academic freedom to spare the sensitivities of currently favored groups. From Maine to California, at public and private universities alike, liberty and fairness are the first casualties as teachers and students find themselves in the dock, presumed guilty until proven innocent and often forbidden to cross-examine their accusers. Kors and Silverglate introduce us to many of those who have firsthand experience of The Shadow University, including: The student at the center of the 1993 Water Buffalo case at the University of Pennsylvania who was brought up on charges of racial harassment after calling a group of rowdy students water buffalo -- even though the terms has no racial connotations.The Catholic residence adviser who was fired for refusing, on the grounds of religious conscience, to wear a symbol of lesbian and gay causes The professor who was investigated for sexual harassment when he disagreed with campus feminists about curriculum issuesThe student who was punished for laughing at a statement deemed offensive to others and who was ordered to undergo sensitivity training as a result.The Shadow University unmasks a chilling reality for parent who entrust their sons and daughters to the authority of such institutions, for thinking people who recognize that vigorous debate is the only sure path to truth, and for all Americans who realize that when even one citizen is deprived of liberty, we are all diminished.

Challenging prevailing media stereotypes, Generation at the Crossroads explores the beliefs and choices of the students who came of age in the 1980s and 1990s. For seven years, at over a hundred campuses in thirty states, Paul Loeb asked students about the values they held. He examines their concepts of responsibility, the links they draw between present and future, and how they view themselves in relation to the larger human community in which they live. He brings us a range of voices, from I'm not that kind of person, to I had to take a stand. Loeb looks at how the rest of us can serve young people as better role models, and given them courage and vision to help build a better world. This insightful book explores the culture of withdrawal that dominated American campuses through most of the eighties. He locates its roots in historical ignorance, relentless individualism, mistrust of social movements, and a general isolation from urgent realities. He examines why a steadily increasing minority has begun to take on critical public issues, whether environmental activism, apartheid, hunger and homelessness, affordable education, or racial and sexual equity. Loeb looks at individuals who have overcome precisely the barriers he has described, and how their journeys can become models. The generational choices he explores will shape our common future.

Although most empirical assessments of the dual economy perspective have been limited to studies of sectoral differences in the earnings attainment process, the theory itself has many implications for status movements during the occupational career. In this article we develop some of these implications and attempt to determine if meaningful differences exist in the careers of workers in core and periphery sectors of the U.S. economy. Using data for a cohort of older U.S. men, we find that significant differences exist in the patterns of occupational mobility in the core and periphery sectors, both between first jobs and midcareer jobs, and between midcareer jobs and late-career jobs. In addition, educational and training factors have a greater impact on status movement at both career stages among workers in core industries.

Using aggregate data for occupations, this study examines changes between 1950 and 1970 in the relationship between (1) level of education and level of earnings and (2) inequality of education and inequality of earnings. As a heuristic device the findings are considered in the context of free-market (human capital/functionalist) and structural (job competition/market segmentation) explanations of inequality. The results of the analysis provide support for elements of both explanations. Consistent with the structural position, we find that in spite of the frequently observed overall stability in inequality of earnings over the three time points, there are sizeable increases in inequality of earnings among some lower SES occupations and at the same time decreases in inequality of earnings among some higher SES occupations. The fact that the effect of education on relative level of earnings shows no consistent pattern over time would also support the structural over the free-market perspective. On the one hand, in support of free-market theories there is a stronger effect over time of level of education on the absolute level of earnings, and inequality of education on inequality of earnings. In addition the significance of the proportion of nonwhite workers in an occupation for both level of earnings and inequality of earnings declines between 1950 and 1970. Sociologists have long been familiar with the fact that average levels of both education and income rise as societies develop industrially (Lenski; Treiman). How economic and technological change affect the relationship of these signal dimensions of stratification, however, is still unclear a decade after Treiman's observation that this indicates a significant gap in stratification theory. Over the past fifteen years there has been much re*Revised version of a paper presented at the Seminar on Social Stratification and Intellectual Skills sponsored by the Research Committee on Social Stratification of the International Sociological Association, 1980. This research was partially supported by operating grants from the University Research Policy and Grants Committee of the University of Calgary and the Graduate School of the State University of New York at Buffalo. We wish to thank Sambhu Nath for his expert programming assistance. ? 1982 The University of North Carolina Press. 0037-7732/82/020436-55$02.00

Though a significant number of studies of scholarly productivity have accumulated in the past decade, the majority have focused on limited samples of specialists in one or only a few scientific disciplines, making it difficult to generalize findings across dissimilar academic disciplines. This paper tests a model incorporating both academic and nonacademic factors as determinants of productivity with samples of physical and biological scientists, social scientists, and humanists taken from the 1972-73 American Council on Education survey of J'aculty at U.S. institutions of higher learning. We find considerable variation in the process determining productivity both across the broad disciplinary categories as well as within categories when article and book productivity are compared. We also examine the relative influence of the disciplinary context and attributes of scholars on productivity. Our evidence suggests that the decisive edge that physical and biological scientists enjoy over social scientists and humanists in article productivity is largely the result of the nature of work or a favorable disciplinary milieu, while the lower rate of productivity among humanists is more heavily determined by their attributes.