First generation (both first gen college and/or those whose first language isn't the one used in class) and lower socio-economic status students experience this all the time. How often do teachers pronounce words and/or define them just so everyone is on the same page? How often do we model being "dumb" or "failing" so that students are comfortable too? And, I know that is also highly fraught for many teachers for multiple reasons, since some have the privilege of being able to be "dumb" without issue, and others do not because they are also already assumed to be "dumb."

This is something that I've been thinking about a lot lately, particularly as a white academic. Students have things to say, but if we require them to conform to "Standard American English" (I'm in the US, so I'm using SAE as an example, but this would presumably apply elsewhere) and scholarly/disciplinary academic writing expectations/form, then a teacher's fixation on "proper grammar" or "academic voice" or "scholarly form" likely DO stifle the ideas and knowledges that students may have to share ("How many points off for not using an Oxford comma?" "What if I use 'informal language' or 'slang'?") As one student explained just before they were about to graduate, they had spent most of their academic career "whitewashing" their ideas and language, often writing multiple drafts, first in their own voice, then progressively more "academic," so they were never actually able to express what they really had to say...until a two faculty said "just write it the way you want. Here are some models to consider, but you don't have to conform to these either."

not following the logic here...

Not sure what the source is for this because I don't see the footnote, but US News and World Report has us at 202. https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/search?school-name=university%20of%20north%20dakota&school-type=national-universities&_mode=list

This contradicts, slightly, a claim made earlier in the manifesto, so, again, I would just urge consistency in claims.

Yes, but, this is a proposed budget...even though for all intents and purposes UND has made it's cuts, the legislature hasn't finalized things yet, unless I missed something today.

I think that this ending could be made more concise, which would drive your point home more effectively.

If it continues to exist...this is an instance where it isn't just about the state, if the NEH is cut, then so goes the NDHC, since all of its funding is federal and none comes from the state.

They "Should" or they are being pressured to? This seems to be a little contrary to your argument (in other words, there seems to be a bit of slippage between what your chapter is arguing and how it is presenting the opposing side).

Yes, but...here is a place where, again, perhaps acknowledging a bit of the opposition would be useful. For example: http://www.ndstem.org/aprilmay-2017-issue-of-steam-strategies-that-engage-all-minds-available-for-download/ and http://und.edu/calendar/index.php/view/event/detail/48171/nanoart-hidden-landscapes-revisited. In other words, this suggests that Art & Humanities are no where to be found in STEM, when there are collaborations going on right now between A&H and STEM. It might not be exactly what everyone wants, but they are happening and to exclude them will cause those who know about them to doubt other portions of your argument.

Given the structure of this paragraph, this information seems like belongs in a footnote as it disrupts your argument...or more transition is needed. Or, another option would be to have this end a paragraph, since here there is a discussion of taxpayer money that seems to be different than the discussion of what types of degrees are obtained.

In this paragraph, it appears that "Liberal Arts" and "Humanities" are being used interchangeably. So, I would ask, what is your definition of "Liberal Arts?"

I know that you do not want copyediting at this point, but this "has" should be deleted. And, above, "learn from its past nor plan" should be "learn from its past or plan" (it isn't set up as a neither/nor construction). Also, later, it should be 1950s and 1980s (no apostrophe because they aren't possessive)...I know, I know, nit-picky usage stuff that would be cleaned up eventually.