All week long, I'll be digitally debating Michael Shermer, Scientific American columnist and editor of Skeptic magazine, over on the Los Angeles Times' "Dust-Up" feature. We'll be duking it out over academic freedom and other hot-button issues on campus.
Today's topic? Allegations of political bias in the college classroom.
Shermer leaps right in, writing:
Students should complain about professorial indoctrination, because it is real and it is loaded heavily on the left, most notably in the social sciences and the humanities.A 2005 study by George Mason University economist Daniel Klein found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans among the faculty by a staggering ratio of nearly 10 to 1 at UC Berkeley and 7.6 to 1 at Stanford. Measuring political attitudes through voter registration among faculty in 20 different departments, in the humanities and social sciences the ratio was 16 to 1 at both campuses (30 to 1 among assistant and associate professors), and in some departments, such as anthropology and journalism, there wasn't a single Republican to be found.
I respond by arguing that Shermer is conflating evidence of bias with indoctrination:
But is having an opinionated professor really the same as indoctrination? I have seen claims -- often from conservative students -- that students have a right not to be "harassed" by the left-leaning opinions of their professors. This drives me nuts, because if there is one thing conservatives should not be doing, it is legitimizing the idea that merely being exposed to different points of view is the same thing as harassment. Harassment rationales are used to shut down people with dissenting opinions (often the socially conservative, the un-PC, or the merely unlucky) far too often.
You can read the whole thing here.
Later on this week, Michael and I will be taking on Ben Stein's Expelled, the problems with tenure, and whether or not universities have a "customer service" obligation to protect students from speech that makes them uncomfortable. Should be lively. Wish me luck--and stay tuned!
The problem with many universities today is one of access. Who is allowed to teach is a question seldom discussed in academia. Don't be shocked if various 'litmus' test questions are asked in the interview ( yes, illegal as they are) to determine if you have the right 'chemistry' to fit in. These are all ways to screen out folks and has nothing to do with so-called 'qualifications.'
When any workplace has a critical mass in one way of thinking... the group tend to drift farther to that extreme than the simple sum of it's members... that's called mob rule. It can be brutal. Let's just say... I know.
However, I love 'opinionated people', they make life amusing. Teachers hold a power orientation over students and this carries a responsibility. Sometimes it is hard to see what is going on around us when we view ourselves as though we are the 'good guys' and the others as the 'bad guys.'
So, check out theFIRE.org and you'll see some of the problems of securing and expressing free speech on college campuses... it's a huge issue. Be aware, that there are folks like me... that have been 'banned for life' from teaching for no other reason than having expressed an opinion... or two.
Good luck to all,
Roger Freberg
In the end one must never forget that the silencing (or purging if you will) of the intelligentsia is a sympton of frightening possibilites.
I never heard the term "SCREWIN THE POOR" till I took businesses classes.
The Professors actual discussed how to increase cost and profits if the job was being paid with public funds. " SCREWIN THE POOR IS FUN" was quoted many many times in the businees classes. Along with don't give them and even break keep the pressure on them and watch them squirm.
I never felt so alienated. It was like I was being programmed to hate my fellow Americans.
"My friend, who himself is not a fundamentalist but is highly skeptical of Darwinism, then made a revealing comment about this passage: “This passage was distracting while I was taking the test. It was distracting because it’s about an emotionally controversial topic, and I don’t agree with everything they said. This crosses the line.” "
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/evolution_indoctrination_on_th.html
Oh the horror, something controversial showing up on a test of students who (in most cases) very shortly will be graduating from college.
Meanwhile, "teaching the controversy" to elementary students is Casey's goal, well before they are able to understand the "controversy" (IOW, Caseys wants to indoctrinate students who would otherwise learn science).
Seriously, these people are so busy being hypocritical that they forget what this hypocrisy looks like to those who haven't drunk the Kool-Aid.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7