OPINION & EDITORIAL
Debunking myth of Madison liberalism
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Robert S. Hunger:
- Sen. McCarthy not just another peace freak hallucination (December 14, 2005)
- Robertson goes off deep end again (January 15, 2006)
- Political freedom necessary in university classrooms (January 23, 2006)
- Debunking myth of Madison liberalism (September 1, 2005)
- Public financing of elections wrong (January 31, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Campus safety starts with students (February 13, 2007)
- Threat reveals university security flaws (September 26, 2007)
- The myths and realities of an opt-out seg fee system (April 3, 2003)
- MySpace poses safety concerns (April 19, 2006)
- Perpetrators must be held accountable (December 14, 2006)
by Robert S. Hunger
Thursday, September 1, 2005
Upon informing friends and family of my decision to attend University of Wisconsin-Madison several years ago, I invariably received the same response: “Wisconsin? You’d better be real careful. They’re a bunch of alcoholic commie pinkos who’ll firebomb your dorm room if you don’t paint a mural paying homage to Che Guevara on your door.”
While this depiction of a violently liberal university applies perfectly to the New Year’s Gang, it could not be further from the truth for professors on campus. Every professor I have learned from over the past three years has encouraged a free exchange of ideas, and I have yet to see a distinguished faculty member dismiss conservative ideology.
During the height of the presidential election last fall, a student took it upon herself to strut in front of the lecture hall and make an announcement for the College Democrats moments before class. Visibly upset, the professor decried her comments as obviously partisan and encouraged any member of the College Republicans to make such a future announcement. However, such examples of impartiality are hard to come by in an age of Bill O’Reilly and www.campus-watch.org.
Despite majoring in political science and journalism, I have taken only one class with an obvious political slant, and (contrary to popular belief) it did not call for a bloody revolution resulting in a dictatorship of the proletariat. Instead, it called for a laissez-faire system of government I had thought rendered moot during the Hoover administration.
The assigned textbook, “Principles of Economics” by Gregory Mankiw, stresses nothing less than complete and utter reliance on free-market ideals, categorically claiming any government intrusion into the economy only results in harming you, the consumer. John D. Rockefeller would be proud.
Mr. Mankiw has served as chairman of the Council of Economic Affairs for the Bush White House since 2003. However, his undying allegiance to the free market created a hellstorm of controversy and embarrassment to President Bush when Mr. Mankiw told reporters the outsourcing of American jobs is “something that we should realize is probably a plus for the economy in the long run.”
President Bush immediately attempted to distance himself from Mr. Mankiw, and even ardent conservative Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert said, “His theory fails a basic test of real economics.”
If Madison is truly such a hotbed of unyielding liberalism, why have thousands of students learned basic economic principles from a man President Bush — the man who just signed CAFTA into law and made John Ashcroft the most powerful lawyer in America — considers unreasonably conservative?
It has always been a favorite pastime of naysayers to characterize UW faculty members as hopelessly liberal and unwilling to hear conservative opinions, and they do so with alarming success.
A recent favorite target of such attacks is University of Colorado ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill, who wrote an essay claiming American foreign policy was largely to blame for terrorist attacks. While the premise alone is relatively controversial, Mr. Churchill found himself in hot water after calling those who perished in New York four years ago “little Eichmanns.” His disastrous vocabulary led certain agitators to believe such viewpoints are indicative of university professors on a whole.
This mantra manifested itself among Wisconsin lawmakers who attempted to prevent Mr. Churchill from speaking at University of Wisconsin-Whitewater earlier this year. The Wisconsin State Legislature bought into the hysteria, passed a bill condemning Mr. Churchill and, in a fruitless effort, recommended Whitewater Chancellor Jack Miller to ban Mr. Churchill from speaking.
Oddly enough, the same individuals crying foul over Mr. Churchill have largely failed to comment on professors at institutions such as Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University or Bob Jones University. It remains difficult to imagine any student to the left of David Duke would flourish at an institute of learning that only began allowing interracial dating five years ago. As Bob Jones III said about lifting the ban in 2000, “We can’t back it up with a verse in the Bible.”
Critics have also taken to the courts in vain attempts to “out” liberal universities. Earlier this month, the Association of Christian Schools International filed suit in federal court, accusing the University of California of discriminating against schools that use books preaching intelligent design over evolution. The publisher of many of the books in question? Bob Jones University Press.
Fortunately, there are no Ward Churchills at Madison, and one would have to travel across many acres of corn and arrive at the foot of the Rocky Mountains to find one.
Robert S. Hunger (rshunger@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in journalism and political science.
Anonymous (September 1, 2005 @ 5:35pm):
Mr. Hunger, your article is the most idiotic piece of journalism I've ever read! It's nothing more than a cop-out by a washed out liberals who's clearly at a loss for talking points. You liberals made a mess of every issue you tried speak out on. No one listens to enymore, except a bunch of losers who can't seem to find any other way of wasting their time.
Anonymous (September 1, 2005 @ 5:36pm):
Robert, your picture above makes it impossible to take you seriously about anything. What are trying to be? Are you trying to get laid or something? You look pathetic!
Anonymous (September 2, 2005 @ 10:51am):
I gotta say, this is a good column. It's funny how right-wingers rail against liberal bias in sociology and ecology classes but don't similarly demand incisive and balanced critiques of their economics classes.
Anonymous (September 2, 2005 @ 12:29pm):
FROM THE NEO-CON DEBATE HANDBOOK:
"If all else fails, and you can't come up with a good counterpoint to your liberal opponent's argument, attack him personally. An ad hominem attack is a great way to distract your opponent, and will hopefully get him off-topic."
Anonymous (September 2, 2005 @ 12:44pm):
I don't believe your first person account of politics on campus because O'Reilly told me schools are liberal. If our "liberal media/acadamia" excuse falls through we might have to actually back up our stances on our own instead of going "but the liberal media is being mean to us!"
Ah sweet hypocricy. How many conservative ditto heads are rallying against the "personal attacks" left on the conservative columnest comment board, but then come here and use such non personally attacking words as "idiotic", "washed out" and "losers".
Anonymous (September 3, 2005 @ 1:38am):
"Robert, your picture above makes it impossible to take you seriously about anything. What are trying to be? Are you trying to get laid or something? You look pathetic!"
I think he's trying to look like Hunter S. Thompson (he wrote books).
Anonymous (September 3, 2005 @ 4:33pm):
You are a disgrace to HST.
Anonymous (September 4, 2005 @ 11:05am):
Why exactly is he a disgrace to HST? He was far too a complex of a character to paint with a mere "liberal" or "conservative" brush, but essentially he was a far left liberatarian. He was pretty much like all the liberals here, except he loved his guns. That's pretty much the only "non liberal" idea he had. How many conservatives were pro drug, anti government?
Anonymous (September 6, 2005 @ 1:38am):
"I gotta say, this is a good column. It's funny how right-wingers rail against liberal bias in sociology and ecology classes but don't similarly demand incisive and balanced critiques of their economics classes."
Uh, excuse me, but haven't liberals done the same thing in the past?
