Florida state legislator trying to tell professors what they can say.

Great Debates
121

Debaser,

I’ll try to be brief - I know it’s difficult to try to respond to so many different posters. The main thrust of my contention is this statement in response to Dr. Love

“I’ll restate more carefully my main point: The fact that 85% of faculty members vote democrat results in universities promoting a liberal agenda towards students.”

This is more clear, but it still leaves the question of how instructors are doing so in a classroom environment. Plus, it still leaves open the question of equating Democrat = liberal agenda. Because, I think the following makes more sense:

By virtue of its institutional mission, a university will be more liberal than other insitutions within a given society. Given this insitutional nature of a university, it happens to attract people who feel comfortable in this type of environment (that is, liberals). Thus, by the very nature of the institution itself it tends to attract a disportionate number of people who self-identify as liberal.

But it just so happens that the Democrats are the political party that have supported the institutional nature of the university (or more properly, the goals, objectives, policies that universities espouse) more so than Republicans (I’m speculating here, of course, so I could be totally wrong). As faculty make their living at such institutions, then it makes sense that they would support the political party (Democrats) that support what they do (and want to achieve on an institutional level). It’s in their interests economically (and, hence politically) to do so.

In short, it’s not the faculty somehow promoting a liberal agenda; but rather the institutional nature of academia that attracts liberals to it. For whatever reason this has resulted in a dis-proprtionate number of liberals in academia that may have, in some circumstances, made academia even more liberal than it has been traditionally. Which is why I’m involved in this thread - it’s an issue when one bandies about the term liberal loosely. Because it depends on what one means by the term, and also in the context of the institution itself (by many people’s account, a university by it’s very nature is a liberal institution).

But this still doesn’t get down to the level of “promoting a liberal agenda” to students in classes. By it’s very nature, attending a university is a liberal endeavor (at least, theoretically).

The same viewpoint on what issue? I’m pro-choice (a liberal viewpoint), but a strong proponent of the 2nd amendment (against strong gun restrictions - a conservative viewpoint). I’m pro-AA (a liberal viewpoint), but anti-quota (a conservative viewpoint). So where’s my liberal viewpoint?

Tell it to the NCAA - or do you not agree that a disporportionate number of inter-collegiate athletes are African-American (a group that tends not to do as well - for reasons we can leave for another debate - academically in high school as other groups), and that these “academically inferior” students help the institutions financially? College athletics is a HUGE business, and one that institutions benefit financially by their Affirmative Action policies (or similar policies that could be construed as AA-like).

Nothing substantial, just based on my experience. With the ever “commodification of education” and the catering to students to give them what they want (rather than what institutions/society feels they should have), it’s logical to assume that the next trend is the elimination of general education courses as part of a degree program. Which means that the “unnecessary” courses in the humanities will get pushed by the wayside.

That’s a viewpoint on one issue - I’d hardly consider someone a conservative (or having a conservative viewpoint) just on that one issue alone.

122

Sample, I had drawn the wrong inference from your brief mention earlier, that you had dropped out rather than engage in learning. My apologies.

Your story, interesting as it is, sounds more like growing disgust with the *quality * of education at your school, not the ideological warfare that has always been at the heart of higher education. Of course students should have had to work and think more than you saw happening. But what does that have to do with the liberal agenda, whatever that is, or with the purported institutionalized discrimination against and belittling of conservatives that are the subject of this thread?

123

Not much. As I said in post #112, it was largely a hijack in answer to your question.

You’re right, I didn’t leave entirely, or even largely because of any liberal/conservative rift. It was a combination of disgust with the direction of higher education (which had more to do with pedagogical practice than anything else), some personal issues, and just becoming tired of being pigeonholed, and belittled, as a right-winger day in and day out. (Yes, I still belong to the GOP, but I am vehemently opposed to Bush and company, who have betrayed the party and conservatism in general, not to mention the Christian faith.)

As I’ve said before, I don’t think that the predominance of Democrats and self-identifying liberals/leftists in academia is a problem. In my experience, it rarely bleeds over into the classroom. And in any case, I don’t think the academy has the power that many of the radical lefties believe it to have. (I’m still amazed at how many of them sincerely believed that literary criticism is a powerful political force.)

Don’t get me wrong. I find the measure being discussed on this thread to be much more dangerous than all the academic liberals put together. And I feel that conservatives who wish the academy to become more “balanced” should not attempt to have government strongarm the universities, but should instead roll up their sleeves, enter the academy, and win it over as we’ve done in other areas of public life. The majority of students, at least in my neck of the woods, are on our side.

124

Just adding my experiences: most of my professors did not like affirmative action. Not because of any racist or political views, but because they thought it deteriorated the quality of students. They all wanted tough testing and the admission of only the top 10% of people. In my undergraduate program, this would have ended up being a mostly Caucasian crowd, granted. But in graduate school many of these same Caucasian Americans would have been pushed out by immigrants. Actually many of them were pushed out by the simple fact that the professors wouldn’t fund them. They (the professors) tended to choose the best and this often meant that the research groups were 80% foreign/minority or even higher. My professors had no problems with this (hell, most of them were immigrants also).

I just don’t see what the problem is. I don’t think the majority of professors, liberal or not, are trying to bias their students. I have yet to see anything that will make me believe otherwise. Even if they are trying, they are failing miserably (at least according to the data you posted earlier - Thanks BTW). So what would we/you/the conservatives be trying to achieve by requiring that there was a 50/50 split (or whatever) in conservative/liberal professors (besides creating a new version of affirmative action based on political affiliation)? Should we try to raise the percentage of college graduates who vote conservatively to 60%?

What exactly is the problem we are trying to fix?

125

Eyer8, I think you have hit on an excellent weapon to oppose this measure. Label it an “affirmative action” for conservative ideas!

126

To give credit where credit is due, I think Kimstu was the first to hint at this.

127

In other words, conservatives don’t value learning.

Actually, I think there is a significant amount of truth in what you say; I’d also suggest that different disciplines may break down differently. If a political party advocates less public funding of art, they shouldn’t be shocked to find the vast majority of art professors voting against them. So I think that is indeed part of the answer.

But it’s absurd to suggest that accounts for overall ratios of 10 and 20 to 1. IIRC, one study of book-buyers showed that while fiction readers leaned liberal, history readers leaned conservative. I am not surprised at all that as an English teacher (in Florida, no less!) my colleagues lean heavily liberal; it is less apparant why history faculty should do the same.

Again, I think you make a good point. But you err by framing it as students vs. “institutions/society.” In fact, the crux of the issue is that very often what university wants is not, profoundly not, what society wants.

To take my own discipline again: the large majority of parents, citizens and legislators think that college literature classes should be about teaching the highest and best parts of the Western Canon; Shakespeare et al. But the avowed goal of many college professors is explicitly and deliberately the death of that Canon. And those professors with that point of view are very much dominant at this point.

My point is not that one side is right and the other is wrong (I fall somewhere inbetween). But I would suggest that part of the problem is that the Academy has, over the last 50-100 years, stopped seeing themselves as part of society, but instead has posited themselves as an institution that stands outside or above the rest and critiques.

But this is a pose: any academy, and certainly a publicly-funded one, is in fact dependant on the culture as a whole. And you can only spit in your patron’s face and be called a genius for it so many times.

[fixed coding --Gaudere]

128

Horowitz has just admitted that this little incident was a work of fiction:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503160001

129

Well, I wouldn’t go quite that far in stating that conservatives don’t value learning. But I would make the distinction that maybe conservatives and liberals value education/learning differently. Whereas liberals may tend to value education in and of itself, conservatives may tend to value education as a means to an end.

It could be for the reason stated above, along with my earlier contention that they (history faculty) may do so out of economic (and hence political) expediency.

I don’t agree - in some cases what a university wants may not jibe with what a society wants. But to a large degree, a university is a reflection of what the wider society wants. It’s just that people differ on the scope and/or intent of that university (means in itself versus a means to an end, for example).

Let’s assume that this is correct. If this is such a concern, then why is it that these universities are still attracting large number of students? Why are benefactors/alumni still pouring money into the Universities coffers? Why isn’t pressure being placed on the University presidents’ or Board of Regents to keep the Western Canon?

Besides, the push to get rid of the Western Canon came during the period when many students were clamering for other courses. In other words, the Western Canon was irrelevant to them (for whatever reason). So, given the climate at the time (starting in the 60s and on into the 70s) when college education was booming, faculty/universities began bending to the will of their student populations (and competing with other institutions). Changes in the cirricula were made and new faculty were hired.

Now, out of this climate it’s not surprising that those people that were brought in to create new cirricula/teach new courses have a vested interest in protecting their “turf”, so to speak. This gets reinforced a new faculty are hired (as the university enrollments increase) or replaced (as the old guard retires). As long as there is a demand for “non-Canon” courses, then those that continue to have a vested interest in those courses will protect them.

Once a tipping point is achieved (a growing demand for a return of the Canon), then you will start to see pressures placed on the institution to make the changes. Old-guard “non-Canon” faculty will fight tooth-and-nail to protect their turf. But they will have to - eventually - bend to the will of their patrons.

That could very well be the case. Part of it is philosophical - what is the role of a university within society?

I agree - as I mentioned above, a university is a reflection of the wider society, to some extent. The problem is that a university isn’t immune to the same problems as other institutions - that of inertia. The changes that wrought in the 60s and 70s were the universities’ attempt in trying to catch up with the changes that were occuring in the wider society.

Likewise, a similar scenario is probably occuring as well. Society has become much more conservative, and the universities will, at some point in time, reflect that. But that haven’t done so is largely due to 1) institutional inertia and 2) demand that they change. Believe me, one the demand is too great to ignore those universities will change.

130

::shakes little doggy head::

Sounds like one of those students I mentioned earlier.

The prof in question is a registered Republican. The student wrote 2 pages when 3 were required.

Yeah, I know this type. Paranoid hair-trigger. As I said above, while they’re rare, and usually don’t go to these lengths, this kind of student is, in my admittedly limited experience, more common than the prof who injects political bias into the classroom.

131

Even with the hedges, I consider this statement a direct insult, and would appreciate an apology. Note that the SDMB rules were recently modified to prohibit insults directed at classes of people.

132

I guess I should have been clearer about what I see as a huge distinction: in some arenas, such as the hard sciences, the academy is much more “in step” with the non-academic world. Research Chemists working for Glaxo read the same materials and work on the same issues as those toiling at MIT (I speak very broadly). Certainly disciplines like Business and Engineering are the same, because in their case the larger society is not so much a patron as a customer.

My comments pertain more directly to the humanities, where “demand” is never guaranteed. There will always be a minimal need for Art teachers, of course. But there will not always be students attending college education’s sake, or choosing to take a humanities elective instead of something “more practical.”

The desire for a la carte education you referred to has many causes, but I submit that at least one of them is that the academy has not convinced students that we have something important to tell them. In my own experience, I find myself very interested in a professor who can argue that there is something deeply and powerfully true in a text, or an artwork, or in their own explantion of history. Even if I disagree with them, I am interested; I can argue with them.

But in the age of theory, much of the humanities has given up on the idea that anything is true or can be and has become bad achaeology in a passive voice: “This book illustrates the culture in which it was produced.” Why the hell should any 19-year old with life in him want to read that? I read books when I was 19 because they were interesting and/or because I was looking for some sort of meaning and purpose for life. I was looking to Understand; once upon a time that was the goal of the Humanities.

Now, we question ourselves and the nature of reality to the point where we have nothing meaningful to say. If your philosophy professor tells you that language is inherently incapable of grasping meaning (and you believe him), you’d be a damned fool to ever take his class again. Better to take something “real” and “useful” like Business Management Techniques 101.

So I don’t think the pendulum will swing back; far more likely, IMO, is that the ethos of the academy will become overwhelmingly “scientific” and empirical. Humanities will become vestigal limbs, slightly embarrassing anachronisms like University Chaplains.

Not that people won’t seek Meaning and Understanding; but they will do so outside the academy. They’ll consume whatever pop-culture art, music and literature they like (why not; the Professors themselves say no book is inherently better than another) and cobble together whatever philosophy appeals to them, be it literalist fundamentalism or bubble-headed faux paganism, and will react with alarm to the idea of a professor criticising a philosophy in the classroom.

Hey, that sounds familiar.

133

From the More-Things-Change-the-More-They-Stay-the-Same Department:

Maybe I’m hijacking a tad, but it does seem relevant to the discussion. Maoists during the Cultural Revolution certainly weren’t marginalized when it came to power and influence, but they sure talked like it. Every Bolshevik and Maoist writing I’ve ever read has bleated about the persecution of their side by some Other Side that is seldom identified with a term like “bourgeoisie” or “ruling class” or some such, even in situations where the bourgeoisie and the ruling class have been effectively marginalized themselves, if not destroyed.

It seems hauntingly similar to the modern charges of the right of “liberal indoctrination,” doesn’t it?

Here’s my source material. The format is humorous, but the quotes are bona fide:

http://billmon.org/archives/001752.html

134

English profs are often guilty of the same illogic.

I recall a heated argument I had with one of the advocates of reader response theory who claimed that it’s pointless to try to establish an author’s intention or what the text was supposed to have “meant” in its day, and that we can only know how different groups have responded to the text over time.

When I pressed him on the issue of how – given his logic – we could ever hope to know what those responses signified, if we could not establish the meaning or intention of these groups’ records of their responses, I was accused of being deliberately argumentative.

The truth is, we can indeed establish much of what an author intended to say, and what the text was generally understood to mean in its time, within limits of course. At the very least, we can eliminate huge swaths of potential interpretations that don’t hold up to scrutiny, given what we know of etymology, history, literary convention, and the like.

This post-modern mumbo jumbo we still hear much of today is largely an excuse to dispense with the hard work of getting our facts right and communicating them to our students.

The reason I bring this up is that it’s precisely this kind of thinking that invites measures like the one cited in the OP. It makes the academy seem ridiculous, out of touch, irrelevant, and “leftist”… and students react to this.

I oppose this type of measure, but I gotta admit that the academy has in some ways opened itself up to this sort of attack.

135

I would like to offer an apology of my own to eponymous for this statement. You owe me no apology. I’m blowing your comment out of proportion. Just hit me at the wrong time. Sorry.

136

I agree that the over-abundance of theory that infuses the humanities is problematic. One in which I was thankfully not personally subjected to as an undergraduate in college. Now, I will admit that some of it (theory) is interesting and relevant. However, a good deal of it is pointless drivel. The problem is that this drivel often gets lumped in with other academic pursuits and all of this together somehow gets interpreted as academia having a “liberal agenda.”

Which is simply not true. I’m sure you are aware of the infamous Sokel Hoax. But were you aware that the perpetrator of the hoax was an avowed leftist? So there are those within the so-called “liberal” camp that finds the over-infusion of theory infecting the humanities problematic.

Likely and possibly true regarding the humantities - although I hope it doesn’t eventually come to that. What I hope will ultimately happen is that the humanities will evetually tire of its’ theory fetish. A lot of PoMo theory collapses under the weight of its own inconstistencies - not something that can sustain the ideals of academia in the long term.

137

I read your first reply and wasn’t quite sure what you were objecting to. I wasn’t trying to offend - I was merely pointing out that I didn’t agree with furt’s assessment regarding his summation of my comment. I certaintly do not think that conservatives value education or learning less than liberals. Only merely suggesting that they might value it differently (I don’t really know - just speculating). Or rather conservatives have a philosophical difference regarding the purpose of education. More along the lines of idealistic versus pragmatic. But again, just speculation on my part.

138

It’s certainly true that we go through cycles. Every so often it’s time for a new period of hand-wringing over professors. In the late 1980s and early 1990s we had a series of books published criticizing faculty like “Tenured Radicals” and “Profscam” and “Imposters in the Temple.” I do not know how much legislative action that period of concern spurred. Horowitz et al have just brought these concerns to the forefront again.

139

I don’t know how much legislative action was going on then, either. I was in my late teens at that time, and though I was starting to get into politics, I didn’t really start paying attention to what Congress was doing until my late twenties, I’m embarrassed to admit. (We need more civics classes in high schools! I never had one!)

However, there does seem to be more interest in legislating what professors can or cannot say. There seems to be a movement, in fact. In addition to the Florida story I linked to, I understand there’s a similar movement in Ohio, and the following link was provided in a thread about Minnesota politics:

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive/2005/March2005/MNDailyBilltolimitprofspolitics031005.htm

When I was in college, back in the late eighties and early nineties, the anti-intellectual thread was hard to miss. I figured that had more to do with the recent rise of Reaganism and the fact that Penn State had a whole lot of hicks attending it. Apparently this is a bigger, more organized movement than I thought.

140

Ayup. The Academic Bill of Rights set forth by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture is apparently being “considered” in 19 states.