Professor Alasdair Roberts, a friend and colleague at UMass Amherst Public Policy recently published a new article, "The Crisis of Design in American Government." Meanwhile, he endured a baseless investigation after criticizing an academic accrediting organization.
Professor Roberts generously workshopped his thinking on the mismatch between the constitutional design of American government and the needs of contemporary society in a lecture at my law school in March 2025. I wrote then about his compelling ideas.
The American political system confronts two distinct crises. The first is the crisis of the moment, stemming from President Trump’s controversial actions since January 2025. The second is the deeper crisis of design, relating to flaws in the system’s architecture that predate Trump and will persist beyond his presidency. In the long run, the crisis of design is more consequential. Over-centralisation within the system has contributed to four pathologies: overload, gridlock, societal polarisation, and programmatic inefficiency and sclerosis. A better-designed system would be one in which authority was devolved and central institutions reconfigured. Systemic reform will be hard to accomplish because of constitutional constraints and a culture of anti-governmentalism. Still, structural changes are essential. History demonstrates that large and complex political systems are fragile. They are particularly prone to collapse under turbulent conditions like those facing the American system in coming decades.
Professor Roberts published an eight-minute explainer video, too:
Meanwhile, Professor Roberts endured this year a suspiciously unfortunate series of events, reaching a point of culmination also at the start of July 2025.
As Roberts explained on his Substack: "For seven years, I have been asking questions about the governance and policies of NASPAA [Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration], an accrediting organization for graduate public policy and public administration programs. I have never succeeded in getting on-the-record answers to these questions."
In January 2025, Roberts published an article, "False globalism: Public Administration in the United States in the Twenty-First Century," in the journal, Administrative Theory & Praxis. The article challenged NASPAA for asserting that its claims to global authority as an accrediting authority belie a U.S.-centric hegemony that eschews genuine efforts of diversity and inclusion.
Subsequently, Taylor & Francis (T&F), the publisher of the journal and parent company of Routledge, received a complaint against Roberts, alleging that "False Globalism" contained "inaccurate data." T&F opened an investigation. Roberts observed that T&F also publishes the Journal of Public Affairs Education, the "official journal" of NASPAA.
T&F's investigation found some minor misstatements, described on the Substack, one arguable, one based on a mistaken report by NASPAA itself. Roberts agreed to minor corrections accordingly. Nothing was discovered that would come close to undermining the integrity or thesis of the article.
To Roberts's surprise, the complaint persisted for months. He continued to cooperate with the investigation and provide supporting data for his assertions. T&F demanded further changes to the article. But this time, as Roberts described, proposed changes were more in the nature of added "rejoinder" than mere correction. In July, Roberts refused further changes. T&F backed down and at last closed the investigation.
Roberts wrote, "For me, this investigation was a prolonged, lonely, time-consuming, and costly experience."
In eagerness to protect itself, T&F seems to be running a process that facilitates the abuse of academic researchers while protecting complainants who effect harassment by transaction costs. Roberts is meticulous in his work and willing to defend his integrity, and he enjoys some protection of status in tenure. T&F's process meanwhile facilitates a problematic chilling effect on academics who might be more junior or less idealistic than Roberts.
Rep. Dan Webster (R-Fla.) wrote, "Power tends to protect itself merely to maintain its own status and control. Principle gives up power for the sake of the highest good and to create the best public policy.... Power and principle cannot coexist."
No comments:
Post a Comment