Yes, There Is a Bias on College Campuses: Towards Intellectual Honesty
LEIGH POMEROY
As a part-time university instructor who has been accused of "magnifying my own political beliefs" in the classroom, I was intrigued by a recent article in The Free Press about the efforts of the Center of the American Experiment to counteract the so-called "liberal bias" on college campuses.
Earlier this year I assigned one of my classes to attend a lecture that I thought was going to cover a subject we were studying: film. Instead, it turned out to be blatantly political.
Within 24 hours I had received a copy of a letter sent to the vice president of the university and the dean of my college from a student. He wrote, in part: "My views differ from the speaker, and I should not be forced to sit though a lecture I don't want to in order to get credit for a class.... I am convinced that Professor Pomeroy was not trying to have us attend a lecture by a Hollywood star; he was trying to magnify his own political beliefs."
I immediately contacted the student, and we met the next day. I explained that the speech was not what I expected it to be, and he admitted that perhaps he had overreacted a little. We ended up discussing both the speech and his letter in class, which led to a lively give-and-take from which we all learned.
Does a liberal bias exist on most college campuses?
The answer is "yes" assuming one uses the classic definition of "liberal" — that is, "broadminded" and "open to many views."
The Center of the American Experiment claims, however, that college campuses are too "liberal", using a more narrow sense of the word, one that we've become far too familiar with from reading op-ed sections in newspapers, listening to talk radio, and watching pundits on TV.
By this definition the word is used like a "kick me" sign to be pinned on the backside of any person left of a right-wing ideology.
For example, the Center has recently taken exception to St. Olaf College's emphasis on sustainability, claiming it's a "liberal" ideology. (St. Olaf is widely considered to be the more conservative of the two top-notch liberal arts colleges located in Northfield, Minnesota.)
On its student-focused Web site, intellectualtakeout.com, the Center claims sustainability is not what students should be learning: "While the sustainability concept makes perfect sense in the world of forestry and agriculture -- applying the concept to life on a college campus has little to do with protecting resources for future generations and everything to do with advancing a specific set of controversial values....
"According to a St. Olaf news release, the sustainability theme will be promoted through many campus activities -- including communal campus bicycles, the unveiling of a new wind turbine, and a picnic that will serve locally grown food and use biodegradable tableware. All of these things might seem rather innocuous, but upon looking deeper it is clear that every item has value only if you accept a liberal presumption."
Sustainability is hardly a political issue. In our home we practice it all the time. We don't use up resources without replacing them. We practice energy conservation. We recycle as much as we can. And if we don't grow our own vegetables, at least we try to shop at the local farmer's market. This is precisely what St. Olaf is advocating on a campus-wide basis.
Another part of the intellectualtakeout.com Web site states: "Environmental activists are against urban sprawl, yet it can be argued urban sprawl is actually better for the environment. Environmental activists are champions of the Endangered Species Act, yet it can be argued the ESA promotes habitat destruction. Environmental activists believe global warming will beget apocalyptic destruction worldwide, yet it can be argued global warming will create a more comfortable and agriculturally productive environment." Yes, all these issues can be argued if one wishes to discount the overwhelming evidence otherwise.
We must all encourage the rational give-and-take of intellectual and political discussion. But we must also remember that the evidence does not give each argument equal weight. This is fundamental to our rule of law.
In courtrooms judges and juries have to decide the truth among contrary claims. In Congress, state legislatures, and city councils, elected representatives must weigh multiple arguments to decide on laws for society. And in our colleges and universities we look at many points of view and decide from the evidence where the truth may lie.
The Center of the American Experiment claims to be a think tank, and its supporters, primarily wealthy Republicans, receive tax deductions for their donations. The Center, however, makes conclusions first to fit its ideology, and then tries to find evidence (however flimsy) to support them. I hardly call this an objective research organization deserving of its tax-exempt status.
If intellectualtakeout.com were a term paper, I would make the Center of the American Experience rewrite it concentrating on better logic, stronger evidence, and less name-calling before I would give it a final grade.
(Originally published in The Mankato Free Press, Wednesday, October 5, 2005)
As a part-time university instructor who has been accused of "magnifying my own political beliefs" in the classroom, I was intrigued by a recent article in The Free Press about the efforts of the Center of the American Experiment to counteract the so-called "liberal bias" on college campuses.
Earlier this year I assigned one of my classes to attend a lecture that I thought was going to cover a subject we were studying: film. Instead, it turned out to be blatantly political.
Within 24 hours I had received a copy of a letter sent to the vice president of the university and the dean of my college from a student. He wrote, in part: "My views differ from the speaker, and I should not be forced to sit though a lecture I don't want to in order to get credit for a class.... I am convinced that Professor Pomeroy was not trying to have us attend a lecture by a Hollywood star; he was trying to magnify his own political beliefs."
I immediately contacted the student, and we met the next day. I explained that the speech was not what I expected it to be, and he admitted that perhaps he had overreacted a little. We ended up discussing both the speech and his letter in class, which led to a lively give-and-take from which we all learned.
Does a liberal bias exist on most college campuses?
The answer is "yes" assuming one uses the classic definition of "liberal" — that is, "broadminded" and "open to many views."
The Center of the American Experiment claims, however, that college campuses are too "liberal", using a more narrow sense of the word, one that we've become far too familiar with from reading op-ed sections in newspapers, listening to talk radio, and watching pundits on TV.
By this definition the word is used like a "kick me" sign to be pinned on the backside of any person left of a right-wing ideology.
For example, the Center has recently taken exception to St. Olaf College's emphasis on sustainability, claiming it's a "liberal" ideology. (St. Olaf is widely considered to be the more conservative of the two top-notch liberal arts colleges located in Northfield, Minnesota.)
On its student-focused Web site, intellectualtakeout.com, the Center claims sustainability is not what students should be learning: "While the sustainability concept makes perfect sense in the world of forestry and agriculture -- applying the concept to life on a college campus has little to do with protecting resources for future generations and everything to do with advancing a specific set of controversial values....
"According to a St. Olaf news release, the sustainability theme will be promoted through many campus activities -- including communal campus bicycles, the unveiling of a new wind turbine, and a picnic that will serve locally grown food and use biodegradable tableware. All of these things might seem rather innocuous, but upon looking deeper it is clear that every item has value only if you accept a liberal presumption."
Sustainability is hardly a political issue. In our home we practice it all the time. We don't use up resources without replacing them. We practice energy conservation. We recycle as much as we can. And if we don't grow our own vegetables, at least we try to shop at the local farmer's market. This is precisely what St. Olaf is advocating on a campus-wide basis.
Another part of the intellectualtakeout.com Web site states: "Environmental activists are against urban sprawl, yet it can be argued urban sprawl is actually better for the environment. Environmental activists are champions of the Endangered Species Act, yet it can be argued the ESA promotes habitat destruction. Environmental activists believe global warming will beget apocalyptic destruction worldwide, yet it can be argued global warming will create a more comfortable and agriculturally productive environment." Yes, all these issues can be argued if one wishes to discount the overwhelming evidence otherwise.
We must all encourage the rational give-and-take of intellectual and political discussion. But we must also remember that the evidence does not give each argument equal weight. This is fundamental to our rule of law.
In courtrooms judges and juries have to decide the truth among contrary claims. In Congress, state legislatures, and city councils, elected representatives must weigh multiple arguments to decide on laws for society. And in our colleges and universities we look at many points of view and decide from the evidence where the truth may lie.
The Center of the American Experiment claims to be a think tank, and its supporters, primarily wealthy Republicans, receive tax deductions for their donations. The Center, however, makes conclusions first to fit its ideology, and then tries to find evidence (however flimsy) to support them. I hardly call this an objective research organization deserving of its tax-exempt status.
If intellectualtakeout.com were a term paper, I would make the Center of the American Experience rewrite it concentrating on better logic, stronger evidence, and less name-calling before I would give it a final grade.
(Originally published in The Mankato Free Press, Wednesday, October 5, 2005)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home