A debate between David Horowitz and Kevin Mattson. Great stuff (until maybe the last two comments) and an excellent primer on the issue of ideological diversity on campus.
By the way, a social science professor--I think political science--at Ohio University had a pretty well publicized film series going on last fall. The series was not part of any class. However, and I'm not entirely sure about this, the films were shown in campus facilities. Fahrenheit 9/11 was shown, as were several films that featured folks like Noam Chomsky. I do believe that the notice about the film series said something about the impending presidential election, but again, I'm not completely sure about that.
I know I thought the film series was a bit over the top, and I would expect that conservative students in this professor's classes might feel a little bit threatened, but make of it what you will.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This was very interesting and informative; thank you. I've been hearing a lot about this "Student Bill of Rights", but I haven't been pointed to a comprehensive discussion of both sides until now.
The problem with the concept of keeping "controversial matter [out of] the classroom or coursework that has no relation to their subject of study and that serves no legitimate pedagogical purpose" isn't whether professors (or teachers) are likely to introduce this kind of material. It's that students are so rarely able to make the distinction that Horowitz correctly points out, pointing to Stanley Fish: that "teachers should teach about controversial issues rather than urging them as commitments," and that introducing controversial material is often less an expression of an instructor's personal belief than an invitation to think and debate.
Some students are too quick to believe that positions introduced by their professors are also positions endorsed by them, or even required by them for an 'A'. It's usually a function of their still-developing maturity, their lack of previous exposure to different opinions, or their lack of understanding that one can discuss with depth and understanding a belief that one doesn't personally hold. I'm sure you've run across students who will latch onto any kind of excuse for their own lack of hard work or scholarship or ability when grieving a grade. The latest trend seems to be dissenting politics, particularly if one is a conservative student in the so-called atmosphere of "liberal indoctrination".
I don't recall from my student days anyone being ridiculed for their politics; instead I do recall students who found themselves unable to coherently argue a dissenting point and then grumbling that the professor or TA "obviously hated" them, for whatever reason (politics is one; "personality conflict" another). Students will construct some pretty flimsy straw men when trying to come to grips with their own inadequacies. This type of student also isn't really able to give instructors credit for being professional when judging the worth of his or her work.
I don't disagree with the concept of keeping the academic environment fair for all, or with the concept that those instructors who do cross the line need sanctions of some kind. I do feel uneasy about what seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to the increasing political division in the States, and object to the insinuation (made clear by loaded phrases like "liberal indoctrination") that so-called liberal instructors are less tolerant of dissenting views than anyone else. Maybe, to make it clearer that this is about teaching, not politics, they should be adopting Fish's dictum in the wording of the SBOR.
Tom, The film series you write of was sponsored by a political science graduate student, not a professor. I cannot say if he was teaching at the time or not. I attended three or four of the films. As far as I know, no professors were there. In any case, no one offered commentary on the films (professor or otherwise) just the opportunity to register to vote. And, incidently on Fahrenheit 9/11 was well attended, the rest only garnered a dozen or less participants. It seems as though student apathy across the board is more of a problem that the political leanings of specific professors.
Thanks Renee (if anyone is still reading this far down) that is good to know. Again, my memory is spotty, and this isn't all that relevant to the original point, but I do believe the student advertised as a member of the political science department.
Also, I don't think those movies need much commentary to make clear where they lie.
Post a Comment