The Chronicle of Higher Education just published a story on PA House Resolution No. 177
Horowitz has succeeded in getting one of his ABOR bills passed here in Pennsylvania. I have read through the language, and so far, it doesn't strike me as horrible, but its not good either. I take it that the PA legislature doesn't have jurisdiction over liberal arts colleges, but the resolution does cover Community colleges and State colleges.
Here is a little snippet on what happened on the floor:
The fight over the resolution was indeed intense, taking up many hours of debate and procedural maneuvers before the resolution was approved, 108-90, largely along party lines, with Republicans backing the measure and Democrats opposing it. Faculty unions nationally, while saying that they don’t object to fairness, oppose the Academic Bill of Rights, which they say will force professors to give equal time to any possible view — including Holocaust denial and creationism — and make faculty members vulnerable to sanctions any time they say something controversial.Moreover, here is some of the language from the bill:
9 RESOLVED, That a select committee composed of the
10 Subcommittee on Higher Education of the Education Committee,
11 plus one member appointed by the Speaker of the House of
12 Representatives and one member appointed by the Minority Leader
13 of the House of Representatives, examine, study and inform the
14 House of Representatives on matters relating to the academic
15 atmosphere and the degree to which faculty have the opportunity
16 to instruct and students have the opportunity to learn in an
17 environment conducive to the pursuit of knowledge and truth and
18 the expression of independent thought at State-related and
19 State-owned colleges, universities and community colleges,
20 including, but not limited to, whether:
21 (1) faculty are hired, fired, promoted and granted
22 tenure based on their professional competence and subject
23 matter knowledge and with a view of helping students explore
24 and understand various methodologies and perspectives;
25 (2) students have an academic environment, quality life
26 on campus and reasonable access to course materials that
27 create an environment conducive to learning, the development
28 of critical thinking and the exploration and expression of
29 independent thought and that the students are evaluated based
30 on their subject knowledge; and
20050H0177R2553 - 2 -
1 (3) that students are graded based on academic merit,
2 without regard for ideological views, and that academic
3 freedom and the right to explore and express independent
4 thought is available to and practiced freely by faculty and
5 students;
How did I end up in this state? The ONLY state that actually passed one of Horowitz's bills. Good lord! When will people wake up and stop this madness. Now we have allowed our local legislators, many of which who probably wasted their academic career at the Frat house, to have power over university and college hires. Students can seek out remedies for professors who refuse to discuss Creationism in Intro to Cell Biology.
I am sorry, but we are an embarassment of a country on these issues. We are allowing the Conservative Right now take over higher education? What year is it?
Feminista, have you considered that you do not represent all of those who are part of academia? Perhaps if you took the time to put yourself in a conservative student's shoes, you would think differently. I am not one to cry victim all the time, but it is an undeniable fact that higher education is dominated by the left, and has an insatiable appetite for promoting PC policies that seek to silence the voices of those who do not agree with the liberals in positions of power. In terms of Horowitz's academic freedom bill, isn't it time that those who fund public universities (the taxpayers, obviously), had a say in what goes on in terms of how their money is spent? It is the perogative of any private insitution to hire and set curriculum as they please, but public universities are held accountable to the people, and half of the United States is relatively conservative. Outside of the "bubble" you speak of, people *gasp* vote Republican! It shouldn't be a shock to someone as educated as you. It truly amazes me, the level of self righteousness that permeates the world of colleges and universities. This is why conservatives feel like they don't get a fair shake. They are laughed off, belittled, called out and castigated for their views, and that behavior is simply being reinforced by professors and administrators. Bravo, give yourselves a round of applause. Until the environment for college conservatives is more welcoming (colleges are SO accepting of every other group imaginable), you can expect to see more groups form on campus, and more people like David Horowitz working through state legislatures to make things better for conservatives. Maybe trying to understand that people will have political views different from yours would be beneficial, and something you could bring to your classes. It's a skill and realization that too many professors cannot master or arrive at.
ReplyDeleteDear afc13:
ReplyDelete"I am not one to cry victim all the time, but it is an undeniable fact that higher education is dominated by the left, and has an insatiable appetite for promoting PC policies that seek to silence the voices of those who do not agree with the liberals in positions of power."
How about some proof in that puddin'!
Sounds a lot like rhetoric to me!
As I understand it, the bill authorizes the House to hold hearings investigating charges of bias against conservatives. It doesn't actually involve any action to be taken by colleges and universities themselves. Also, it is confined to state institutions; private institutions remain accountable to no one (except our Trustees and tuition-payers, of course). We'll get an annoying fishing expedition that will trump up supposed incidents of bias, but in the end I believe (or hope) that there will be no practical consequences.
ReplyDeleteAs for afc13's comment: I second aspazia's request for an example of bias; I've never seen any. As an economist, I find the idea that we are brainwashing our students especially ludicrous. The best-selling introductory economics textbook was written by N.G. Mankiw, George Bush's most recent chair of the Council of Economic Advisors. Other popular textbooks are written by people with right-wing leanings: Hubbard, Mishkin, Barro, Hall, Taylor, etc. Every textbook in common use, whether written by a conservative or a liberal, is an extended paean to the free market system. If any brainwashing is being done in economics, it's from the right, not the left.
afc13,
ReplyDeleteWhile I sympathize that it may be difficult for students with untraditional views like creationism, Marxism, libertarianism, etc. to feel they are being taken seriously in their classes, I worry that their complaints - and equating it with faculty close-mindedness - suggest a failure to understand and appreciate the process of learning in higher education.
I also sympathize with the perception that there is a "PC" police on campus - but it is important again to recognize why this is the case. Universities are a place to question what we take for granted. Beliefs themselves are personal, and thus not subject to "debate." Arguments are, however. I recall being a white, middle-class male undergraduate at a very lefty, very diverse college. Did I feel at times like a punching bag? Certainly. Did I mind? No, because I understood very well I could walk five blocks in any direction and the tables would be turned. It's also important to note that all that lefty "bias" was coming from other students, not professors. It was rare a professor ever agreed with anything I had to say...but that's because they were helping me to sharpen my own arguments.
The whole argument that campuses need to be "tolerant of intolerance" or to "give equal respect to all points of view (regardless of the merits)" strikes me as silly. I don't believe that there a few extreme cases of over-zealous professors who should be reminded of their role and reigned in - but that is a job for the institutions, not for the government or political parties. Simiarly, while I disagree with Ward Churchill's views, I cringe at the idea of the government stepping in to police people like him. One didn't need to be a communist to dislike McCarthyism...
So with that in mind, while I'm not a logician, a few thoughts on your rhetoric: please don't equate academia with liberalism, Republicans with conservatism, or conservatives with people who believe in regulating academia. The counterexamples may well outnumber the examples...they are all examples of the sort of misleading stereotypes that need to be challenged!
Aside from the obvious problem that stating something to be an undeniable fact is not the same thing as supplying EVIDENCE (I see no evidence here), the main problem with the post from afc13 is that it assumes that liberal and conservative viewpoints are just opinions, nothing more. This problem is rampant throughout what passes for political discourse in contemporary society, from polls where people vote for their opinion (but offer no reasons for holding that opinion), to ad hominem attacks that simply place a claim in one "camp" or another (e.g., "well, that's just a liberal position.") If we assume that the role of the university is indoctrination into the values that the majority happen to hold, then *maybe* afc can argue that the taxpayer gets to turn the university into the mouthpiece of majority opinion. But two things are wrong with this assumption: 1) the role of the university should NOT be one of indoctrination (we have primary and secondary school for that ;-) ),but about training in critical examination of opinions that may otherwise SEEM like "undeniable fact" just because one has not seriously considered the alternative; and 2) the role of the university is not one of dissemination of opinion but, again, of training in the means to interpret information in a sophisticated manner. Any faculty member worth his or her salt engages in this every day as we try to help students to examine the assumptions they never otherwise get the opportunity to question. We offer alternative viewpoints, give them critical tools, and challenge them to assess the worth and value of a variety of beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThe main danger of afc13's post is that (s)he thinks that universities should teach whatever the majority may happen to believe at any given time, irrespective of the public's reasons for holding those beliefs. The political landscape has become the equivalent of a basketball game, where each team scores points against the other, and even usually follows some scripted rules for scoring points, but it has become totally divorced from considerations of the well-being of the people who are affected by this game. If politics starts to drag academia "onto the court" and subject it to its arbitrary rules, the remainder of the truth-based community will be lost, and we will be in some serious trouble.
I believe that the majority of your posts simply prove the point I made in the first place. Higher education is dominated by the left. There is no way to possibly debate this fact. National studies consistently show that professors are overwhelmingly liberal. In terms of political donations, professors give immense amounts of money to liberals (http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/04RESOURCES/Flynn-BlueCampuses.htm), often generating an infinite ratio of money given to liberals versus conservatives. While this on its own could potentially be a non-issue, history and experience has proven that is is an important indication of the political climate on college campuses. The problem is, professors do not keep their politics out of the classroom. Some are good at playing devils advocate, but others are downright hostile to students who espouse conservative views. You ask for proof. The proof is in the pudding, as you say, aspazia. You show the utmost distaste for those who embrace religion, for those who support life, for those who do not support "progressive" policies. How is this an open environment at universities. This is a place where people are supposed to question their beliefs? Question yours, perhaps it will lead you all to be as "accepting" as you pretend to be. When students are shouted down in class (it happens all over the country, including at Gettysburg), called fascists (this has happened several times to me), yelled at by professors and administrators in public discussion forums, given c's on papers because they are "too militaristic," I believe there is a legitimate problem. Perhaps we don't hold protests, or adopt the militant tactics of the left, but we work hard and work to change things through the legislative process, or by working to increase our number of elected officials. Although, if things continue in this manner, if liberals cannot get off their high horse and stop being so incredibly self absorbed, you will see us become far more vocal. If you have this much of a problem with a simple post even suggesting the notion of bias, I cannot imagine how you would react to seeing a pro-life rally on campus. The goal of conservatives, and go ahead, shoot me for lumping people together, but all of my generalizations have been accurate and serve a larger purpose, is to establish a community where we can express ourselves without fear of penalty. Can you honestly tell me that the climate at Gettysburg, especially amongst professors, is welcoming? We can't even have an ROTC program on campus, because the faculty doesn't support "Don't ask, Don't Tell." This flies in the face of everyone who is in the armed forces, and as most of them are conservative, is a slap to us as well. The attitude and assumptions you make about college being a place for "intellectuals," (implying that conservatives aren't intellectuals...) is asinine. In terms of curriculum bias, why doesn't our economics department teach Hayek, von Mises or Friedman? Why don't we learn about Edmund Burke in Political Theory. The bias may not be terribly blatant, but the undercurrent of leftist tendencies is strong and getting stronger every moment.
ReplyDeleteI never asserted that we should "vote" on curriculum at public universities. However, as taxpayers from both sides of the aisle pay for, and students from both sides, attend public universities, how can we ignore the fact that students should be given a balanced education. If I had my choice, I would abolish public universities completely, as it is an unconstitutional use of taxpayer money, and statist educational institutions only further the disgusting mess that our elementary and secondary schools are currently in. Government indoctrination is dangerous, and government indoctrination from the left is the pervasive form of force-fed drivel.
Until all of you open your eyes and see that not everyone thinks like you, conservatives are not the spawn of satan, and that a degree does not make you God or all-knowing, you will continue to be detrimental to the education of students everywhere.
AFC13
ReplyDelete"I believe that the majority of your posts simply prove the point I made in the first place. Higher education is dominated by the left"
"If you have this much of a problem with a simple post even suggesting the notion of bias, I cannot imagine how you would react to seeing a pro-life rally on campus."
Who exactly are you talking to?
I simply accused you of resorting to rhetoric.
And, your response to, I think, that claim is:
"Higher education is dominated by the left. There is no way to possibly debate this fact. National studies consistently show that professors are overwhelmingly liberal. In terms of political donations, professors give immense amounts of money to liberals (http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/04RESOURCES/Flynn-BlueCampuses.htm), often generating an infinite ratio of money given to liberals versus conservatives."
Friend, if you want to express your opinion, then by all means, please go right ahead. However, if you want to make an argument, well, I think you need some help in that department.
A couple of comments on this one...
ReplyDeleteFirst, I always worry about discussions like this in which squishy terms like "liberal" or "left-leaning" are used. They are notoriously slippery and likely do not have as sharp a meaning as is needed to make these claims meaningful.
Secondly, if the proposition is in fact meaningful a) is the central claim true and b) is it really a problem?
a) In some a weak sense, I'm sure it is true. If one is an ecologist, then, yes, one only teaches evolution theory--for good scientific reasons dealing with the nature and history of the ecosystems studied. If one is an astronomer, then for very good reason, one surely will not teach young universe nonsense. If one is a political scientist discussing the role of free speech for a functioning democracy, then one would have to condemn the use of thugs pretending to be secret service agents to make sure that no hint of an opposing viewpoint appears at tax-payer funded Presidential pep-rallies in support of privatizing Social Security. If one is a physical geographer, then you do discuss what we need to do to help stop global warming. If one is an economist and has worked on Social Security and knows (contrary to the claims initially made by the Bush administration) that private accounts do nothing to make the program solvent, then surely you would say so. If one is a philosopher considering questions of justice, then one would have to express opposition to legislation that would keep someone from being allowed to visit his/her beloved in the hospital simply because they happen to have similar genitalia. And so on... So if you are going issue by issue, then you certainly can find plenty of places where professors will present and only present the so-called liberal side of the argument.
b) But, frankly, I don't see a problem with this. Abstinence-only sex-ed makes it more likely that students will have unsafe sex, needle exchange does reduce the spread of disease. Even if these facts are politically undesirable, they are very likely truths about the way the world works and should be presented as such, not on a par with alternatives for which we have no good reason to believe, even if some would REALLY want them to be true.
The bit of logical three card monty that is being played here is that because you have two groups who are on the same playing field in terms of making POLICY DECISIONS, it is contended that it must also be the case that the two groups must also be on the same level in terms of actual empirical support and if one only focuses on the support for one side, then one is being partisan and unfair. As such, biologists who only mention evolution are liberal, astronomers who talk about the big bang are liberal, geophysicists who talk about global warming are liberal. The reason they get away with this is because these facts have politcal ramifications. The trick they are trying to pull is to argue that because the facts as determined support one side in a policy debate, that it is the pre-existing agenda in that policy debate that led to the positing of the fact. That the agenda led to the fact, not that the fact led to the agenda.
Do professors have political agendas? Damn right. If you have evidence that our policy decisions are destroying the planet or harming innocent people, then you BETTER stand up and voice opposition. That is morally required. If an infant is drowning in a pool and you can save him, you must do so. If using your technical training you see unnecessary harm or injustice, then you MUST oppose it. If you are studying frogs and know that the dumping of a certain toxin is leading to their extinction, then you must do what you can to get that dumping stopped. Will you be labeled a lefty, tree-hugging moonbat? Yeah, probably. But the point is that it was not a pre-existing agenda that led to the call for action, it was the reality of the situation.
If a researcher has a pre-existing assumption from a political agenda in her research, she is going to get shredded in the academic community where the concept of the dog-eat-dog marketplace of ideas is alive and well. We are rewarded in this line of work for being intellectual assassins. Our job is to destroy the arguments of our peers and if one is putting out obviously slanted work, one will get ripped by other professionals and his work will not get published much less acclaim.
If a student, on the other hand, comes to class with a politcal agenda and does not get that agenda presented in a sympathetic fashion or, heaven forbid, facts or arguments are presented that show a problem with it, it is taken as a sign of bias. The writer asks us to make conservative students feel more welcome. I'm not sure what that means. If that means pretend that views that hold no credence are legitimate and on a par with those of legitimate researchers, then there is a BIG problem. The point of the university is to be firmly part of the reality-based community. If that reality makes students, left or right, feel uncomfortable -- welcome to the real world, kid; the best I can tell you is to get used to it, reality is an uncomfortable place if you tie yourself to an ideology.
I think you guys are talking about apples and oranges. AFC appears to be talking about the lack of "coverage" of conservative thinkers and philosophers, while others are talking about coverage of modern issues i.e. evolution/creationsim, social security reform, etc.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of you in a way. We need more coverage of conservative philosophers. But new issues also should find a place in the class room. If you are taking a sexualities class, gay marraige is an obvious topic.
But I think AFC makes a valid point. Professors are meant to teach, not persuade. Sure, students should be challenged to think in a group setting, but they also should be challenged to think for themselves.
When you have professors helping organize events for one group to protest another student group's event that is another problem altogether. This happens all around the country. Iraq War Protests and discussions led by professors is a prime example.
This is not a black and white issue. There is a lot of gray in the middle. The issue of bias is not as big as say Horowitz makes it out to be, but it does exists, aspazia. Being on the inside of the bubble you are eyes may not be open to it, but students see it; parents see it, etc.
I'll give you a quick example of bias. Say you have politcal theory class and 15% of the grade is class discussions. You have a discussion Rousseau and the student disagrees with different views of his philosophies. The professor jumps at the kid and says how could you not like what he believed, etc. Maybe the professor didn't mean to jump at the kid, but did so. Now, the kid is on edge and is unwilling to enter lengthy discussions in class. Not only is the kid's participation grade in the class lower than what it would have been, but a voice with an opposing view has been tamed. Not only that but other students in the class may not have chosen to speak when they saw the way "the kid" was jumped at. This is an example of underlying bias in the classroom.
Of course there are the lower graded assignments and other things which are not as rampant, but the example given above happens at colleges routinely.
There are a lot of things I'd like to say about this, but it would seem that there are already others here that are articulating these things much better than I'd be able to. :) And so, I'm only here to say the following:
ReplyDeleteAs quoted by AFC in the initial post: "Maybe trying to understand that people will have political views different from yours would be beneficial, and something you could bring to your classes."
I've had the pleasure of attending one of Feminista's classes, which I greatly enjoyed and learned a lot from. I can say from personal experience that Feminista is more than just a little aware that there are opposing views to her own, and everyone else's really. More importantly, she has been perfectly competent in bringing this awareness to her classes in the form of taking all views seriously, and doing what a Professor should...challenging them productively. No one in the class I took was forced to chnge their ideals. I can't imagine how anyone could've walked out of her class feeling bullied, or abused, or just plain not taken seriously. And I, as a *liberal*, felt challenged, which is something I appreciate.
So, yes, I am just stopping by to defend Feminista's teaching abilities, and rightfully so, I feel.
Metrostar,
ReplyDeleteI am very curious about the following example:
"The professor jumps at the kid and says how could you not like what he believed, etc. Maybe the professor didn't mean to jump at the kid, but did so. Now, the kid is on edge and is unwilling to enter lengthy discussions in class. Not only is the kid's participation grade in the class lower than what it would have been, but a voice with an opposing view has been tamed. Not only that but other students in the class may not have chosen to speak when they saw the way "the kid" was jumped at. This is an example of underlying bias in the classroom."
Is this a hypothetical example, a theoretical example, a first-person experienced example, a second-or-third hand example? Personally, as a long time student and now pretty long time teacher, I have NEVER heard a professor say in response to a student comment, "how could you not like...?!" or believe, or something similar and leave it at that. They may challenge the student to support his or her argument, (e.g, "really? why do you think Rousseau's argument is flawed?") but that's different from simply denying the validity of an opinion with incredulity. It is FAR more often the case that the students...at all points in the political spectrum, speak in such a manner, because they are free as learners to do so, while the professor, as pedagogue and facilitator, goes out of his or her way to calm the student-driven vitriol and direct discussion in a manner that, while--yes--provocative, is nonetheless constructive. If a professor EVER simply responded with "how can you possibly believe that," this would indeed be a problem. But I have never, in all my years as a student and teacher, ever heard such a thing come out of a professor's mouth in a classroom setting. If it did, this would be a pedagogical issue to be taken up with a particular teacher and the relevant administrator (such avenues already exist on many campuses, including mine) not a problem of "liberal bias" among faculty per se.
In general, I'd like to thank steveg for articulating even more effectively what I was trying to get across. The issue isn't whether a position is or is not liberal, but whether the reasons for holding a position are sound. Furthermore, the concerns voiced by the conservative students fail to make a distinction between a professor's role as teacher in the classroom and his or her political choices made as a citizen and as a member of the college community. To penalize a student for taking a different position from the instructor in the classroom is one thing (and nothing I've actually ever witnessed or experienced...and I've had my share of disagreements with professors). To claim that a professor cannot be a fair teacher because (s)he gives money to liberal causes or helps liberal student groups with their activities, or voices her or his political opinions in a college forum outside of the classroom (or in it for that matter) is a claim lacking substantiation. Professors are human beings and political citizens and are entitled to their viewpoints. To assume that they cannot be effective pedagogues because of these--often educated and well-grounded--viewpoints is unjustified and again smacks of the assumption that everyone is ideologically driven by the political game in all that they do. (steveg has already given an excellent argument against this, so I won't rehash it.)
Metrostar:
ReplyDeleteFirst I just have a quick question (and I sincerely want to know the answer): What counts as a "conservative" philosopher?
I have to say that I am a bit unsettled by this sort of qualification before "philosopher." I would hope that philosopher's, by virtue of their method of argument, transcend the pigeon-holing categories of "conservative" and "liberal." Moreoever, its unclear that what these terms mean to a politico mean the same thing to a philosopher.
For example, with total abandon, I love Aristotle. And yet, Aristotle didn't think much of women. Should I stop reading him because he had very "biased" views about the female sex?
Now, onto another issue. This is a clarification for both Metrostar and AFC 13. Both of you have referred to me as being in a "bubble." Now, if you read my post on starting a NOW chapter, yes, I did discuss that I didn't want to leave the safe world of like-minded folks that I consort with. But, to emphasize context here, I was expressing sincere worries about how my view of living in a small town might be altered, if I am forced into a situation where people ridicule, belittle, or mischaracterize me because I am standing up in a public way for my principles.
I am not at all unwise to what is happening on college campuses a la Horowitz.
I am also quite aware of the complaints of some students that they get graded down because of their views. When students have confessed these things to me in the past, I have been sympathetic. I too experienced the fear of disagreeing with a professor or worrying about my grade. For example, I was a student at Boston College. My Kant professor literally SCREAMED at a woman in my class because she defended abortion using Kant's categorical imperative. I happened to find her comment quite interesting and relevant. Yet, the Jesuit priest who was teaching the class shamed her out of the room and called her a murderer.
Another example, I was taking several courses from a well known epistemologist at another Jesuit college. He was a brillant man, and yet a very unreconstructed sexist. He regularly made uncalled for sexist remarks about women and their inability to think logically. When I approached him to discuss this with him, he seemed baffled that I would be concerned, since I wasn't like most women.
So, yes, I know what it is like to be made uncomfortable by professors who make uncalled for, demeaning and irrelevant comments. My advice in these situations--when it happens--is to first confront the faculty member (as diplomatically as possible in the case that such professor may apologize). If the professor does not apologize or persists in belittling you, then I would go straight to the Provost's office and report this behavior. Most colleges have well thought out procedures for protecting students from professors who abuse their power.
I am rather floored that many people who call themselves "conservative" would support Horowitz' legislation as an antidote to the kind of bad behavior that we see from professors. What you've done is added a layer of legislative nonsense to a problem that would be best handled (and efficiently handled) within the institution it occurs. With this legislation, if you were to see a change of power--let's say that many Americans who become increasingly outraged with the unruly war in Iraq either change parties or punish the republicans in power by voting them out of office. So, what if the PA House is predominantly democrats or liberals. And, they see bill 177 on the books. What do they do? They go on a purging expedition of any "conservatives" who impose their ideology or who belittle students.
Why on earth would any rational person want the leave these things up to your state legislators? Isn't that a bit odd?
I don't think any "real conservatives" support Horowitz's platform. If you mean Republicans, then sure, there are people.
ReplyDeleteIf Gettysburg really wanted to become a hotbed for ideas, they'd invite Horowitz to campus and let him explain what he is doing. Then we could have a fantastic discussion regarding this issue. Maybe some campus groups, or student senate, could line something up.
As far as the example I gave, it was pure hypothetical. I'll give you a few real examples from your own campus: 1) There is an econ professor who taught 100 level econ classes in the fall. The professor surveyed the class and found out about 20 of the 25 students in the class favored Bush over Kerry. During several classes, the professor spent atleast 15 minutes arguing Bush's economic policies and why would the students support him. Multiply 15 minutes to 15 classes and in total the professor spent atleast 3 full class periods talking down Bush economics. What this has to do with micro/macro econ is anybody's guess?
2) I'll give a personal example... took a 300 level management class. We spent an entire week (2 full classes) discussing sweatshops. Watched a movie entitled "Race to the Bottom", basically about why corporations are ruining the world (that's the premise; not my opinion.) After the movie, there was an argument regarding who was responsible for the bad working conditions. The professor argued Nike, which was who were talking about, while the students blamed the middle man. The professor wouldn't end the conversation until the students didn't feel like arguing anymore.
Same class, different example... Election Day 2004. Students are in the class, professor walks in wearing a Kerry/Edwards pin. And then asks everyone if they voted today. And then says there is still plenty of time, pushing out her pin. Looking around the classroom there were about 3 or 4 students wearing Bush/Cheney pins. When the professor spoke, I remember seeing two of those students putting their hand over the pin so the professor wouldn't see it.
As far as the Provost goes, I don't think most students would feel comfortable doing that. I mean, the majority students won't call out someone on the Honor Code. Nevermind a professor to the Provost.And it is extremely hard to prove. Papers are extremely subjective. A professor giving a B-compared to a B+.
Talking and hearing different professors, I've come to realize that the professors aren't too fond of the administration either. I have a couple stories that would really "wow" some people. These are things that I wouldn't want to discuss on this board, nor do I feel are necessary.
Sorry to get off topic, but there is more to this bias than just professors. Just a lot of PC policies and rules. It seems like all the college cares about is their Princeton Review or US News & World Report Ranking, and not the students.
beware, i have not proofed this, so words are misspelled, letters and words may be missing, etc..
ReplyDeletesteveg has made some excellent points. my point is less logical. if you are in a class where the professor is indoctrination and telling you have to believe his or her opinion, my advice is to drop the class. one finds this out in the first few classes. in addition, students normally turn to professors to speak on panels, i do not know of professors organizing such panels. but if they did or do, who cares? if - as believed the college mentioned in this piece - is filled with liberal faculty, transfer to a more conservative school. in researching this claim, it should be noted that the implied college is one of the more conservative liberal arts colleges in this country. as implied by steveg and others, it is good to be picked apart by professors. one person mentioned that only liberal philosophers are read. for the record, that's not true at most accredited schools. plato was not a liberal, in fact many ne-cons in this counrty through the works of leo strauss of adopted some of strauss's understandings of plato. more to the point, plato's politics are not ideal for a democracy. i didn't know that john locke - in this century - is on the left. hobbes is not. kant - i'm not sure where he would stand today, but ethically - i suppossed he would have issues with this administration. adam smith? hegel, not a lefty - at least after he grew up. david horowitz - not a philosopher, although he would like to be. maybe he should get that ph.d. then again, in ten years who knows where he'll be. he may return to marxism. marx, the big lefty, is rarely studied today. how many of you - in college - have a course on marx or have had a professor force marx down your throat. strangely, both hegel and marx's historical philosophy is imbued with a western religious dialectic. each one is moving towards a notion of messianism. nietzsche, he wouldn't be part of the religious right, but he would probably be quite critical of - what has been named here - the left. rawls is read by all. bertrand russel's philosophy is a political, although he was quite a lefty. marcuse, blamed by daniel flynn for creating hatred for america, is a lefty, but he's out of fashion on the left. he's rarely taught. foucault, he's a lefty. heidegger, ouch!! the left may try to liberalize him, but his nazi past gets in the way. mill, both the right and the left claim him. quine, i have no idea. macchiavelli, it would depend on his employer. he goes both ways. rousseau, who knows, both sides claim his notion of liberty. maybe he'd be a libertarian.
some other entertaining points, i have not read anyone on this blog as being insensitive to life. one needs to remember that those who are pro-choice are not anti-life. this is a construction from the religious right. the religious right has tried to make - what they name as partial birth abortion - the rule of thumb for pro-choicers. it's not. i believe that it represents less than one percent of abortions and is exercised to save the mother's life. if your mother was told that - after six and one half months of being pregnant and had three little children at home, one of which is you - that she going through with the pregnancy would most likely cost her life (ninety percent chance) would ask her to go through with pregnancy when in all liklihood she would die by going to term? i've never understood why those on the religious right refuse to discuss such cases. and note: i'm ambivalent on the abortion issue, i'm certainly not for it as a means of birth control. does anyone know someone who sees it as a form of birth control? for example, i don't use bc, for i can always get an abortion.
what does religious insensitivity mean? what religion are we talking about? considering there are so many demonations in each religion, i'm not sure how to address such a claim. i know that i'm insensitive to certain religious sects. i don't like white supremists who justify their racism through christianity? are they christians? yes. thank goodness most christians find such a sect ungodly. are we talking about the family council who just rejected the evangelical movements embrace of environmentalism based on the biblical command that humans are responsible for the planet? dr. dobson said something like this, we will not embrace that which does not put humans first....
mayber he didn't take earth and enviromental sciences in college, but i always thought - and the bible instructs this - that without taking care of the earth -humans will cease to exist. i like plant life, not merely because of beauty, but also because they generate oxygen, which i need. i always thought taking care of the homeless and ill were commanded by the three western traditions, which makes me wonder - when many of our leaders very religious - why we have forty five or more million uninsured citizens of the u.s.a. this negligence is not very christian, especially when such a wealthy place. (oops, i fogot. we're no longer wealthy.) was jesus joking when he said a rich man will have harder time getting through the eye of needle than a camel? i hope not, but those who seem to think so - are a bit deserving - in my opinion - of insensitivity.
shouldn't i be insensitive to ralph reed for funneling money into alabama to protest the starting of a state lottery - which he argued was against christian principals - when he was actually knowingly using money from casino lobbyists who saw the state lottery as a threat. i don't really need to be insensitive to him, many christians in alabama are already doing that to him.
i guess i'll end with this:
like steveg, i'm not sure what is meant by liberal in some of these postings. would someone clarify this for me. i would also like to see some specific examples where liberals are actively oppossed to the general practice of religion as we understand it in the u.s.a.
hate-heals-the-heart
better than the above, i quickly proofed this one.
ReplyDeletesteveg has made some excellent points. my point is less logical. if you are in a class where the professor is indoctrination and telling you have to believe his or her opinion, my advice is to drop the class. one finds this out in the first few classes. in addition, students normally turn to professors to speak on panels, i do not know of professors organizing such panels. but if they did or do, who cares? if - as believed the college mentioned in this piece - is filled with liberal faculty, transfer to a more conservative school. in researching this claim, it should be noted that the implied college is one of the more conservative liberal arts colleges in this country. as implied by steveg and others, it is good to be picked apart by professors. one person mentioned that only liberal philosophers are read. for the record, that's not true at most accredited schools. plato was not a liberal, in fact many ne-cons in this counrty - through the works of leo strauss - adopted some of strauss's understandings of plato. more to the point, plato's politics are not ideal for a democracy. i didn't know that john locke - in this century - is on the left. hobbes is not. kant - i'm not sure where he would stand today, but ethically - i supposse he would have issues with this administration. adam smith? … hegel, not a lefty - at least after he grew up. david horowitz - not a philosopher, although he would like to be. maybe he should get that ph.d. then again, in ten years who knows where he'll be. he may return to marxism. marx, the big lefty, is rarely studied today. how many of you - in college - have a course on marx or have had a professor force marx down your throat. strangely, both hegel and marx's historical philosophy is imbued with a western religious dialectic. each one is moving towards a notion of messianism. nietzsche, he wouldn't be part of the religious right, but he would probably be quite critical of - what has been named here - the left. rawls is read by all. bertrand russel's philosophy is a political, although he was quite a lefty. marcuse, blamed by daniel flynn for creating hatred for america, is a lefty, but he's out of fashion on the left. he's rarely taught. foucault, he's a lefty. heidegger, ouch!! the left may try to liberalize him, but his nazi past gets in the way. mill, both the right and the left claim him. quine, i have no idea. macchiavelli, it would depend on his employer. he goes both ways. rousseau, who knows, both sides claim his notion of liberty. maybe he'd be a libertarian. there are so many more to discuss, but most social political philosophers who are studied are classic liberals, which means they’re not leftists.
some other entertaining points, i have not read anyone on this blog as being insensitive to life. one needs to remember that those who are pro-choice are not anti-life. this is a construction from the religious right. the religious right has tried to make - what they name as partial birth abortion - the rule of thumb for pro-choicers. it's not. i believe that it represents less than one percent of abortions and is exercised to save the mother's life. if your mother was told (after six and one half months of being pregnant and has three little children at home) that going through with the pregnancy would most likely cost her life (ninety percent chance), would ask her to go through with pregnancy when in all liklihood she would die by going to term? i've never understood why those on the religious right refuse to discuss such cases. and note: i'm ambivalent on the abortion issue, i'm certainly not for it as a means of birth control. does anyone know someone who sees it as a form of birth control? for example, “i don't use bc, for i can always get an abortion.”
what does religious insensitivity mean? what religion are we talking about? considering there are so many demonations in each religion, i'm not sure how to address such a claim. i know that i'm insensitive to certain religious sects. i don't like white supremists who justify their racism through christianity. are they christians? yes. but thank goodness most christians find such a sect ungodly. are we talking about the family council who just rejected the evangelical movements embrace of environmentalism based on the biblical command that humans are responsible for the planet? dr. dobson said something like this, we will not embrace that which does not put humans first....
mayber he didn't take earth and enviromental sciences in college, but i always thought - and the bible instructs this - that without taking care of the earth -humans will cease to exist. i like plant life, not merely because of beauty, but also because they generate oxygen, which i need. i always thought taking care of the homeless and ill were commanded by the three western traditions, which makes me wonder - when many of our leaders are very religious - why we have forty five or more million uninsured citizens of the u.s.a. this negligence is not very christian, especially in such a wealthy place. (oops, i fogot. we're no longer wealthy.) was jesus joking when he said a rich man will have harder time getting through the eye of needle than a camel? i hope not, but those who seem to think so - are a bit deserving - in my opinion - of insensitivity.
shouldn't i be insensitive to ralph reed for funneling money into alabama to protest the starting of a state lottery - which he argued was against christian principals - when he was actually knowingly using money from casino lobbyists who saw the state lottery as a threat. i don't really need to be insensitive to him, many christians in alabama are already doing that to him.
i guess i'll end with this:
like steveg, i'm not sure what is meant by liberal in some of these postings. would someone clarify this for me. i would also like to see some specific examples where liberals are actively oppossed to the general practice of religion as we understand it in the u.s.a.
Metrostar:
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response!
But, this part seems worrisome to me:
"As far as the Provost goes, I don't think most students would feel comfortable doing that. I mean, the majority students won't call out someone on the Honor Code."
It seems like what you are saying here is that students are too afraid to stand up for their rights. Let's talk about the honor code thing first. Now, I have always been a bit uncertain how I feel about the clause of the honor code that requires students to report violations of the code. But, I do think its a shame that students don't "honor" the honorcode for no other reason than self-interest. Some of my brightest students have told me about incidents of cheating during Econ exams or Math exams. By not calling out the cheaters, then you are demeaning your own hard labor.
But, as for reporting incidents of mistreatment, it seems absolutely necessary. Look, I gave you a few examples from my own graduate/undergraduate experience. I guarantee you that I was in an absolute power imbalance situation. I was facing a Jesuit priest at a Catholoic university. I am sorry, but this is far more likely to screw me than him. Yet, it is ones' duty to denounce such bad behavior.
I would also recommend that you ask some other folks who are sympathetic to your case to stand up with you when this happens.
Let me ask about your management example. I guess I would be more concerned with this example IFF (sorry logical shorthand) the professor wouldn't end class until you all agreed with him. Now, its annoying to keep students in class when class has run over its time. But, its not oppressive.
Let me say three more things:
(1) If you check some of my other blogs, such as my discussion of identity politics, you would see that I am pretty unsympathetic to "PC" politics. And, frankly, most folks trained in Philosophy are. Moreoever, "PC" tactics have been thoroughly dismissed by folks who lean left. I tend to think that Horowitz and some of the other "strategists" that I heard last year at the Conservative Conference are creating a problem that is largely nonexistent. Sure, there are always the "PC" types. And, yea, they are usually pretty annoying--tend to not be able to think on their feet or challenge their own viewpoints. But, in general, I think you will find that many of the professors who appear "liberal" are pretty open to an unfettered conversation.
(2) If you or others want to invite Horowitz, I think it would be interesting, but, sadly, not intellectually satisfying for many of us.
(3) So, here is my unsolicited advice for what would make for good, productive and non-divisive discussion. I wanted, desperately, to hear some POLICY or LEGAL PHILOSOPHY at the conservative conference. At times, I was impressed with David French. In fact, I think he was the best speaker. But the other speakers livelihood seems to be to start "dramas" that they can "blog" about. They use rhetoric designed to "incite" anger or rancor from liberals. Its sort of like that bully you know from the playground who gets in your face and screams obscenities at you until you finally push them away. Once you do, they then scream that you "hit" them. This is what Dan Flynn, for example, sounded like to me. In fact, I think he was bummed that his tactics didn't work on those liberals in the audience. Or, hey, what was up with that student whose whole talk was how to get your professor fired. Geez!
Here is what I propose: why not invite some policy folks. Shit, I have contacts at the Cato Insitute. Or, why not invite someone like Leon Kass or Michael Sandel, both whom are philosophers working on the President's Council for Bioethics. They will offer much more meat AND represent more "conservative" views of "personhood" or "community." Both of these thinkers are "commmunitarians" in the mold of someone like Alasdair MacIntyre, and therefore "conservative" in some senses of the world (I guess it would translate as "social conservative"). Or, what if you invited Nozick (well, he might be dead!). Nozick was a great champion of liberatarian thought and famous for his arguments with John Rawls.
I could go on, but I guess my point is, shit, bring someone who is really thoughtful and pushes the narrow-minded positions of EVERYONE. Anytime you bring cultural critics such as Horowitz on the "right" or someone like, I dunno, Michael Moore from the left, its not really education in my book.
Just another side-note, since we are on the topic. A friend of mine, who works at the Cato Institute and was a member of YAF as a college student, told me that most conservative think tanks call the Leadership Institute the "Blackwell Brown Shirts." That is coming from the "right." I guess I mention this to sort of say, hey, let's bring some conservatives, by all means. But, how about intellectuals, policy folks or economists. Not these glorified pundits.
Ok, you get my point.
aspazia,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on some points. On the conservative conference, I didn't plan it nor was I involved with getting different speakers. However, I do know about the finances. For the money that was available, they did an excellent job bringing in speakers. Sure if they had 20 K to spend on the event, I think the speakers would have been a lot better. Speaking fees aren't cheap. The event was run solely by students; and for that it's hard to complain.
As far as Horowitz, I think it would be great to have on campus. We are all complaining about him, it'd be nice to hear from the horse's mouth.
I'm sure the college republicans would appreciate your contacts.
And I can appreciate your "non PC" politics. Other profs I like at gburg because of this are Profs Raj and Amster. Really interesting people.
I like when profs go to campus events, interact with student, etc. It shows they care.
However, I think the profs that students have the most problems with are the one's who are old and set in there ways.
If we really want to figure out how students fell about this "bias", I suggest we setup a table inh the CUB and survey random students. We'd agree on the questions beforehand. It'd be interesting to see what the results suggest. How about it?
metrostar,
ReplyDeleteYou can hear the horse’s mouth. Horowitz has lots of books. I've read some, they're not too compelling. But that's just my opinion. Maybe a Horowitz reading group should be started and then bring him to your campus to hear. I think he charges five thousand dollars. Maybe he could be the keynote at the next conservative conference. By the way, I know people who work for the Leadership Institute. They were indirectly involved in your conservative conference, through training, providing literature, etc. Why shouldn't they be involved? So what that such involvement rankles some faculty? You should be proud of their involvement. And afc, you ought to organize a rally on campus, not just speculate about how faculty might respond. As you now sound, and I mean no offense, you’re coming across an unproductive whiner.
azpazia,
ReplyDeleteYou're right, the Leadership Institute is like the black shirts. It's a shameful organization that lies, creates non-issues such as a liberal conspiracy on academic campuses, incites hate. In fact, what unites their followers is hate. I'm a conservative who used to be involved with them. Most of us conservatives in D.C. refuse to assoiciate with them and do not like their presence at conservative functions. Although, many conservative groups use them when it's convenient. They're against free speech, unless it's their speech. They pretend to be for free speech. They're not very bright crowd over there. They generally do not interact with people outside their bubble. In fact, people who work for them have trouble making a lateral move to other conservative groups, which is why most conservatives do not generally use them. But I disagree with you on other points you make. Although, I do not think there is a liberal conspiracy on campuses, there is often a liberal bias. Then again, I never felt indoctrinated at my school.
policy wonk
Dear Hate-Heals....have you worked that out of your system? Do we have to force-feed you your thorazine again?
ReplyDeletesmooches!
...preferably in enema form, please.
ReplyDeleteI hate you too, dear.
ReplyDeleteSMOOCHES!!!!
I hear Steve Cassarino once worked at the Leadership Institute, and he's the biggest brown/black shirt I've ever seen.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I think Steve might be leading a vast right wing conspiracy involving the Gettysburg Forum, Leadership Institute, Prussia, The Trilateral Commission, Judy Woodruff and Kriscinda Meadows.
STEVE IS STEVIL!
So much for my undercover work.
ReplyDeleteI'm confused about several points....First, this "liberal" vs. "conservative" thing may be useful as a political rallying tool for the right, but it's not helpful in making serious arguments. Say I'm a libertarian - I believe in limited government and am in favor of civil liberties, including abortion rights and gay marriage. Am I a liberal or a conservative? What if I oppose abortion, favor gay marriage, oppose privatizing Social Security, and opposed starting the war in Iraq. What am I? I suspect that professors, if they ever are truly condescening to so-called "conservative students" are not condescending because of their political views, but because they insist on employing these vacuous Rovian terms rather than allowing that everybody may be an individual, with a unique set of beliefs.
ReplyDeleteSecond, let's say for the sake of argument that the majority (even vast majority) of professors are liberal. Maybe they even give money to the Democratic Party. So what!? What's the problem? Are professors not allowed to have their own political opinions? Unless somebody on the right wants to take a stand against individual liberty and freedom of expression, I figure we can skip over arguments like "everybody knows professors are liberal..." as irrelevant and move on.
Finally, let's think about professors expressing their views in class. Suppose that a) 75% of all professors are liberal, and b) 20% of professors are overtly political in the sense that in discussions of issues of political relevance they will announce what they themselves believe and why. Supose this second "political" quality is uncorrelated with their beliefs, so that 15 of 100 professors (.75 * .2) will be "loud liberals" and 5 out of 100 will be "loud conservatives." That is, loud liberals will outnumber loud conservatives 3:1. Is this a problem? If so, explain to me exactly what the problem is.
The stated nature of this "Bill of Rights" legislation is to ensure students are not "penalized" for their beliefs. This admirable, although I think it unnecessary since it is, and should be, the job of the university to address any unfairness. Particularly since it is almost unthinkable that a student would be penalized explicitly for their beliefs. Rather, the fear seems to be difficult to observe issues - such as a conservative student being less willing to participate. But why is this? Is it really the professor or is it the student? It is likely that the (supposedly liberal) professor is more knowledgeable on the topic than the student, and that can be intimidating. But is the student's goal WINNING AN ARGUMENT? Or is it LEARNING?
That, in a nutshell, is my problem with this debate...