One of the most pernicious movements of the 1980s and 90s was left-wing political correctness on college campuses, which sought to impose codes of intellectual orthodoxy on students and faculty alike, and to punish those who expressed dissenting views on the ground that such views created a "hostile" academic environment and made certain students "uncomfortable." While vestiges of that movement remain, it has been largely discredited by the realization that academia is the last place where political views and speech ought to be regulated.
That failed left-wing attack on political speech and free inquiry on college campuses has been replaced by its increasingly vibrant, equally pernicious mirror image – a movement based upon petulant demands by campus conservatives that academic institutions not just permit them to freely express their conservative political views, but also to ban disagreement with those views and to punish faculty members who criticize conservatism or, worst of all, who commit the ultimate sin of speaking ill of President George W. Bush in the classroom.
I wrote about the last two such concocted campus "controversies"-- one which was peddled in National Review and the other, the following week, in The Weekly Standard -– and those incidents are quite illustrative of what is going on here. These "controversies" almost never entail efforts to suppress the views of conservative students, nor are they about conservative students being disciplined for expressing their views. Instead, these shrieking complaints arise out of nothing more than the claim that conservative students feel "uncomfortable" because their professors and college administrators disagree with their views and say so. And there is a handful of publicity-seeking groups, the shrillest of which is led by the incomparably shrill David Horowitz, which are behind most of these controversies.
These chronically complaining activists -- who are plainly in search of some of that precious victim glory – wormed their way into the pages of The New York Times this weekend (h/t ReddHedd), in an article which reports that these groups have now recruited some state legislators to their viewpoint-suppressing cause. Their belief that they are entitled to a dissent-free environment, even in the classroom, is noteworthy on its face, but always more striking, at least to me, is the emotional fragility and delicate sense of entitlement which these campus conservatives exude without embarrassment.
Just listen to these complainers describe the grave injustices which are befalling them:
While attending a Pennsylvania Republican Party picnic, Jennie Mae Brown bumped into her state representative and started venting.
"How could this happen?" Ms. Brown asked Representative Gibson C. Armstrong two summers ago, complaining about a physics professor at the York campus of Pennsylvania State University who she said routinely used class time to belittle President Bush and the war in Iraq. As an Air Force veteran, Ms. Brown said she felt the teacher's comments were inappropriate for the classroom.
And here’s another self-styled victim of academic tyranny:
The student group has fielded concerns from people like Nathaniel Nelson, a former student at the University of Rhode Island and a conservative, who said a philosophy teacher he had during his junior year referred often to his own homosexuality and made clear his dislike for Mr. Bush.
Mr. Nelson, now a graduate student at the University of Connecticut, said in an interview that the teacher frequently called on him to defend his conservative values while making it clear he did not care for Republicans.
"On the first day of class, he said, 'If you don't like me, get out of my class,' " Mr. Nelson said. "But it was the only time that fall the course was being offered, and I wanted to take it."
These poor little adults-disguised-as-babies have to endure professors who are openly gay, and worse, who criticize the President of the United States – a wildly inappropriate thing to do in a college classroom, of course. Sometimes, these professors even go so far as to criticize the students' views. And these oppressed students have conservative self-victimizing groups lurking behind them urging them to play up their mental trauma and to dishonestly and quite pitifully conflate disagreement with their views with some sort of authoritarian effort to suppress those views.
One of the principal benefits and purposes of college is to have one’s previously unexamined views scrutinized, dissected and challenged. If individuals don’t want to have their political and other views challenged and even attacked, they ought not to go to college, or they ought to attend one of the many academic institutions which exist for the purpose of propagating specific political or religious doctrines in a harmonious echo chamber.
Conservative viewpoints are not exactly hard to find these days. All three branches of the federal government are controlled by people who ascribe to those views, and all of our most significant media venues for expressing political opinion entail, at least, an equal dose of conservatism as they do any other viewpoint. And in academia, there are prominent and outspoken conservative professors on virtually every campus who pursue their conservative scholarship and express their conservative views without any limitations at all.
Listening to conservative students whine about their plight all because their professors disagree with their views is quite annoying. But the effort by these students and their sponsoring victim groups to start recruiting lawmakers to their cause, with threats of regulating ideological expression on college campuses, is far more than just annoying. These groups masquerade under the banner of diversity of opinion but are plainly devoted to imposing their own orthodoxy in academic institutions and to punishing faculty members who are openly critical of their ideology and/or critical of George Bush.
Anyone who opposed the political correctness movement when it came from the Left ought to be criticizing this new conservative version of it with equal vigor. Instead, many of the same people who insisted (correctly) that the PC movement of the Left was a grave threat to academic freedom and free expression have co-opted those very weapons and, based on the very same premises, are seeking to use them to ban academic faculty from expressing any political opinions with which they disagree.
Conservatives love to play the whiny game. Everyone is against them. Everything is unfair. The media is unfair to them. Professors are unfair to them. Their elected officials play by rules which Democrats don't.
ReplyDeleteThey are perpetual fucking victims. Their whole world-view is based on the idea that life is unfair to conservatives. They don't stop whining.
And unbelievably, the more power they get, the more their control becomes absolute, the more they complain about unfairness, about how their views aren't allowed to be heard.
Good to see they are training these college wingers in the art of whining.
I don't remember any pernicious "left-wing political correctness on college campuses" during the 1980s and 1990s." Anyone here remember what that was supposedly about?
ReplyDeleteI don't remember any pernicious "left-wing political correctness on college campuses" during the 1980s and 1990s." Anyone here remember what that was supposedly about?
ReplyDeleteCollege students were brought up on charges for expressing opinions that were deemed insensitive to various people, including racial minorites, women, immigrants, and gay people.
Speech codes appeared on countless college campuses making it a disciplinary violation to express particular views in any way that was deemed offensive to these same groups.
These disciplinary proceedings and speech codes are matters of historical fact. You can defend them if you want to, but pretending that they never happened, or that you forgot about them, is really a bit silly.
Allow me to refresh your memory:
ReplyDeleteSpeech codes
Speech codes have emerged from this constitutional milieu. They are the most controversial ways in which universities have attempted to strike a balance between expression and community order. Many major universities have introduced these codes to deal especially with so-called hate speech; that is, utterances that have as their object groups and individuals that are identified on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation.
Beginning in the 1980s, a variety of studies, including one by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching titled "Campus Tensions," highlighted instances of racial hatred and harassment directed at racial minorities. Over the past two decades the harassment has grown to include gays and lesbians, women and members of other ethnic groups. On several campuses white students have worn blackface for sorority and fraternity parties. On one campus a flier was distributed that warned: “The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Are Watching You.”
Many campuses responded to such actions by adopting policies that officially banned such expression and made those found guilty of engaging in it susceptible to punishments ranging from reprimands to expulsion. The idea, of course, was to chill the environment for such expression by punishing various forms of speech based on either content or viewpoint. These codes found strong support from some administrators, faculty and students who were convinced that by controlling speech it would be possible to improve the climate for racial and other minorities. The assumption behind the codes was that limiting harassment on campus would spare the would-be victims of hate speech psychological, emotional and even physical damage. The supporters of such codes also argued that they represented good educational policy, insisting that such bans meant that the learning process on campus would not be disrupted and that the concept of rational discourse, as opposed to hate-inspired invective and epithet, would be enshrined. . . .
In 1989, for example, a federal judge in Doe v. The University of Michigan, threw out the university's code because it was overly vague when it proscribed language "that stigmatizes or victimizes an individual.” The guidebook that went along with enforcing the code, the judge found, included a provision that restricted speech that might prompt someone to laugh at a joke about a fellow student in class who stuttered. Such speech would have been protected off campus and, therefore, it could not be excluded on campus, the judge found. Moreover, the same judge found that comments made by a social-work student to the effect that homosexuality was a disease should not have been punished. “[T]he university,” the judge wrote, “considered serious comments in the context of the classroom discussion to be sanctionable under the policy.” As such, the court condemned the university’s policy as vague and potentially without limitation in its impact on members of the academic community.
Please see
ReplyDeletehttp://onthefencefilms.com/video/bw101/
for more substative claims by conservatives. These are not people whining because a prof doesn't like Bush, these are folks facing expulsion because the "pernicious PC left" felt uncomfortable with their conservative views, cried foul and tried to get these folks kicked out of school. Or issued death threats ignored by the administration.
Just because you've pointed out a few right leaning crybabies doesn't mean that conservatives aren't, on occasion, persecuted for those beliefs.
Of course your positions and ideas ought to be challenged. Being forced into defending something helps to either solidify your conviction or point out folly. That doesn't mean that the prof should use his/her position as a bully pulpit. If a physics prof repeatedly stated that he/she didn't like homosexuals and forced known homosexuals to defend homosexuality, there would (rightly) be a hue and cry fom all over academia.
Balanced media? Please. The good folks at UCLA had something to say about that recently.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
Just because you've pointed out a few right leaning crybabies doesn't mean that conservatives aren't, on occasion, persecuted for those beliefs.
ReplyDeleteIndividuals ascribing to every belief system are "on occasion, persecuted for those beliefs." But it doesn't mean that it's some sort of pervasive, systematic problem, let alone one requiring legislation to fix.
I will look at the film clips you linked to, but for now what I will say is that the most prominent of these conservative complaints -- the ones being touted by NR, Weekly Standard, and David Horowitz's group -- are all of the petulant, petty type I described.
That doesn't mean the prof should use his/her position as a bully pulpit.
Why not? Socrates would humiliate his students into stuttering silence if they couldn't defend their viewpoint in the face of questions designed to expose their logical flaws. And many of the best-known conservative and liberal professors stand in front of their class and preach their ideology. College students aren't 12 year-olds and college shouldn't be about making people feel comfortable.
If a physics prof repeatedly stated that he/she didn't like homosexuals and forced known homosexuals to defend homosexuality, there would (rightly) be a hue and cry fom all over academia.
But there are conservative professors who routinely make their opposition to homosexuals known. Harvey Mansfield at Harvard is one, and there are plenty of others. Some professors are more ideological and didactic than others. So what? Do you actually think this problem has become so widespread that we need state legislatures enacting laws to regulate ideology on college campuses?
Balanced media? Please. The good folks at UCLA had something to say about that recently.
Some day, someone will have to explain to me how it is that conservatives have managed to take over all three branches of the government - and so discredit liberalism along the way that every politician outside of Manhattan, Boston and San Francisco, is petrified of even being called a "liberal" -- while, the whole time, the media has been shutting out their message and treating them with grotesque unfairness.
Nice posts, Glenn! Fighting for common sense in the middle.
ReplyDeleteThe role of the Victim has become the most powerful position in our society, regardless of ideology. Everyone is rushing to play the victim.
There's a difference between a fad for campus speech codes and a much more ominous-sounding "left-wing p.c. movement. The former really existed; the latter was a fever dream of the right wing. Whether or not speech codes were a good idea, trying to make campuses more comfortable for women, people of color, and queers was (at least to my mind) an admirable goal. Why vilify it to achieve some kind of spurious balance?
ReplyDelete***I will say is that the most prominent of these conservative complaints -- the ones being touted by NR, Weekly Standard, and David Horowitz's group***
ReplyDeleteI am not really familiar with the works of these folks, so I can't comment. On the few occasions that I do read about suppresion of conservatives it tends to be much more substantial than the "my feelings were hurt because I don't feel loved" kind of affair.
I suppose you have a good point about humiliation. It is a wonderful teacher. Perhaps I've gone a bit soft in my old age. Having said that, were Socrates' students humiliated because their arguments were fallacious, or were they humiliated because Socrates engaged in ad-hominem attacks? There is a gulf of difference between "your idea/theory/argument is bullshit because..." and "You're a stupid, small minded bigot because you're a Republican (Democrat, Gay...) and I don't like Republicans (Democrats, Gays...)."
Feeling humiliated because your ideas were wrong comes from a desire to be correct and intellectually honest. That's a good sort of humiliation. You'll pay more attention to the implications of your ideas and argumants.
Feeling humiliated because some unhinged prof has it out for your particular persuasion is not a good humiliation. Profs ought to know better.
I certainly would not advocate a position of legislative interference in discourse, for a number of reasons. By it's nature, discourse should be free to go where it may. Legislating thoughts is an idea that can be discounted a priori as, well, bad. Finally, I'm fairly certain that our reps have much more pressing matters to deal with than the feelings of college students.
I am surprised to find that there outspoken anti-gays in places like Harvard. As an alumnus of University at Buffalo (once known as the Berkely of the East), I saw very few, if any, outspoken conservative, let alone homophobic, faculty or students.
There's a difference between a fad for campus speech codes and a much more ominous-sounding "left-wing p.c. movement. The former really existed; the latter was a fever dream of the right wing.
ReplyDeleteOn an enormous number of campuses around the country, including the country's most influential, students (and professors) were being disciplined for expressing forbidden views.
It was an epidemic in academia, not just a few isolated excesses here and there, and it is simply a fact that it came from campus leftists. The term "movement" is more than accurate.
I don't think anyone does themselves or their side any favors by minimizing or denying past abuses and excesses. It seems much better to acknowledge them and ensure they don't re-occur.
As for this:
trying to make campuses more comfortable for women, people of color, and queers was (at least to my mind) an admirable goal
I couldn't disagree more. Making excuses to justify rank infringements of people's rights is exactly what the Bush Administration does now ("we may have violated the law but we were doing it to protect you from Al Qaeda, which is an "admirable goal"), and it's no more noble when coming from the Left. Trying to discipline college students and faculty in order to create a dissent-free environment was odious and wrong, regardless of what the claimed motives were.
It's not about creating a "spurious balance." If you are a person who is willing to defend and excuse whatever it is that "your side" does no matter how wrong and harmful, then you will have a hard time explaining what distinguishes you from "the other side."
Listening to conservative students whine about their plight all because their professors disagree with their views is quite annoying. But the effort by these students and their sponsoring victim groups to start recruiting lawmakers to their cause, with threats of regulating ideological expression on college campuses, is far more than just annoying.
ReplyDeleteNowadays many students can't have their work considered "original" until it is "registered" through their department heads. What is a student supposed to do when he discovers that the reason why he can't get his/her graduate degree is that her profs have decided she doesn't "need" it as much as themselves or students from other backgrounds/opinions and divide up products of the victim's work accordingly? And the U.'s Administration backs up the profs on "academic freedom" grounds? And the decision-making is all done orally, so no paper trail of decision-making even exists?
Now you know why conservative students whine and demand help.
It's a sad commentary on current higher education when the whining of the moment would supplant the wisdom of the ages. The whisper of truth emerges from the cacaphony of many voices.
ReplyDeleteWhat a pathetic state state colleges must be in when a student doesn't have the courage to confront a professor with her own voice rather than going to her big brother the law, man. Or is that the law man?
The hyenas again bark in the night.
"I couldn't disagree more. Making excuses to justify rank infringements of people's rights is exactly what the Bush Administration does now..."
ReplyDeleteA case can be made that, say, gays subjected to intimidation (by those expressing their freedom of expression) had their rights suppressed.No simple response to the "PC" fad is reasonable.
And, the phrase "exactly what the Bush Admin does now" represents a poor type of argument.
When a physics professor spends most or even half his time talking about politics then he is taking a paycheck for performing a service that he is NOT performing.
ReplyDeleteScams and frauds upon the State's expenditure of funds is always an appropriate function of legislators. If you hire a contractor to build a bridge and he only builds half a bridge and then spends the rest of the money you pay him on building his own personal shrine to the great thinkers of the world, taxpayers have every right to complain to their legislators about this fraudulent and possibly criminal diversion of state taxpayer money.
I say that in addition to the state legislators looking into this fraud and waste of taxpayer money by this physics professor who doesn't teach physics, that the local county attorney for the county in which this criminal fraud is being perpetrated should convene a grand jury to look into this possible criminal behavior. Further, a civil lawsuit could be brought against this teacher who takes pay to teach physics but doesn't teach physics for return of his illgotten gains.
Gary
I say that in addition to the state legislators looking into this fraud and waste of taxpayer money by this physics professor who doesn't teach physics, that the local county attorney for the county in which this criminal fraud is being perpetrated should convene a grand jury to look into this possible criminal behavior.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't work. Students - especially graduate students - generally sign, at some point in their registration process, some sort of statement saying that just because they are enrolled in a course doesn't guarantee that they will learn from it. For students to sue a university thus is generally an unprofitable matter: The U. can defend the prof on "academic freedom" grounds and may have essentially unlimited pro bono resources, the student's lawyer insists on cash, and even if the student wins, can he or she get her career back? The student will never get a prof's recommendation, save a citation that the student is a troublemaker.
Solomon2,
ReplyDeleteIt would depend on the wording of this "contract" provision you cite whether it provides that the student agrees he may not learn physics in a physics course versus the student agrees to waive any right of complaint if the student pays for a physics course but the professor shows up and teaches politics not physics.
It seems to be there are two breaches of contract here. One, the teacher is taking pay to teach physics but isn't performing that service (this issued is simply NOT covered by vague arguments of Academic Freedom). The teacher is not performing the work for which he is being paid and is in breech of his contract with the University as a result. The second contract that is or may be breached is the contract between the student and the University. In that contract the student agrees to pay tuition to be taught physics and the school agrees to teach physics. In this case however the school does not honor its contractual obligation and does not provide the student the physics teaching for which the student has paid.
You may be right about the practical effects of litigation expenses and pro bono lawyers. The student may be able to get pro bono lawyers as well, however, and the prevailing party might be entitled to attorneys fees being awarded against the losing party.
I don't disagree with you statements that the people at the university who tolerate this kind of fraud on state expenditures (i.e. paying for services not being provided) are also likely to retaliate against a student seeking to require the school to honor its contracts and protect taxpayer's from the fraud committed by the professor and possibly the school itself by attempting to run his career and employment prospects for the rest of his/her life.
There is nothing more vindictive than a lefty scorned, and the really despise it when students seek to enforce their contract rights and commit the gravest of all sins by speaking non-approved thoughts out loud.
The bottom line is that I see little difference between a professor who is paid to teach physics and never shows in class and never performs the services for which he accepts payment and a professor who shows up but doesn't teach physics. Both are accepting pay while NOT performing the services for which they are being paid. Both are equally guilty of breach of contract and fraud on the taxpayers of the state.
Gary
In the few cases I am aware of, the second contract is the issue - that's the case covered by the exclusion clause at registration. (The profs have arrangements essentially exempting them from administrative review of academic conduct; although not hidden, students may not grasp this.) I am not aware of any pro bono lawyers available to defend students in these matters.
ReplyDeleteSolomon2, unless that provision excludes review for complete failure to perform, then I don't think it applies. I really doubt a professor could take the state's tax dollars and then never show up to teach. I see no difference between this and a professor who contracts to teach physics but shows up to teach politics. This is just not what's covered by the exclusion to which you are referring.
ReplyDeleteI am assuming this exclusion exists in the instant case, which may or not be the case.
Regarding pro bono lawyers for students. I'm sure there are taxpayer watchdog groups and corruption groups some of which might take up the cause when presented to them as I have done. Its fraud on the taxpayers pure and simple. Horowitz's group might find some as well.
Hell I might even take it.
Gary
unless that provision excludes review for complete failure to perform, then I don't think it applies.
ReplyDeleteThe proviso is that the academic in question is his own professor (or that of the company who sponsored him) and is not a professor of the university. So profs may teach courses and even guide grad students but are not necessarily directly on the U. payroll, yet exist contract-to-contract. The prof may be cited in the course listings but not necessarily as department faculty. Unless students inquire - and it would be an odd line of inquiry, right? - they won't know the difference.
In practice, the U. will either discourage the student from taking action or else defend the prof against almost all charges, waiving any action at the highest levels, possibly because such profs bring net funds into the university. Just to make doubly sure of matters, student grievance procedures may be modified or, for grad students, eliminated entirely. Then the student really can only appeal to the U. President or Board of Trustees. The addition of an image-conscious politician to the Board usually is proof against matters going any further.
This system isn't something arbitrary but has been deliberately created and spread by U. legal departments over the past few decades, to reduce their liability. There doesn't seem to be any chinks in the armor.
There is a contract created between the University and the Student. When the student enrolls in a physics course the University is promising to provide qualified instruction in physics. If the student pays for physics instruction and the University doesn't provide physics instruction, it will not be a defense for the University to claim that the Professor they hired is an independent contractor.
ReplyDeleteAre you seriously trying to claim that if 30 students sign up for and pay tuition for a physics course and the intructor never shows up for a single day of class or makes a single assignment or offers a single word about physics that those students would not have a viable cause of action against the university for its failure to perform its contractual obligations. There is no way that is the law.
I see little difference between the above analogy and one where the professor shows up to class but only talks about and gives what might loosely be called instruction in Politics NOT physics. The university is still in breach of its contract with the Students.
I don't think a jury of average people would have any trouble figuring out if the University performed under its actual or implied contract obligations.
Gary
Are you seriously trying to claim that if 30 students sign up for and pay tuition for a physics course and the intructor never shows up for a single day of class
ReplyDeleteWe're not talking about attendance here. At the grad level or advanced undergrad level classes can be quite small, even one-on-one. If the prof treats five students well but only one badly, why can't he get away with it? So all five are, in effect, muzzled.
And yes, I'm quite sure that a "jury of average people" would have trouble figuring things out; the U. and prof will try to complicate matters as much as possible. Which means the prof and U. have the benefit of the doubt. Which rules out anything but a civil action that relies on preponderance of evidence. If the student has been abused, or has been sick, or his previous advisor dropped dead, it is rather easy to create a negative paper trail. The student may have little to show for his exertions; lab books may have his handwriting but only the signatures of his advisor, for example. Some important papers may not even be in the student's possession and have to be wrested out of U. or dept. or prof records.
The best indication that something really screwy happened is the absence of evidence that the prof or U. did things he was supposed to do. In one case, it was sufficient for the dept. head to plead premature senility to surmount this issue!
Solomon2,
ReplyDeleteI'm not really disputing your last post, but your last post didn't respond really at all to the material in my post. I gave some hypotheticals that weren't about attendance but that's how you characterized them, and I'm clearly not talking about some special 1 on 1 or 1 on 5 grad course. I'm thinking in terms of the normal undergrad course with 60 to 300 students. I'm not talking about any specific student of that number in my post either.
I'm just trying to show that certain lines can easily be drawn to determine whether a professor as met his contractual obligations to teach a course. Certainly if he never shows up to teach everyone could agree he breached the contract and took money under false or fraudulent circumstances. You can work your way down from there but certainly there is a bright line that can be drawn somewhere about how much the professor can fail to perform and everyone agreeing that the professor breached his contract.
In terms of the practical litigation aspects of your post about a University Litigant and Professor falsifying records and evidence, destroying evidence, failing to produce requested evidence, and otherwise engaging in obstruction of the legal process, you are correct that could easily happen (all while those same people decry how unethical Bush is no doubt). There is nothing new about this kind of obstuction however. Plaintiff's lawyers suing hospitals and doctors encounter this kind of thing all the time. Doesn't stop them from winning now and then however.
Gary