Yesterday's episode of Undercover Boss featured the chancellor of UC Riverside, Timothy White. The only prominent white male in the episode was Chancellor White, I believe. I didn't watch all of it, it failed to hold my interest. One of the employees was a female Chemistry professor -- Asian? So we got the feminist spin on women in science, and how women need to be encouraged to go into the (hard) sciences. The episode seemed to be heavily slanted towards women and minorities, and there is no question in my mind that the chancellor had a hand in that -- I don't think this was due (entirely) to the show's producers. He may welcome the demographic changes in California and be a great believer in "diversity," but does he really have to live with the consequences? Does the chancellor have a nice residence on campus, like the chancellor of UCB? Academics with science backgrounds can be as dogmatic in their liberalism as their counterparts in their humanities, and the chancellor is probably a proud adherent and enforcer of the PC liberal orthodoxy. At the end of the episode, the chancellor promises that he will continue to innovate in order to keep the cost of (higher) education low. But does he even address the question of whether a college education is necessary for everyone? What about the higher education bubble? He doesn't, as far as I can tell. As I said, though, I didn't bother to watch the whole thing.
Does any "boss" ever go on to make himself or his company look bad? From the outset, how can it be anything more than propaganda for management, disguised as "reality TV"? That's the problem with reality TV -- who believes that it is genuine, instead of an opportunity for those appearing to use it for their ends, whether it to be to gain stardom (or notoriety) or to trumpet one's own virtue or the greatness of one's organization? Even big academic institutions need advertising, as they're all competing for students (and $).
Eventually, the episode will become available on CBS.com.
Washington Post article