Here we go again. In Friday’s Washington Post Opinion section David Levy asks the question: Do college professors work hard enough?”

My major complaint about his essay (and there is much to complain about in his essay–including several myths that he perpetuates) is his assertion that research should be sequestered in America’s research universities that “are at the center of America’s progress in intellectual, technological and scientific pursuits.” Research and scholarship, he suggests, have no place at America’s “teaching universities.”

Mr. Levy comes from the world of the arts. Perhaps I need to put this in language that he can understand.

Mr. Levy:  Would you hire musicians who do not practice and play their instruments? Would you hire a sculptor who does not sculpt, or a painter who does not paint? Would you hire play-writes who do not write plays, or acting teachers who do not themselves act?  Of course not. Not at any university for which he worked.

So why does he suggest that faculty at a “teaching university” not engage in research? Or maybe only “elite” universities should hire practicing artists, while “teaching universities” simply hire people who understand technique but do not practice their arts (and sciences).

I suspect what is going on here is pure ignorance. I am not suggesting that Mr. Levy is stupid. That may be the case, but I am not suggesting it here. I am suggesting that he does not understand what faculty actually do (outside of the arts anyway). Research and creative activities at all levels of higher education has tremendous benefits to students in the classroom and after they graduate.

Is he truly suggesting that an art student at CSU Channel Islands does not deserve training from a practicing artist? Or a practicing social or natural scientist? Students at Columbia deserve active faculty who can teach from experience; students at CSU Channel Islands or SUNY Oswego do not.

To suggest that students at “lesser” universities deserve anything other than what they would get at a “research university” is simply, and frankly, elitist.

As with most “solutions” to problems in higher education this one is put forward by someone who has either 1) never worked in the trenches, or 2) spent so much time in the richly appointed administrative meeting rooms (where he spent most of his career) that he has completely forgotten what the art of teaching–in all of its dimensions (teaching, research, and service)–is all about, and how much work it really is.

I work in the CSU. My students deserve the same quality of education as they would get in any top university in the country.

I work hard. From the classroom, to my research, and in the endless meetings to ensure that our students get a first-rate educational experience; and to ensure that the taxpayers of California and our students get what they pay for.

Mr. Levy, I invite you to spend a year teaching at my CSU, where you can personally discover exactly how hard we work. We will sign you up for your four courses per semester, put you on half a dozen committees, and look forward to that spring art exhibit you will create over your year here. The Chair of Art is a friend of mine; we can make this happen. Give me a call.