Goldwater strikes, and the Star bites, again

by David Safier

The Star and the Republic both gave lots of ink to a Goldwater Institute report that came out today.

The report says universities are top-heavy administratively.

Anyone see a problem here?

I do.

First, this research paper came out today, so no one outside G.I. has had a chance to review it. That means everyone who is called on to comment is at a disadvantage. They don't know exactly what the report says and haven't had any time to look into the research methodology.

Second, G.I. is famous for its complaints about administration and bureaucracy in education. Remember Ladner's classic line that there is a 1-to-1 ratio of bureaucrats to teachers in Arizona's K-12 schools? And remember, too, that G.I. doubled down on this ridiculous formulation which makes bureaucrats out of bus drivers, maintenance workers and cafeteria workers?

Any group that proclaims "Bus drivers are bureaucrats," then stands by the statement and refuses to retract it, should be immediately suspect when it talks about education and administration/bureaucracy. And any journalist covering G.I. that doesn't know about that howler hasn't been paying attention.

I haven't read the G.I. report, but it seems it lumps librarians, tech people and student advisers under the "administration" label.

Does that sound familiar? See "Bus drivers are bureaucrats," above.

Here's what should have happened. The media outlets should have waited a day or two. I know that's hard, but this isn't news that gets stale, it can wait a few days. They should have given the report to some researchers, especially researchers whose expertise is in higher education, and let them look over the methodology and the conclusions. Then, if they still considered the G.I. report credible, they could have had a serious discussion about its strengths and weaknesses.

Here's a quick look at the way papers reported the story. The worst? The Star, of course.

But let's start with the Republic. Its headline reads,

Goldwater Institute: Nation's universities suffer from ''administrative bloat"

Not bad. At least we know the source of the information. And the first words of the story are, "A new report by a conservative watchdog group . . ."

G.I.'s conservative bias is noted by the Republic. Good job.

Compare that with the Star headline:

'Bloat' in administrator ranks blamed for rising Ariz. tuition

Sounds like a fact the way the Star puts it, doesn't it?

The first line reads, "The Goldwater Institute released a new report today . . ."

No mention of "conservative." G.I.'s political/philosophical slant is important for the context of the story, but not to the Star, whose headline tells us to take the "Bloat" at face value, then mentions some nice sounding institute as the group that released the report.

The East Valley Trib just has a few short paragraphs about the story. It's headline is the best of the three:

Conservative group questions university spending

Note to people in the media: The Goldwater Institute is a propaganda machine which employs highly paid, intelligent people to lie and dissemble when necessary to come up with the conclusions which fit their political agenda. I've said it before, but it looks like it bears repeating.