Even though it has become a political term the “deep state” does exist and is a useful concept to think about when evaluating bureaucracies.

These are people long tenured in their jobs who know how to fast track or slow walk policy. Depending largely on their politics and mission they can steer departments the way they want almost regardless of the new boss or outside influence.

Makes a lot of sense to me that they would also exist in universities.

Not a single linked citation in the entire article aside from a book reference.

If you are going to talk about the “deep state” and not cite anything at all you deserve a good eye roll.

Any institution that has “renewal” in their name is ideologically driven.

Yes, but the problem is that this is just... ordinary human social dynamics plus a priority queue. The only reason why this seems surprising is that we're used to bureaucratic indifference in every power structure we normally inhabit.

The term "deep state" has become sullied in recent years. What are your thoughts on Eisenhower's speech about the Military Industrial Complex? Whether by conspiracy or out in the open, there are a number of actors inside large institutions that actively try to derail the original mission of said institution in the pursuit of their own survival.

Military industrial complex == arsenal of democracy

This decade, at least.

You might prefer some of the discussions on HN from similar articles[^1]. I will say, this is nice in the sense that it's focusing on public universities, rather than elite privates.

[^1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33496246 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33831936

Yep.

There is a valid point to made about administrative bloat eventually bogging down any organisation | domain unless actively worked against ... but the point missed here is that hair clogs the drains of any regime regardless of whether it is obscured by "Progressive" or "Capitalist" dogma.

They article raises many good points, and then pivots into an unneccesary coupling of "bad" with "liberal" and "progressive" ideals and posits that such management excess wouldn't happen in a market driven degree mill.

This, of course, is just silly.

> and posits that such management excess wouldn't happen in a market driven degree mill

Where are you seeing this? Can you quote it?

I read these closely located quotes:

> As Catherine Liu argues in a recent book, the PMC is comprised of educated professionals who embrace a moralizing progressive ideology while believing that it can be realized only in a top-down, hierarchical manner.

...

> Consistent with Liu’s description of the PMC, university administrators “labor in a world of floating signifiers, statistics, analytics, projections, predictions and identity performativity, virtue signaling, and affectual production.”

at first as describing the opinion that US university admins are disguising their busy work behind a cloud of "liberal progressive" smoke and that presumeably other locales and times would see other topical issues being used (ie. it's not intrinsically linked to a political ideal)

However they were followed by:

> While there is no denying that many professors are politically liberal, many still adhere to the principles of pluralism and recognizing the existence of multiple viewpoints on controversial issues.

> More than the faculty, the academic PMC is the source of the dogmatism that haunts contemporary academia.

which had me wondering; I'm not in the US and I'm always struck by the apparent ever present need to shoehorn "Left" V. "Right" and at best gently curse with backhanded references ( "despite being politically liberal, many of the common staff still lack blinkers" etc).

The conclusion is that all this needs to be flushed away:

> Whether they have any commitment to preserving the complex ecology required by institutions of learning in a market-driven society is another question entirely.

and that conclusion follows what I saw as weak and weasly implication that (US) progressive liberal values were tied somehow to administrative self perpetuating at the expense of that they were supposed to serve.

I'll admit it's a weak bias, but it comes across as white anting all the same (to my non US eye).

Sorry, I don't know what white anting is. I will say the latter section you quote seems to undermine your claim, not support it.

Do you not know what it means?

Yes, but in recent years deep state had taken on a political smell. Like, you can just call the university administrators a tyrannical bureaucracy and you'd be sufficiently accurate. Deep state implies some sort of secretive network that's entrenched. They're literally the bosses, no secrets needed.

I suggest watching the satirical comedy show Yes Prime Minister that showcases what is meant by the deep state better than anything I’ve seen.