DURHAM, N.C. (U-WIRE)–At best, they’re considered left-leaning. At the most extreme, academicians are labeled “radical liberals.” At any rate, the perception that sympathies behind university walls lie left of the middle has existed since the first antiwar protests erupted on campuses nationwide, perhaps even since McCarthyism.
As the nation once again finds itself in a war era, the political education of its students seems to draw more focus than ever. Recent media attention depicts universities under fire for actions that the public sees as leftist, ranging from allegedly anti-patriotic comments made by faculty members to controversial reading assignments.
With universities held under such scrutiny, how valid are stereotypes about their professors’ political leanings? If the general public subscribes to these perceptions, what happens when ivory towers and their surrounding communities collide?
EXAMINING THE STEREOTYPE
For the most part, university members understand the rationale behind the generalization of their political allegiances.
“It’s completely accurate that, compared to the larger population, universities are far, far to the left,” said Michael Munger, chair of the political science department at Duke University. “Some of it’s generational.”
Sue Estroff, chair of the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, agrees that the idea that professors tend to be liberal is partly a matter of timing.
“The cohort of people who are [senior faculty members] now on most university campuses are people like me, who went to college in the ’60s and were part of that upheaval, who cut their teeth on a different kind of political activism and some radicalism,” she said.
Munger, who is conservative, added that the likelihood of professors holding more radical views than the general public may not only be a coincidence of age but of interests as well. “I think professors are more likely to be activists, and in the social sciences especially,” he said. “You’re probably giving up something in income . . . I think it is a career choice.”
However, drawing political generalizations occurs within universities as well. Professors in the humanities and social sciences are characterized as liberal, while those in the sciences and business are thought to be more on the right side of the political spectrum, said John Burness, senior vice president for public affairs and government relations at Duke University.
“Those in the humanities and social sciences regularly comment on the human condition, government, economy, policy, politics, et cetera,” Burness said. “It’s not surprising, given their disciplines, that many would think them to be more liberal.”
Despite their acknowledgment of political tendencies within the university, faculty members agree that designating one political association to a group of thinkers who base their careers on original research is still a generalization.
“I really think this liberal/conservative description is far short of describing people’s philosophical, political, social and moral stances on a variety of issues. It’s just not a useful distinction anymore,” Estroff said. “I think people really are increasingly eclectic in their stances–you really can’t predict them with an overarching label.”
Burness agrees. “I often joke that at Duke there are 1,500 professors and 1,600 opinions . . . Gross generalizations of faculty tend to lose this nuance.”
BELIEVING IN OBJECTIVITY
Given the stereotype that universities are populated by leftist professors, the real test of an institution’s relevance depends on whether its community still trusts the faculty to educate objectively, regardless of personal convictions.
Criticism from certain organizations seems to indicate a lack of such faith. Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks last year, a Washington, D.C.-based group called the American Council of Trustees and Alumni documented more than 115 instances of “moral relativism” in universities across the country in a report titled “Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America and What Can Be Done About It.”
ACTA reported that none of the top 50 schools ranked by U.S. News and World Report require undergraduates to take American history and that only three require courses in Western culture and civilization as part of the general curriculum.
“We support faculty members’ ability and right to speak out regarding our civilization, but they must give students options to find out for themselves,” said Anne Neal, ACTA executive director. “It is clear from curricular requirements that that is not happening.”
More recently, UNC was threatened with litigation as well as a budget cut when it assigned the book “Approaching the Qur’an” to first-year students as summer reading. Critics characterized the book as pro-Islam and inappropriate for a state university.
In addition, Family Policy Network, the same organization that sued UNC, threatened to sue the University of Maryland at College Park for assigning to freshmen as required reading “The Laramie Project.” The play discusses the aftermath of the 1998 slaying of Matthew Shepard, an HIV-positive homosexual youth from Laramie, Wyo.
Many faculty members attribute such criticism to the altered state of current events.
“Since the same old differences of opinions are now more intense, I think people are less willing to discuss and more likely to get upset,” Munger said.
“[Attorney General John] Ashcroft and President [George W. Bush] say that if you don’t agree with us, you’re unpatriotic. This happened in the Vietnam War a lot–everyone who asked questions was a traitor,” he continued.
Estroff agrees about the nature of the censures. “People who call themselves neo-conservatives . . . are essentially screaming bloody murder that all these people who were radicals in the ’60s are now professors and are now ruining the education of our young people.
“I think it’s come up again in the post-9/11 era, where universities were probably the only places where differing views of what 9/11 meant and what our responsibilities should be were actively aired.”
However, despite a few well-publicized acts of condemnation, some university members believe that these critics do not represent the general public’s reaction.
“I’m by nature an optimist. I at least have considerable confidence in the American people that when they receive accurate information, they move away from extremes,” Burness said, citing as evidence public response to the litigious and legislative actions brought against UNC. “If you follow editorials both around the state and across the nation . . . in general what they are saying is that it’s totally inappropriate for the legislature to impose on academic freedom, so for me there’s something of a silver lining on that cloud.”
Estroff hopes faith in the liberal-arts education still exists. “In large measure, that depends on how many of those people have actually been in a college classroom and had good experiences with people who kept their agenda off the table,” she said.
“I’ll tell you what–they keep sending their sons and daughters here, so I think they’re voting with their feet.”
SHARING RESPONSIBILITY AND A MISSION
When complaints about the actions of a university or of one of its members arise, the purpose of higher education is re-evaluated by professors and critics alike.
“College and university faculty do transmit the history and heritage of our country, and that is part and parcel of their role as educators,” Neal said. “When a country loses its memory and students do not have familiarity with the principles in our founding documents, then . . . engaged civic involvement becomes difficult.”
Munger agrees, in part. “I think universities generally have two duties,” he said. “We’re the stewards of the Western tradition, and we need to make sure students have a cultural knowledge of the traditions we come out of.” Munger noted, however, that universities also bear the responsibility of educating students in diverse points of view.
The problem surfaces when there are objections to the latter responsibility, most crucially when these dissenting voices control the purse strings of the academic institution.
“One doesn’t want to deliberately, needlessly and gratuitously insult and offend the people whom we pledge to serve, but I think our ideas of what serving means may differ somewhat,” Estroff said. “To my mind, it’s a no-brainer. The business of intellectual freedom and freedom of inquiry should always trump political pragmatism and concerns, and it’s especially when there’s political pressure brought to bear on the life of the mind that it’s important to reassert that.”
Munger noted there has always been a conflict between state universities and state legislatures. “In some ways, state universities are in the service of knowledge and also of the state. The legislature thinks the university should pay attention to what the legislature wants.”
Private universities can face this pressure from their financial donors as well, but the tension is usually eased because supporters are often alumni with institutional loyalty.
“When we take positions . . . those who not only care for Duke but know us best know we’re doing it because it relates to some core value we have,” Burness said.
Estroff agrees that private institutions are often afforded a greater degree of academic freedom because of their relative financial independence.
“Imagine if [Duke’s] Board of Trustees had acted like our legislature,” she said. “Imagine what would happen on your campus if they said, ‘You can’t do what we think is not a good idea.’ All hell would break loose, and it should.
“There is a difference, but should academic freedoms be different on public and private campuses?” Estroff continued. “Of course not.”
However, Estroff also cautions against the influence of money in disseminating varying outlooks.
“My worst fear is that in this era of tight budgets and heinous fundraising, universities would back off in engaging in this kind of critical analysis for fear of offending legislators or donors,” she said.
Munger concurs. “UNC has been an elite university for a very long time,” he explained. “UNC could drop in value if it becomes a trade school and does what the legislature wants it to . . . The legislature is going to have to make itself leave the university alone.”
Neal feels that universities and their supporting bodies both bear the responsibility of educating students.
“We would put the locus of responsibility on boards [of trustees] because they are responsible for the academic and financial well-being of students,” she sayid. “Colleges and universities have moved to a smorgasbord of [course] selections . . . without universities saying, ‘We think this is important, and you need to know this.'”
With the nation under economic as well as political unrest, the public may be more anxious about what the country’s future leaders are learning in the classrooms, but academicians are adamant about staying true to their calling.
“I don’t think we need to pay much attention to public opinion,” Munger said. “For goodness’ sake, if we don’t know what’s important to study, we should get different jobs.”
