The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Ideology in classroom vastly overstated by right

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Adam Lichtenheld:

American policy not very 'Christ-like' (November 26, 2007)
Media martyrdom plagues shootings (November 14, 2007)
Discussing Middle East? Go there first (October 31, 2007)
'Awareness' weak on Islamic reality (October 17, 2007)

by Adam Lichtenheld

Wednesday, February 8, 2006

It seems like too often the curricula and teaching methods of today's university professors are selectively critiqued by supervisors who have little insight into what constitutes the appropriate content and atmosphere of a college classroom. The raging debate over academic freedom has spawned an influx in public pressure to manipulate teachers' coursework for means of centrism. Cries of political bias in the classroom have caused many lecturers to become virtually paranoid in what they say and how they say it.

Reports surfaced last month that a right-wing alumni group at UCLA offered $100 rewards for tapes showing professors exhibiting a liberal bias in their teaching. Yet the Bruin Alumni Association is not the first organization to spearhead witch-hunts identifying and condemning "radicals" on America's campuses. Other organizations, such as the David Project's campaign against anti-Israel sentiment in Columbia University's Middle East Studies program, have long solicited volunteers to rat on their teachers. Such Draconian initiatives reveal the overzealous nature of whistleblowers who exaggerate the degree to which allegedly tainted material erodes the quality of their education and subjects them to disadvantaged conditions based on their personal ideologies.

But worse than the exaggeration of the claims are the proposed remedies. Conservative activist David Horowitz and his Students for Academic Freedom have sparked a national campaign pressuring state legislatures to pass laws correcting "liberal bias" among the faculty. Ironically, they want politics to be the solution in a case where politics is the problem. Masked by a façade of promoting "intellectual diversity," Mr. Horowitz and his allies seek laws imposing external political pressures on college curricula, faculty hiring policies and teaching methods. In a resurgence of classic McCarthyism, these excessive mandates would force universities to become subordinate to government micromanagement.

It's not that certain claims of the damaging effects of political partiality in the classroom are not without merit. Deliberately suppressing a particular ideological thought in academia is a vile breach of students' rights — action that should never be tolerated among university faculty. And if students' viewpoints are used against them or deliberately suppressed in an open forum — which has occurred — then it is undeniably an unconstitutional violation of free speech.

But the reality that complete objectivity in the classroom is a virtual impossibility demands that we separate out the more rare cases when lecturers' ideologies are used as conformist-promoting tools prohibiting dissent and disagreement. Exhibiting a preference towards one political side does not automatically presume a corresponding hostility towards the other, nor does it naturally undermine the information being presented. Free speech must be protected — but it is pure hypocrisy to use freedom of speech to condemn the acts of others practicing those same freedoms within contextualized boundaries. Besides, if students are secure about their ideological leanings, then they need not feel threatened by a professor occasionally exposing his particular viewpoints.

Case in point: my all-time favorite professor was a tried and true conservative, and I remember relishing in the controversy of his occasional provoking right-leaning comments. Indeed, the heated debates provoked by often questionable remarks that surround such classrooms — whether instigated by professors' political views are not — are the very acts which promote discourse necessary for academic enrichment and intellectual progress. Do we really want our classrooms to be free of such controversy and intensity? Have we become so insecure of what we believe in and what we stand for, so stubborn in our own viewpoints that we become terrified at the thought of having to listen or confer with individuals on the other side of the spectrum? Not only would legislation regulating the political nature of course curriculum make a mockery of free academic speech, it would effectively dull the dynamics of intellectual discourse in settings unequivocally meant to promote it.

At the center of the debate is the underlying assumption that America's campuses are perpetual beacons of radical liberalism and remain openly hostile to conservative thought. But since the acts of blazing liberalism that epitomized college campuses in the '60s and '70s, a unified and passionate conservative movement has become manifest, bolstered by the more than $35 million that conservative groups pour into campuses. The right's presence in universities is quite evident even at the University of Wisconsin, a school nationally renowned for its liberalism. Though colleges still lean to the left, individuals who claim that campus liberals lack strong conservative company are nonetheless blind to their surroundings.

The promotion of intellectual diversity should not be a task left solely in the hands of lecturers. The very idea of intellectualism is that one can see through the twists and turns of ideologically-tainted material and find the truth, shedding layers of partial fluff for discovery of the concrete. With the university resources available today, students should not be relying solely on professors to give them the full and complete truth.

Adam Lichtenheld (lichtenheld@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in political science and African studies.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (February 8, 2006 @ 8:16am):

No, Adam, it is not overstated. The radical left has finally driven the rest of us up the wall. It's payback time.

Anonymous (February 8, 2006 @ 10:09am):

In the last election George Bush received a majority of the popular vote and carried almost two thirds of the states. When surveyed as to who they voted for something like 90% of professors at Yale voted for Kerry another 2-3% voted for Nader and 5% voted for Bush. I don't have figures for the UW but after spending 7 years in Madison I highly doubt the number would be much different with most Bush votes coming out of Grainger Hall not the Humanities and Poly Sci.

What is constructive is that conservative students are no longer tolerating idiocy passed of as intellectual thought and are challenging professors regardless of the effect it may have on their grade. My last paper at the Business school was that their was no Glass Ceiling. The class of mostly young women was extremely angry with me when I gave my presentation. But that is the difference between the 60's and the 90's the class was made up of mostly women, not men. Of course, I could have gotten in a ton of trouble for my paper given that any person in the room could have filed a complaint saying that my thoughts were offensive to a protected group of people. Lucky for me nobody filed a complaint.

University's are the last safe haven for the idiot left who cut their teeth on we hate Nixon or Reagan. Because of the idiocy and the lack of intellectual balance I have not given a penny to the UW since graduating. Until I see a 50/50 split between the left and the right then in my view no conservative should give money to any University.

I am glad to hear that you had a moderate professor at the UW, although I doubt he was a conservative as you described him/her. Having read your articles in the past, your view of what is right of center is highly suspect.

Anonymous (February 8, 2006 @ 12:38pm):

"Because of the idiocy and the lack of intellectual balance I have not given a penny to the UW since graduating."

Wow. It always fun to see the right acting like a bunch of spoiled children. "I got a world class education but I won't help others get one because they dont have enough crazy right wing nut jobs like me!". Worst. Argument. Ever. Most people are very tired of hearing about how the conservatives in this country are "persucuted". Hmm, lets see: Executive - Check. Legislative - Check. Judicial - Check. Most state governments - Check. Gee it seems like you guys want the power EVERYWHERE and it infuriates you that not all the major institutions like universities are under you fascist control.
Giving back to the community that helped you should always happen regardless if you agree with what your professors said. But then again, charity isn't really a hallmark of the right wing then, isn't it?

Z

Anonymous (February 8, 2006 @ 6:02pm):

"...and it infuriates you that not all the major institutions like universities are under you fascist control."

Hey, the place has been under the fascist control of liberals for the longest time. Did you really expect to have it your way forever? It's called democracy. Give conservative fascists a chance for once!

Anonymous (February 9, 2006 @ 12:01am):

Charity is the Hallmark of Conservatives!!! Conservatives just don't think that Charity starts and ends with politicians in Washington D.C. The published giving index clearly shows that the red states give more per capita than the blue states. I bet if you broke it down by county you would find that those evil red counties give more to charity while those soft and fuzzy blue counties receive far more than they give. But if it makes you feel better to rob from the rich to give to the feds who dole out pennies on the dollar then chirp away.

I am not asking to control the University of Wisconsin, nor am I interested in populating the school with Jerry Falwell clones. But why can't there be a Thomas Sowell or two in Black Studies, why can't their be as many George Wills as there are Ward Churchhills? Why is the left so afraid to have their beliefs questioned in an educational setting? Why is that a Conservative Native American Lawyer at Indiana can be told by the Dean of his school that he is not the right kind of Indian if he supports the war in Iraq? Because the left knows that they don't actually believe in anything.

Sure they are for Charity as long as you mean higher taxes which they have no intention of paying as they shelter their wealth all over the place. As a corporation it is perfectly legitimate to pay wages and create expenses, like the cost of private jets, that exceed your annual revenue, or income, and pay almost no tax like John Edwards. But as long as you step up to the mic and talk about caring for the little guy a bunch of dim wits wistfully sigh and think, "he is talking about me."

Nobody in Washington gives a shalala about the little guy unless some action might effect their ability to get re-elected. As for giving back to the "community" to lower the cost of education, I love it when people who already recieve financial support from the state through tax policy start to demand that the earners in society should shut up and give them more money. You want to help regarding the cost of your education, then find a job and work your way through school like I did. That is called advice.

Anonymous (February 9, 2006 @ 7:50am):

"I bet if you broke it down by county you would find that those evil red counties give more to charity while those soft and fuzzy blue counties receive far more than they give. But if it makes you feel better to rob from the rich to give to the feds who dole out pennies on the dollar then chirp away. "

Not for the right wing to be detered by facts, but here are some. Turns out, the majority of states who recieve more than they give (in terms of tax dollars) are red states. Dont believe me? Check this out:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

Turns out the righties generally get more than they give. On the subject of tax shelters: yes they are diplorable, and yes they should be outlawed, but sorry I forget, who again has been in power for the last 5 years and done nothing about it? Oh, thats right the republicans. If you dont like John Edwards not paying taxes why dont you call up your congressman and ask him to ban tax shelters? Probably because they are using them too, or are being lobbied by someone who is.

And its not about getting handouts for education; its about the principle of giving back to an institution who helped you. I too worked a job in college (actually I worked three jobs, with three majors), but now with Bush signing laws decreasing student aid, students in this nation are in even more peril of not getting a vital higher education and thus need all the help they can get. You are right though, in this "ownership society" I do get to take more ownership... of my (and the national) debt. So come one pal, be a "compassionate conservative" and give back to your alma mater. On Wisconsin.

Z

Anonymous (February 10, 2006 @ 11:02am):

Taxes are not Charity. Nice try at changing the issue. Texas, a very red state, receives Fed dollars for roughly 10 military bases with San Antonio having 4 bases. San Antonio is shared by 4 congressman, Henry Bonilla a republican gets the northwestern suburbs, no bases and nice neighborhoods with very little welfar dollars. Lamar Smith a rebulican gets the northeast suburbs and I believe the area around the Randolph Air Force base. The other three bases go to Democrats Henry Gonzalez and Henry Cuellar. Lackland/Kelly AFB, Fort Sam Houston and Brooks AFB. Not to mention the spending on social ills that the Feds give to the city of San Antonio that does not go to the middle class Suburbs who vote for Republicans. If you actually break down federal tax dollars spent by military, welfare, transportation etc. You will see a pattern. If you throw military and social security spending out of the picture and focus solely on welfare spending you will see that the large cities recieve far more per capita than they send to D.C. The representatives from New York, LA, Chicago, Philly, Newark, etc are all Dems and get elected by promising to trap their voters in a constant state of poverty supported by dollars coming from outside their districts.

But again Tax policy is not Charity. The giving index measures what people give to actually charities and for the blue bloods back east that includes the arts. So their giving to symphony's and opera's, which they then go and watch, is considered as equal to giving to food banks which benefit the actual poor.

Again Tax policy is not Charity, and those who want to increase tax rates should be forced to open up their tax returns and prove that they pay the max tax possible with no deductions, which are optional, before they start crying about helping the little guy.