How can Horowitz win faculty "ideological diversity" without affirmative action?

[BrainGlutton]

David Horowitz’ organization “Students for Academic Freedom” (http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/) aims to, among other things, get more conservatives into university faculties that they view as being overwhelmingly dominated by leftists and liberals.

My thinking is, if there is any liberal dominance in academia (and all studies to date purporting to show this are fundamentally flawed – see below), then that results from a self-selection process, not from entrenched academics stubbornly denying tenure to conservatives. Real pro-biz conservatives are more likely to go into business or professional than academic careers where they can make a lot of money. Academia is attractive to people with different values and goals. The only way to get more conservatives on faculties would be to reserve certain slots for them as a matter of policy – and wouldn’t that be a form of “affirmative action,” which right-wingers like Horowitz purport to despise?

The whole argument is disengenuous anyway. The best analysis I’ve yet read of this issue is “The New PC: Crybaby Conservatives” by Russell Jacoby, from The Nation, 4/4/05 – http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050404&s=jacoby:

Conservatives complain relentlessly that they do not get a fair shake in the university, and they want parity–that is, more conservatives on faculties. Conservatives are lonely on American campuses as well as beleaguered and misunderstood. News that tenured poets vote Democratic or that Kerry received far more money from professors than Bush pains them. They want America’s faculties to reflect America’s political composition. Of course, they do not address such imbalances in the police force, Pentagon, FBI, CIA and other government outfits where the stakes seem far higher and where, presumably, followers of Michael Moore are in short supply. If life were a big game of Monopoly, one might suggest a trade to these conservatives: You give us one Pentagon, one Department of State, Justice and Education, plus throw in the Supreme Court, and we will give you every damned English department you want.

Conservatives claim that studies show an outrageous number of liberals on university faculties and increasing political indoctrination or harassment of conservative students. In fact, only a very few studies have been made, and each is transparently limited or flawed. The most publicized investigations amateurishly correlate faculty departmental directories with local voter registration lists to show a heavy preponderance of Democrats. What this demonstrates about campus life and politics is unclear. Yet these findings are endlessly cited and cross-referenced as if by now they confirm a tiresome truth: leftist domination of the universities. A column by George Will affects a world-weariness in commenting on a recent report. “The great secret is out: Liberals dominate campuses. Coming soon: ‘Moon Implicated in Tides, Studies Find.’”

The most careful study is “How Politically Diverse Are the Social Sciences and Humanities?” Conducted by California economist Daniel Klein and Swedish social scientist Charlotta Stern, it has been trumpeted by many conservatives as a corrective to the hit-and-miss efforts of previous inquiries by going directly to the source. The researchers sent out almost 5,500 questionnaires to professors in six disciplines in order to tabulate their political orientation. A whopping 70 percent of the recipients did what any normal person would do when receiving an unsolicited fourteen-page survey over the signature of an assistant dean at a small California business school: They tossed it. With just 17 percent of their initial pool remaining after the researchers made additional exclusions, some unastounding findings emerged. Thirty times as many anthropologists voted Democratic as voted Republican; for sociologists the ratio was almost the same. For economists, however, it sank to three to one. On average these professors voted Democratic over Republican fifteen to one.

What does it show that fifty-four philosophy professors admitted to voting Democratic regularly and only four to voting Republican? Does a Democratic vote reveal a dangerous philosophical or campus leftism? Are Democrats more likely to deceive students? Proselytize them? Harass them? Steal library books? Must they be neutralized by Republican professors, who are free of these vices? This study opens by quoting the conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks on the loneliness of campus conservatives and closes by bemoaning the “one-party system” of faculties. Nonleftist voices are “muffled and fearful,” the researchers say. They do not, however, present a scintilla of information to confirm this. It is not a minor point. No matter how well tuned, studies of professorial voting habits reveal nothing of campus policies or practices.

The notion that faculties should politically mirror the US population derives from an affirmative action argument about the underrepresentation of African-Americans, Latinos or women in certain areas. Conservatives now add political orientation, based on voting behavior, to the mix. “In the U.S. population in general, Left and Right are roughly equal (1 to 1),” Klein and Stern lecture us, but in social science and humanities faculties “clearly the non-Left points of view have been marginalized.” This is “clearly” not true, or at least it is not obvious what constitutes a “non-Left” point of view in art history or linguistics. In any event, why stop with left and right? Why not add religion to the underrepresentation violation? Perhaps Klein, the lead researcher, should explore Jewish and Christian affiliation among professors. A survey would probably show that Jews, 1.3 percent of the population, are seriously overrepresented in economics and sociology (as well as other fields). Isn’t it likely that Jews marginalize Christianity in their classes? Shouldn’t this be corrected? Shouldn’t 76 percent of American faculty be Christian?

The Klein study and others like it focus on the humanities and social sciences. Conservatives seem little interested in exploring the political orientation of engineering professors or biogeneticists. The more important the field, in terms of money, resources and political clout, the less conservatives seem exercised by it. At many universities the medical and science buildings, to say nothing of the business faculties or the sports complexes, tower over the humanities. I teach at UCLA. The history professors are housed in cramped quarters of a decaying Modernist structure. Our classiest facility is a conference room that could pass as generic space in any downtown motel. The English professors inhabit what appears to be an aging elementary school outfitted with minuscule offices. A hop away is a different world. The UCLA Anderson School of Management boasts its own spanking-new buildings, plush seminar rooms, spacious lecture halls with luxurious seats, an “executive dining room” and–gold in California–reserved parking facilities. Conservatives seem unconcerned about the political orientation of the business professors. Shouldn’t half be Democrats and at least a few be Trotskyists?

[BrainGlutton]

Sorry, I mean, “Real pro-biz conservatives are more likely to go into business or professional careers, where they can make a lot of money, than academic careers.”

But you knew that.

[furt]

Good, ironic point.

While I don’t disagree with everything in it (and I don’t support Horowitz’s plan), it’s worth pointing out that the difference Jacoby misses is that, AFAIK, there aren’t many liberals who wanted to get into the CIA, etc. and were denied. Maybe I’m wrong, but I haven’t heard any allegations of it.

OTOH, there have been lots of people who have been complaining about political biases in academic hiring, and some of them have successfully appealed decisions or won lawsuits or that sort of thing.

[ITR_champion]

If it’s actually true that a massive number of conservatives are applying for positions at liberal colleges and universities and getting knocked down for their political views, proving it shouldn’t be difficult. You take a survey of the political leanings of applicants for all positions, and you compare that to the survey results for just those candidates who got accepted. Until someone does that, it’s so much shouting at the sky.

[BrainGlutton]

@furt

While I don’t disagree with everything in it (and I don’t support Horowitz’s plan), it’s worth pointing out that the difference Jacoby misses is that, AFAIK, there aren’t many liberals who wanted to get into the CIA, etc. and were denied.

That’s my point, when I spoke of a “self-selection process,” and there’s nothing to indicate Jacoby is unaware of its operation in the CIA as well as in academia.

@furt

OTOH, there have been lots of people who have been complaining about political biases in academic hiring, and some of them have successfully appealed decisions or won lawsuits or that sort of thing.

Cite? I haven’t heard of even Horowitz complaining of anything of the kind.

[furt]

@BrainGlutton

Cite? I haven’t heard of even Horowitz complaining of anything of the kind.

Well, that’s sort of the whole point isn’t it? He wants conservatives in the classroom.

I remembered this case from the Chronicle a few months ago, but that’s the only one I saw in a few minute’s googling, so I’ll back off on the idea that there are suits out there.

But there definitely are a lot of complaints from conservatives who feel that they didn’t or won’t get a fair shake in hiring, along with the real fact of massive disparities. The feeling is that “If you flip a coin 35 times, and it ends up heads every time, that’s not a fair coin.”

But you’re right; that basically is the same rationale often used in favor of affirmative action, and we can probably assume that that the hypocrisy will cut both ways.

The root of the problem, IMO, is not conscious hiring bias, but a general trend in which certain philosophical views are marginalized, as David Brooks points out in talking about historians:

Conservative professors emphasize that most discrimination is not conscious. A person who voted for President Bush may be viewed as an oddity, but the main problem in finding a job is that the sorts of subjects a conservative is likely to investigate — say, diplomatic or military history — do not excite hiring committees. Professors are interested in the subjects they are already pursuing, and in a horrible job market it is easy to toss out applications from people who are doing something different.

To put it that a personal anecdote: I just finished an Literature MA at one of the bigger universities in the nation. I wanted to do my thesis on “Graham Greene’s Postmodern Theology” and had to find a thesis advisor. The problem was that there was nobody on the faculty who was interested in religious authors and indeed nobody with any more than a passing interest in 20th century British novelists at all (!). However, we did have four or five people doing feminist approaches to literature, three doing African-American lit, and a several each doing Marxist and Queer Theory.

My approach was quite a traditional one: I wanted to analyze his books and explicate the philosophy I saw behind them; that is, I cared about what the author was saying, and had no interest in imposing my interpretation onto his work, even though it is/was a novel thesis. But the very traditionalism of my approach was one of the things that made it very uninteresting to most of the faculty. When I presented a paper on this at a conference in New York, I did find someone at another school very interested in my topic – he was a guy still adjuncting at a state university despite having a had PhD for 13 years and having published 2 books.

When I put all that together, I had to start asking myself whether or not it was going to be a wise idea to continue pursuing a PhD given that the academy as a whole had such seemingly little interest in the things I was interested in. And in fact, I’ve pretty much decided not to. Obviously, there was no discrimination per se; but equally obviously, the ideological predilections of the academy played a big role in that decision.

[BrainGlutton]

@furt

Well, that’s sort of the whole point isn’t it? He wants conservatives in the classroom.

Yes, but I can recall no instances of his complaining of conservatives trying to get academic positions and being turned down disproportionately compared to liberals. He might have said something of the kind and I missed it; but it’s not mentioned in any of the articles I’ve read on his campaign in various political magazines. What statements of his I’ve read are perfectly compatible with the “self-selection” hypothesis – i.e., conservatives not even seeking academic careers in the same numbers liberals do – to explain liberal predominance in academia (which, itself, has not yet been even proven to exist by any methodologically sound study).

@furt

But there definitely are a lot of complaints from conservatives who feel that they didn’t or won’t get a fair shake in hiring, along with the real fact of massive disparities.

Through that link I can’t access the article, only the abstract, so I can’t evaluate it. The authors seem to have real academic credentials but I have never heard of The Forum – is it a peer-reviewed journal, something academics in the polysci field take seriously?

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

@BrainGlutton

Through that link I can’t access the article, only the abstract, so I can’t evaluate it. The authors seem to have real academic credentials but I have never heard of The Forum – is it a peer-reviewed journal, something academics in the polysci field take seriously?

I can get to the article and I perused it briefly it. Thanks, furt, for the link. I will say I wasn’t aware of the survey the study was based on–my area of expertise isn’t faculty, though.

If anyone is real geeked about finding out more…I had a few tentative questions about the paper’s comparison of NAASS survey results to previous surveys of faculty. In looking for more info on the survey itself, I ran into several critiques of this article (which got some buzz, naturally) and they had some interesting criticisms. Obviously you can expect liberal academics to want to shoot it full of holes, so the critiques aren’t a surprise. However, I thought they had some valid points. I googled “NAASS faculty survey” and clicked through a few links from blogs I found.

In the interest of full disclosure, I’m a “liberal academic” myself (although not a faculty member). I believe that Horowitz isn’t wholly wrong–liberals outnumber conservatives in some discplines and fields, and despite my own leanings and preferences, that troubles me at times. However, I’m not sure how much of a “problem” it truly is, and I’m not sure what, if anything, should be done to change things. Most of the hand-wringing over it sounds like an awful lot of hysterical horseshit to me. I’d love to talk about the issue more, but not with the likes of Horowitz. LOL

[Plan_B]

From my reading of Horowitz I think the main complaint is that many students are forced to adopt a left wing point of view in order to get along and get good grades.

The following article he wrote is, I believe, a pretty good example of what he’s about. If you don’t have the patience to read the whole article, which is understandable-it’s not a great page turner-just scroll down to the end; you’ll get the gist of it.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17621

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

@Plan B

From my reading of Horowitz I think the main complaint is that many students are forced to adopt a left wing point of view in order to get along and get good grades.

The following article he wrote is, I believe, a pretty good example of what he’s about.

That might be a good example of what he’s about. However, I don’t find it a good example of how students are “forced to adopt” a left wing point of view.

It’s an example of how a student might have to argue a position they didn’t agree with, in order to demonstrate their understanding of theories and concepts. It has nothing to do with what one believes.

It’s not unlike being randomly assigned one side of an issue in Debate Club, and being asked to defend it regardless on your own views. It demonstrates one’s ability to find supporting evidence and to engage in debate. It’s not unlike being handed an absurdist example in economics class to demonstrate the concept of marginal returns. Or being asked, in a logic course, to write a proof showing that God can’t build a rock too heavy to lift. It’s not indoctrination. Students are free to walk away from their completed exam and still feel that the benefits suggested by a criminality theory aren’t enough of a reason to support gay marriage, and that the United States didn’t act in a criminal manner. They only have to show that they grasp how those theories might apply, how the proponents of those schools of thoughts would apply them to the topics. It’s a very intellectual and depersonalized exercise of the brain, and it happened a lot to me in college and grad school.

If a student was invited to write an essay arguing their personally-held beliefs, and then was graded low despite good writing, it would be more credible to me that there might be bias. That’s not what we are talking about here. Or, if a student lied about one’s personally-held beliefs, and claimed to believe something they did not (because they felt it would help their grade) that would trouble me. That isn’t what the exam was about, either.

Horowitz claims he has thousands of examples over 15 years, but the ones he goes public with aren’t very convincing. Maybe the guy should have had more practice via exams like that, himself, in college. Something to teach him how to build a strong argument. Because from where I sit, he sure picks lousy examples.

[monstro]

When I was in college, I took a course called “Race, Gender, and Science”. Someone might argue the very title implies a liberal curriculum. It was taught by the English department.

In the course, we read historical documents (such as Jefferson’s Notes from Virginia) and contemporary essays (we read chapters from Edward Said’s Orientalism, for instance) related to how science has defined and distorted race and gender, usually for the negative. I remember writing an essay about Stargate and how orientalistic thinking was apparent in the movie. I also wrote papers on environmental racism, the IMF and the World Bank, the perils of academic tracking, and the Tuskeegee Experiment. A lot of it was right up my alley and I enjoyed the class.

Now, a conservative could look at this curriculum and see that it was nothing but a “librul” studies class. He or she would probably wonder what was the point of students taking such a class, particularly since it was supposed to be only an English class, and we were all engineering and science majors. Additionally, the student body of my university was fairly conservative. One could argue that such a “liberal” class was not needed simply because of that.

However, it was an elective, not a required class. Courses in performance art, technical writing, sports writing (I kid you not), film, and public speaking were alternatives…and all of these were politically neutral.

I’d also argue that this Race, Gender, and Science class did not necessarily have to be “liberal” or “conservative”. Even conservatives have to admit that race and gender have played central parts in how science has been applied in our society. It is not liberal to discuss Jefferson’s views on race or to talk about how the media has played into gender stereotypes (only an idiot would deny that Jefferson was a racist-in-conflict and that the media is embedded with stereotypes). I think my course was fairly liberal (based on the assigned essays, which were definitely from a singular political bent), but it didn’t have to be.

Also, the course required that students participate in in-class and on-line discussion about the readings. Some of the most vocal students were the ones who did not agree with the point of whatever essay we were reading (for instance, I will never forget the guy who said people who live in toxic neighborhoods just need to pick up and move, despite the fact that the only neighborhoods these people can afford are typically the ones that are the most toxic). So we all had a chance to persuade and be persuaded. The professor’s political views were really never that apparent (even though she was probably of a “progressive” bent, based on the kinds of readings she selected for us to read).

Conservative profs in the humanities may be of some benefit, and I agree with the OP that it will take an AA-like policy to achieve this. But conservative profs aren’t really needed in the sciences, IMHO. I’ve encountered a bunch of conservative scientists. We don’t really need anymore.

[Paladud]

Yes, the majority of professors are biased to the left. Yes, I’ve seen profs stating that one must be evil or moronic not to vote for Kerry. Yes, it annoys the living hell out of me at times. But I do not like affirmative action based on race or gender, and I sure as hell would not want to see it implemented based on political stance.

As far as I’ve seen, this usually does not extend to assignments in the manner Horowitz describes. I’ve had one such professor - though the bias was in favor of Kant’s categorical imperative over utilitarianism. It was pretty annoying to cough up two pages of Kantian spew on the final to salvage the grade.

Regardless, this is an issue that can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. If one cannot (within reason) tolerate a rationally held difference of opinion, one should probably not be at college in the first place.

[Plan_B]

@CrankyAsAnOldMan

It’s an example of how a student might have to argue a position they didn’t agree with, in order to demonstrate their understanding of theories and concepts. It has nothing to do with what one believes.

It’s not unlike being randomly assigned one side of an issue in Debate Club, and being asked to defend it regardless on your own views. It demonstrates one’s ability to find supporting evidence and to engage in debate. It’s not unlike being handed an absurdist example in economics class to demonstrate the concept of marginal returns. Or being asked, in a logic course, to write a proof showing that God can’t build a rock too heavy to lift. It’s not indoctrination. Students are free to walk away from their completed exam and still feel that the benefits suggested by a criminality theory aren’t enough of a reason to support gay marriage, and that the United States didn’t act in a criminal manner. They only have to show that they grasp how those theories might apply, how the proponents of those schools of thoughts would apply them to the topics. It’s a very intellectual and depersonalized exercise of the brain, and it happened a lot to me in college and grad school.

If a student was invited to write an essay arguing their personally-held beliefs, and then was graded low despite good writing, it would be more credible to me that there might be bias. That’s not what we are talking about here. Or, if a student lied about one’s personally-held beliefs, and claimed to believe something they did not (because they felt it would help their grade) that would trouble me. That isn’t what the exam was about, either.

That would be fine and I’d agree with you if it were, shall we say, “fair and balanced.” But it never came out that the teacher in question did what you were suggesting he might have intended. There was no evidence of assignments or tests where students had to defend the US point of view. So while it’s possible that the intent was to train students to argue positions from various points of view, I find the other explanation more compelling.

As for the smear on DH’s education I don’t see how that adds to an intelligent exchange of ideas.

[Larry_Borgia]

FWIW, there are plenty of liberals and Democrats at the CIA.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

@Plan B

There was no evidence of assignments or tests where students had to defend the US point of view. So while it’s possible that the intent was to train students to argue positions from various points of view, I find the other explanation more compelling…

Here we differ. In the absence of more evidence, I don’t find Horowitz’ explanation the more believable one. Just look at his conclusion. He says the question requiring a student to explain what’s troubling about feminist theory is asking students to “justify leftwing prejudices on controversial political issues.” Is finding fault with Feminism a left wing position? What about critiquing Marxian views of crime because they ignore certain family members? Do I misunderstand the questions?

@Plan B

As for the smear on DH’s education I don’t see how that adds to an intelligent exchange of ideas.

Point conceded.

The alternative to him making lousy choices, however, is that these really are the best examples he has, out of his alleged thousands. Frankly, that doesn’t speak very well for his cause, either. He goes public with examples that get challenged on the facts, not just on subjective interpretation (which all I had to offer).

Don’t get me wrong, I need little convincing that there are professors out there who have political attitudes that spill into their classroom in inappopriate ways. But I believe Horowitz grossly overstates the problem, and I can’t figure out what is going on with him.

[BrainGlutton]

@CrankyAsAnOldMan

But I believe Horowitz grossly overstates the problem, and I can’t figure out what is going on with him.

What’s going on with him? He’s a crank. In the '60s and '70s he was a left-wing radical, an editor of Ramparts and a member of the Black Panther Party. He then underwent a conversion to conservatism – that is, he changed the content of his ideas without changing his arrogance or his radical extremism. He is probably the nastiest and the most obsessive, dishonest, shrill and ill-natured political commentator in America – makes Rush look like a pussycat. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz

[Sam_Stone]

Okay, let’s say that there is no overt discrimination of conservatives. Let’s say that the current situation just evolved organically out of the nature of left vs right, for whatever reason.

Does that make it okay? If we want our kids to get a balanced education, shouldn’t we at least strive to have all political and economic viewpoints represented on campus? Or at least, should the education reflect the true state of scholarship and literature, and not just the side that happens to match the ideological bent of the faculty?

Or, how would you feel if it were the other way around? Let’s say you, Brainglutton, are ready to send your kid to college and you find out that over 90% of the profs he will study under are way off to the right. That wouldn’t bother you? You wouldn’t see a problem in that?

I’m just trying to understand the left’s new mantra of, “If it’s not intentional, it’s not broken”. Because I can remember the left claiming during the affirmative action debates that even if there was no overt discrimination against minorities, just the fact that minorities were under-represented was a bad thing that needed correction because diversity is a good thing.

It seems to me that this is truest of all in education. I want my daughter to be exposed to all points of view - left, right, and center. I want her to come out of college having a good understanding of the political dialog that goes on in my country, what each side believes, and which facts support one side or the other. I’m afraid that she won’t get that in college. In fact, I KNOW it. Because I went to the college she’ll likely be going to, and I ran into only two types of professors - those that left politics out of the classroom, and those that spouted left-wing rhetoric that I was expected to regurgitate in order to pass the class. There was no representation of the other side of the issue, despite the fact that our national government at the time was Conservative. Oh, we would study conservative policy, but it was also with a slant that it was misguided, false, mean-spirited, and unenlightened.

[eponymous]

@Sam Stone

Does that make it okay? If we want our kids to get a balanced education, shouldn’t we at least strive to have all political and economic viewpoints represented on campus?

Depends on what one means by balanced education. That’s why there are general education requirements (English, humanities, social sciences, math/science) that students need to take - universites strive to have students exposed to different disciplines rather than having them load up on classes in one particular discipline. Besides, it may not be feasible to balance education by having every political or economic viewpoint represented. Not everything about education has political or economic overtones.

In fact, one could argue that the left-leaning tilt of universities is the result of a desire for a university to give students a balanced education - in the sense that the university is the ONLY place where left-leaning viewpoints can be found in the wider society. After all, one’s education doesn’t automatically stop once they have left school.

Or at least, should the education reflect the true state of scholarship and literature, and not just the side that happens to match the ideological bent of the faculty?

Please demonstrate with citations that this is fact that case, particularly with the hard science and economic/business disciplines - or is your beef solely with the humanities and social sciences?

Or, how would you feel if it were the other way around? Let’s say you, Brainglutton, are ready to send your kid to college and you find out that over 90% of the profs he will study under are way off to the right. That wouldn’t bother you? You wouldn’t see a problem in that?

What difference does it make whether the faulty is 90% to the right? Would you honestly make the overiding choice of whether your kid went to a particular school was because the faculty were 90% to the right (or 90% to the left)? What if the institution was regarded by everyone in that society as producing the most-qualified and well rounded graduates in the world? What if every parent wanted their kid to go to that school because a degree from that school pretty much means that the kid is set for life (economically) once they graduate? Wouldn’t that be a more important criteria in determining whether to send you kid to that institution rather than the supposed ideological bent of the faculty?

[BrainGlutton]

@Sam Stone

If we want our kids to get a balanced education, shouldn’t we at least strive to have all political and economic viewpoints represented on campus? Or at least, should the education reflect the true state of scholarship and literature, and not just the side that happens to match the ideological bent of the faculty?

So stated, that sounds unobjectionable. But if you take it to its logical conclusion (and you know they will), it means giving lies equal time with truth, superstition equal time with science, and the course-inappropriate equal time with the appropriate. Jacoby addressed this in his article:

While some propositions of the academic bill of rights are unimpeachable (for example, students should not be graded “on the basis of their political or religious beliefs”), academic freedom extended to students easily turns it into the end of freedom for teachers. In a rights society students have the right to hear all sides of all subjects all the time. “Curricula and reading lists,” says principle number four of Horowitz’s academic bill of rights, “should reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge” and provide “students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate.”

“Where appropriate” is the kicker, but the consequences for teachers are clear enough from perusing the “abuses” that Students for Academic Freedom lists or that Horowitz plays up in his columns. For instance, Horowitz lambastes a course called Modern Industrial Societies, which uses as its sole text a 500-page leftist anthology, Modernity: An Introduction to Modern Societies. This is a benign book published by a mainstream press, yet under the academic bill of rights the professor could be hauled before authorities to explain such a flagrant violation. If not fired, he or she could be commanded to assign a 500-page anthology published by the Free Enterprise Institute. Another “abuse” occurred in an introductory class, Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution, where military approaches were derided. A student complained that “the only studying of conflict resolution that we did was to enforce the idea that non-violent means were the only legitimate sources of self-defense.” This was “indoctrination,” not education. Presumably the professor of “peace studies” should be ordered to give equal time to “war studies.” By this principle, should the United States Army War College be required to teach pacifism?

In the name of intellectual diversity and students’ rights, many courses could be challenged. A course on Freud would have to include anti-Freudians; a course on religion, atheists; a course on mysticism, the rationalists. The academic bill of rights seeks to impose some limits by restricting diversity to “significant scholarly viewpoints.” Yet this is a porous shield. Once the right to decide the content of courses is extended to students, the Holocaust deniers, creationists and conspiracy addicts will come knocking at the door–and indeed they already have.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

@Sam Stone

Does that make it okay? If we want our kids to get a balanced education, shouldn’t we at least strive to have all political and economic viewpoints represented on campus? Or at least, should the education reflect the true state of scholarship and literature, and not just the side that happens to match the ideological bent of the faculty?

I think your aims are good ones–expose students to the full realm of ideas. But I’m not sure how much difference the political and economic leanings of professors make.

First of all, do we have evidence that the ideological bent of the faculty constrains the curriculum? Do we know that liberalism among faculty means that they eliminate perspectives, that they don’t expose students to different ideas?

Second, I believe that a lot of any student’s “political education” happens outside of the regular curriculum. If a student wants to be exposed a wide variety of viewpoints, then that student should seek out a campus with a diverse group of students. In other words, don’t go to Hillsdale, don’t go to Reed.