One reason pundits' criticisms of professors lead to dysfunctional conversations is that pundits view the criticism as punching up and many professors view the criticism as punching down. I'll try to briefly explain. /1

The most elite name brand universities get by far the most news coverage. And those professors are a substantial %, but certainly not all, of prominent professor tweeters. So pundits (and many readers) assume you are talking about these few schools. This would be punching up.

But wherever we work, most of us are aware that by far most professors do not have high salaries, nor many resources at all, have to move wherever jobs are available, etc. And many at public (and some private) higher ed institutions are very vulnerable to political criticism. /3

The rising costs of higher ed are a huge problem, but they haven't resulted in higher salaries for the vast majority of professors. In fact, work has gotten more contingent for many. And tenure and non-tenure line are vulnerable to various hostile legislation in many states. /4

So many of us think of this, rather than the very small number of people employed at national name-brand universities like me, and are sensitive to the political vulnerability of many universities and faculty. And view this as punching down on a somewhat vulnerable group. /5

This does not mean professors shouldn't be criticized or education policy debated. It should be debated with nothing off the table! But the discussion can get confused when we are talking about different types of universities and not realizing it. /6

And I think some professors like me can get defensive about the *tone* of the discussion because it's reasonable to have a different tone debating vulnerable employees than more secure and wealthy ones. /7 /end

This explanation wasn't as brief as I initially promised!