The unexpected rise of Rick Santorum to the top of the Republican presidential field has provoked more than a few questions (and I suspect more than a few nightmares) among those who -- let us say -- think.
For me one of the most interesting questions bears directly upon my own responsibilities as president of a college. Under what circumstances and to what extent should a college or university president speak directly to political issues and even speak publicly on particular political candidacies?
The rule of thumb has for quite some time been that on such matters presidents had best remain silent. One of the chief jobs of a college leader is to raise money from alumni and other constituencies, the political views of those groups are likely to be diverse, and silence is therefore preferable to the risk of alienating or aggravating any significant group of potential donors. Fiduciary responsibility requires political restraint.
More important (or at least more noble) is the argument about the preservation of academic freedom on a campus. College and universities should be places where all civil and reasonable views on important issues can be expressed and debated, and a president who takes a public stand on too many of these issues risks stifling debate among those in his or her community. As usual, Bill Bowen, former president of both Princeton University and the Andrew Mellon Foundation, put this best: "The university should be the home of the critic, welcoming and respectful of every point of view; it cannot serve this critically important function if it becomes the critic itself, coming down on one side or another of controversial issues." To the extent that the president, appropriately or not, is often seen as the personal embodiment of the institution, a politicized presidency risks creating an unhealthily politicized college.
By and large I am a firm believer in the soundness of both of these arguments. But the Santorum candidacy, in my view, begs the question of whether there are limits to their validity: that is, is there a set of circumstances under which the responsibility to speak out trumps the responsibility to remain publicly neutral or silent?
I believe the answer to that question is yes, and I believe the circumstances are these: when a policy or an argument or a political platform -- or a candidate -- is antithetical or threatening to the fundamental educational mission of the institution, then in my view it is the responsibility of the president to say so publicly. Put another way, silence in the face of such threats is a failure of leadership.
So: the next question to be asked is whether Santorum -- or if one prefers to be less personal, let us say the set of views articulated by Santorum, perhaps imagined collectively as Santorumness or Santorumosity -- qualifies as such a threat.
Let me choose two examples of recent Santorum statements that I believe suggest strongly that he does. In a well-documented speech in Steubenville, Ohio, this man who would be president asserted that global warming claims were based on "phony studies" and that climate science was in fact only "political science": "When it comes to the management of the earth, they" -- I'm not sure if this refers to all Democrats, all climate scientists, or all those who believe in evidence -- "are the anti-science ones. We are the ones who stand for science, and technology."
Could there be any more direct threat than this to the very foundations of education: the ability to formulate arguments based on evidence, to use language with precision, to think critically and analytically? This is not first and foremost about climate change; it is about the responsible and appropriate use of words, facts, and ideas. To concede that Santorum's remarks are within the bounds of the appropriate is to concede that our work as educators is pretty much meaningless.
One more (though there are so many from which to choose): in an interview several days ago with Glenn Beck -- yes, he is still around -- Santorum observed, "I understand why Barack Obama wants to send every kid to college, because of their indoctrination mills, absolutely ... The indoctrination that is going on at the university level is a harm to our country."
It is not much of a stretch, I would submit, to see the claims that (1) wanting to see more students attend college is bad for our country and (2) colleges are indoctrination mills, as ones with which a college president should publicly disagree, and that a presidential candidate who makes such claims is at least as much a threat to our collective mission as any law or court ruling.
So with all due respect to my responsibilities as a fundraiser and as a guardian of open discourse on my campus, I am prepared to make the case that stating publicly that I am appalled by the views of Rick Santorum is not only my right but my responsibility.
I am appalled by the views of Rick Santorum.
Now excuse me while I go check on the water flow in the indoctrination mill on the northeast corner of the Macalester campus.
Denis Lacorne: Breaking Down the Wall of Separation from JFK to Santorum and Romney
Carol Hoenig: Santorum Reminds Me Why I Wrote 'Of Little Faith'
Sustainability is a concept that is simple common sense for anyone with a modicum of it.
Global Warming is a scientific fact, no matter how badly you, or anyone else, may wish it was not.
Would you criticize him for suggesting that students should be "mindful of Gravity"?
Higher learning is what he eschews.
He would not be remiss,
To call ignorance bliss,
Since a thought more profound might confuse.
"Three plagues will I send, it'll floor 'em!
Drowning flood, baking drought,
and to fill you with doubt:
Brother Rick, who will bid you, 'Ignore 'em!' "
I'm really wondering about all those children his wife has, as Rick sounds more and more like one of those who can't find his ----------with both hands.
In fact, he often appears so gleeful, he seems gay.
your problem is with accredidation, maybe they will disallow all conflicting data.
Frankly, I wouldn't eat a hot dog this guy had prepared.
What is surprising is that he would misuse the phrase "begs the question" in an article posted for the whole world to see. He's representing an institution of higher learning!
As to his views on global warming, well, until Santorum becomes a respected scientist and has some really great proof to present against it, I will believe it's happening.
Why Occupy Wall Street? The History and Politics of Debt and Finance - New York University
Football Culture
Queer Musicology – UCLA
The Science of Harry Potter – Frostburg University
Native American Feminism - University of Michigan
Cyber Feminism - Cornell University
Feminist New Black Man - Occidental College
Philosophy and Star Trek – Georgetown University in Washington
The Sociology of Hip-Hop: The Odyssey of Jay-Z – Georgetown University
Emotional Literacy
Media Genres, the study of zombies - University of Baltimore
The Science of Superheroes - UC Irvine
Hip Hop: The Politics of Culture - UC San Diego
History of Surfing - UC Santa Barbara
Arguing with Judge Judy - UC Berkeley
Self-Esteem - Cal State Fresno
Gaga for Lady Gaga: Sex, Gender, and Identity- University of Virginia-Charlottesville[29]
Search for Extraterrestial Intelligence - UC Berkeley
Ecology of Renewable Natural Resources - Texas Tech University [30]
Introduction to social networking.
Ironic as it may seam, taxpayers and alumni often care more for a successful athletics department than whether the typical college student graduates with a sound education or with realistic employment opportunities necessary to pay the huge debt students acquire during their college years. I doubt anybody will ever hear Santorum or any candidate say the amount spent on collegic of athletics
He is toast.