AJC.com > Blogs > Get Schooled > Archives > 2007 > March > 13 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USCampus Politics: Show Your ‘Diversity’
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
A little-noticed bill in the Georgia General Assembly would require each public college and university to annually report on the state of “intellectual diversity” on campus. Honestly, when I first read the title — “Intellectual Diversity in Higher Education” — I wondered if this was some way of getting more low-SAT scoring pupils into college.
But apparently intellectual diversity has nothing to do with a student’s intellect. Instead, the term refers to a school’s political atmosphere.
“Teachers should not take unfair advantage of the immaturity of students by indoctrinating them with their own opinions before the students have had an opportunity to examine other opinions,” the bill states. “… Surveys revealing ideological imbalance in the classroom, evidence of politicization, and public concern over this issue continue to mount.”
Now, even though the bill is co-sponsored by the Republican chairman of the House Higher Education Committee, it hasn’t moved since it was introduced two months ago. Still, some professors are concerned about the suspicion such a policy could foster.
“Have we lost the respect our society once had for both students and teachers, when parents sent their children to college to gain knowledge that they themselves could not provide them, from scholars who had devoted their lives to research and instruction?” Betty Jean Craige, a literature professor from the University of Georgia, asked in an guest editorial last month. “Have we arrived at a moment when students no longer feel fortunate to interact with faculty willing to share their views in the classroom? Does the promotion of ‘intellectual diversity’ mean that all ideas are of equal value?”
Pretty deep stuff. But I’m sure you’ll have plenty — or, should I say, a diversity — of responses.
Comments
By Jeff
March 13, 2007 8:34 AM | Link to this
OK, so KSU wasn’t as poltically polarized as say Georgia State (the only other college I’ve ever attended, and the only one that I can thus share my personal experiences with), and it CERTAINLY wasn’t as polarized as Emory (done several functions there, but never took a class).
That said, this bill truly is needed. Even at Kennesaw, there were certain classes - mainly in Humanities and Education - that a conservative didn’t stand a CHANCE in if he voiced his opinions. I should know. As y’all know, I’m conservative and not exactly quiet! For example, I took a Scriptural Literature class. Public university, I wasn’t expecting a Sunday School atmosphere. Neither was I expecting a class where the required text was written by Dominic Crossan, a member of the anti-Bible Jesus Society. I did my OWN reserach that semester and found out that the saying the Society is neutral is like saying that a rock verbally spoke to you. I also presented my evidence to my professor, who summarily dismissed it saying I wasn’t being “objective”. In actuality, I was the only “objective” person in the class!
THAT is why this bill needs to become law. To prevent EITHER SIDE from indoctrination on our college campuses. To promote a TRUE “market place of ideas”. Not where one side holds a monopoly that Bill Gates would envy. But alas, too many (both liberal and neo-con) truly do fear such a concept.
Because truth really does have a nasty habit. When all ideas are equal, the truth will show itself.
And the truth isn’t always politically popular, and certainly is RARELY politically correct.
By jim d
March 13, 2007 8:41 AM | Link to this
Politics my foot!!
This bill has nothing to do with poli-sci. This bill is merely an attack on science as it is taught in our universities that is being introduced and supported by the right wingers that want to abolish the teaching of Darwins evolutionary theory.
END OF DISCUSSION
By WFC
March 13, 2007 8:51 AM | Link to this
Wow! “Intellectual diversity” This sounds great on the surface and maybe it is. However, I’m wondering if this is just another phase of the “culture wars” as Bill O’Reilly puts it.
Times have changed. When I came through school in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, teachers were not significantly more “liberal” in outlook than the general population. Today, they are. Maybe this call for intellectual diversity reports is an attempt to prevent “liberal” indoctrination of children. I’m against any type of indoctrination… the free exchange of ideas is my idea of real education. I’m a “social liberal” and “economic conservative” myself. I feel that it is very important that students know “where their teachers are coming from.” I believe that it is equally important that teachers are intellectually honest enough to present all points of view.
If I weren’t already retired after thirty years in “the knowledge mines” (as my 10th grade son calls school), I would cringe at the thought of some bureaucrat evaluating my classroom for “intellectual diversity.” Sounds like a “commisar” approach to me!
By KA
March 13, 2007 8:56 AM | Link to this
Why does there have to be a law? Why don’t the institutions police their faculty to maintain personal neutrality while presenting a balance of views, and not grading against students who disgree with them? My son experienced problems in his public speacking class when he took a conservative position on a hot button topic, and the professor graded him on his position, not his delivery, and told him so! I told my son to wise up and give the guy what he wanted on the next speech, which was good for my son to take an opposite view of the one he usually holds. If you have prepared your children to think critically before they go to college, then these challenges by profs should only spur them to research, read and refine their own views more. That’s why they are there, to be challenged, not just to sing in harmony with the faculty. I had a prof in grad school who told lies during his lectures just to see who had read the material and who hadn’t. It was hilarious.
By KA
March 13, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this
Indoctrination itself is not the problem, it’s the grading bias that profs have according to their viewpoints. Grading practices are part of the university policy and subject to review by Department chairs and committees. Students should challenge the universities to police themselves, and not rely on lawmakers to help them. Where is the fire in the college kids today?
By jim d
March 13, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this
JMHO,
When we revoke academic freedom from college professors all that will be left is dogma.
By KA
March 13, 2007 9:24 AM | Link to this
And another thing! Our culture babies our kids way beyond the time they should be taking responsiblity for their thoughts and actions, except that we think that 18 year olds are mature enough to send to war. Which is it? College students are only as immature as we allow them to be. Parents need to prepare their kids for the challenges to their beliefs, values, and yes, political ideas, BEFORE they go to college. IMO liberal profs are performing a service, presenting opposing views to those who have never been challenged to think differently. I don’t think they should grade the conservative students down because of their views, but as I said before, the students need to stand up for themselves, not waiting for government to help them out.
By Jeff
March 13, 2007 9:25 AM | Link to this
KA:
I’m with ya there about contrary ideas spurring you to your own research. I credit that ScripLit class with my own immersion into apologetics, which coupled with my own above average analytical skills got to be kinda cool. (Back in the day, right about the time I was going hard core EDUC, I could either outright disprove much of what was being falsely said about the Bible and faith, or I had the resources to quickly do research and find out how.)
My position is simple: If you say you are “objective”, BE objective! I would MUCH rather have a person with a contrary ideology be open about it rather than hide behind “diversity” and “tolerance” - which are both GROSS inaccuracies, since “diversity” is NOT diverse and “tolerance” is NOT tolerant, at least as practiced by 98% of the liberals that claim to espouse them.
By Jeff
March 13, 2007 9:35 AM | Link to this
KA:
Ah, but if the parents themselves are liberal, and the college professors are as well, has the student ever been challenged? This is what they see in Cali, Mass, and other liberal bastions. I agree that coming from protective conservative parents into a liberal classroom can spur you to growth. But if you come from a protective liberal parent into a liberal classroom, you get the sense that your liberal indoctrinated ideas are CORRECT, without EVER thinking critically about them….
By KA
March 13, 2007 9:36 AM | Link to this
Jeff, Thanks for proving my point. Regarding objectivity, it’s a matter of one’s perception whether a position is objective or not. We all have our own objective (ahem…subjective) views. Just look at us in this blog!
By Janine
March 13, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this
Teachers should not take unfair advantage of the immaturity of students by indoctrinating them with their own opinions before the students have had an opportunity to examine other opinions,”…Indoctrinating??? Let’s see, was I being indoctrinated by my wonderful lit professor whose high opinion of, and reading of Chaucer in Middle English mesmerized me ??? Such rubbish comes out of our Ga Gen Assembly, doesn’t it? I paid a very expensive tuition to have professors present/share their knowledge, experience, and yes, even opinions about art, literature, economics, history,languages,philosphy, psychology with me. I hated those classes in which students were assigned to research topics to present what they found to the class …in those classes I felt cheated.[in my experience, those were only in the Education area].
By Janine
March 13, 2007 9:46 AM | Link to this
Jeff…Objectivity can be discussed, but as KA pointed out…does not exist.. except in the mind of the one claiming to be objective.
By Jeff
March 13, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this
KA:
Objective: (definition 3a on webster.com): expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
Follow the FACTS, and the FACTS only. Professors should present the FACTS, and the FACTS only. Let the chips fall where they may. Subjective comments do not belong in the classroom AT ANY LEVEL.
By KA
March 13, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this
Jeff, It’s common knowledge that most college campuses are liberal leaning these days, but there are many conservative schools, too. You can pick your poison, reinforcement of your views (liberal or conservative) or a challenge. Unlike public schools, college kids have free choice in choosing their instituiton of higher learning. The liberals that choose to get liberal reinforcement are no different than the conservatives who choose to get their own conservative reinforcement. Neither view is wrong, just different! Either way, I certainly don’t want a homogenous society, whether it’s liberal or conservative. I like the give and take that each side has to do to meet in the middle and get something accomplished. The spirited debate is what drives the learning, not the recitation of facts.
By Jeff
March 13, 2007 9:55 AM | Link to this
Sorry y’all, the mathematician/ programmer/ AS is coming out. I’m a FIRM believer in objective proof. If you can’t prove it, or at least disprove its opposite, or at a BARE minimum make a compelling case as to why it is true, it does NOT belong in the classroom.
By Janine
March 13, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this
Jeff..the definition …as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations!
Perception IS distorted because by definition it is..”….the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.” All is colored by one’s perception and one’s perception is distorted by one’s own sensory experience.
By KA
March 13, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this
Jeff, thanks again for proving my point! Your definition of Objective includes as perceived which is what I said; your objectivity is a matter of your perception. I must disagree with you because subjective comments are a necessary part of any class where facts, ideas and philosophies are debated! If students are not challenged in their perceptions then they are not really thinking.
By JustMe
March 13, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this
What a complete was of time and money for our politicans to worry about such nonsense!
Are they saying that college age students are immature? Are they saying that college age students don’t have their own opinions? Are they saying that college age students are so very malluable that they can be THAT swayed by some one else?
Hey politicans - try to solve the true ills of our society such as hunger, homelessness, etc. before worrying about such nonsense….
By WFC
March 13, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this
Jeff… one person’s “facts” are another person’s “opinions.” Teachers are duty bound to present as many ideas as possible and let the discussion chips fall where they will.
By KA
March 13, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this
Janine, thanks! And Jeff, indoctrination just means teaching, and how YOU perceive that teaching, either as reinforcement of your views or as a challenge is the issue here.
By Janine
March 13, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this
I was surely guilty of indoctrinating some of my students by sharing my opinions. Whenever we read poetry or literature we always discussed the message of the author …agreed or disagreed about not only what the message was but whether we concurred. WE discussed lifestyles, values, etc. and since my classes were always filled with students from many countries [sometimes as many as 12 in one class] with many religious,cultural, and economic backgrounds, my objectivity and FACTS was always colored by my own and rarely sounded Objective to them.
By Jeff
March 13, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this
as I preveiously stated, my criteria for whether anything is allowed in the classroom:
(from best to worst): 1. Prove it. 2. Disprove its opposite. 3. Make a compelling, logical argument as to why you are correct.
If none of those three happen, a teacher AT ANY LEVEL should NOT present it to the class.
By Lisa B.
March 13, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this
I don’t think we need a law to handle the situation. As KA said, let the universities police themselves. I frankly resent laws and government intrusion into every aspect of life!
By jim d
March 13, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this
KA,
You asked:“Where is the fire in the college kids today?”
I’m afraid many of us (self included) have bought into the concept that college is for the masses.
When academics created various educational systems long ago in ancient Greece and China, they did not design these centers of learning for the masses. Rather, they were made for the elite: the well-endowed, prosperous citizen. These places were conceived with the ideas of wisdom and enlightenment in mind.
The romantic notion of learning for the sake of increasing one’s understanding is no longer practiced. This is mainly due to the mass production methods now being applied to higher learning.
IMHO, the only training that should take place in our universities should be future researchers and scholars. Trades like accounting, business, marketing, nursing, and yes even teaching should be left to trade schools.
By KA
March 13, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this
Jeff, You come from a math background, so certainly you will agree that not all mathematical facts or proofs have been proven to hold in all cases. Aren’t there proofs out there waiting to be proved or disproved? I saw astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/ on C-SPAN over the weekend, discussing his most recent book, Death by Black Hole and he had some interesting things to say about Sir Isaac Newton and his mathematical genius that defined so much in our world, except that his formulas showing the rotation of the planets could not explain how our solar system maintained stability in the face of the little gravitational bumps the planets gave each other in their movements around the sun. But the authors of Pricipia mathematica solved that problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica
The FACTS in mathematics have always been hotly debated. It’s all a matter of proof as you say, but as soon as you put up your proof, then someone else is there to disprove it or expand on it, or propose a new proof from a different point of view.
Objectivity, like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder. Your frame of reference and experience color your perceptions and define your objectivity.
By JP
March 13, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this
I am so embarrassed to be a Georgian when things like this, stickering text books, banning Harry Potter and the Kabbalstic joke. This state is sorely in need of some education.
By jim d
March 13, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this
So Jeff,
Are you saying you don’t believe it’s a teachers duty to force a student to think independently? To question the norms?
Whoa dude, I guess if that were to have happened we’d never have made many of the medical advancements that are saving millions of lives every day. Indeed we’d still be reading by fire light, scrounging for food, and communicating with grunts.
By Jeff
March 13, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this
KA:
I also didn’t teach those areas that I knew had holes. I taught procedure and logical thinking. The level of math you speak of is LATE bachelor’s degree and higher level. But even then, you will see the math profs pointing out the holes and inconsistencies - heck, we’re pretty fanatical about it! (An example: MOST people see a line and would call it a mathematical function. A math person wants to see the equation that defines that line to make sure there are no holes or bumps in order to prove that it is in fact a function.) The same cannot be said about, say, political science courses where the professor will have a clear ideological slant in one direction or the other, yet continue talking as if his viewpoint is the ONLY one.
By KA
March 13, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this
Jeff, So are you saying that college kids are too immature and unable to recognize and challenge that prof who is only teach one viewpoint? Sorry, you are so wrong! I have 3 college kids who know what is presented to them, and who challenge every idea, mine included. That’s learning in action.
By Jeff
March 13, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this
jim:
I’m saying teachers should be the very EPITOME of objectivity. If a students wants to be subjective, fine. That is his/ her prerogative. The TEACHER’s job is to present the material in an objective manner, and to moderate any discussion in an objective manner. Too many students take a teacher’s viewpoint as validation of their own (if they agree) or simply as fact (if they don’t know better).
By jim d
March 13, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this
“I also didn’t teach those areas that I knew had holes. I taught procedure and logical thinking.”
Now there’s the kind of thinking that would keep our feet planted right here on earth.
By jim d
March 13, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this
KA,
Kind of sounds like Jeff thinks an 18 year old is mature enough to die for the country but too immature to question why.
By jim d
March 13, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this
Oh Dear.
Jeff,
At what point does a student assume responsibillity and maturity to think independently? To question the norms? and begin to form their own opinons?
By Jeff
March 13, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this
KA:
I’m saying I know how it feels to be the ONLY conservative in class full - including the professor - of liberals. And trust me, it takes a STRONG person to withstand that kind of onslaught.
By JustMe
March 13, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this
A question for the bloggers….
If you think that college campuses today are more liberal, are you also saying that conservatives are not capable of becoming professors?
Think about it!
By Jeff
March 13, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this
jim:
When a conservative asks questions in a liberal classroom, he gets mocked, ridiculed, told his ideas are worthless, and basically told to shut the f up. If a liberal asks questions in a conservative classroom, they are simply given objective facts and told to look at them objectively. Yet the liberal student will not, and will claim that the class is “backward” and they (the student) is “progressive” and doesn’t need to look at the facts.
That double standard is why we need ideological diversity, why teachers MUST be objective, and indeed is the basis of every comment I’ve made today.
Think it doesn’t happen? I’ve witnessed it and EXPERIENCED it.
By Jeff
March 13, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this
JustMe:
I would claim that the very hiring process of most colleges in regards to professors is EXTREMELY inhibitive of ideological diversity, and I’ve WITNESSED it at Kennesaw, so I have a decent idea of what I’m talking about. (Though I will admit that the department I witnessed in is pretty decent as far as religious/ poltical ideological diversity goes… it is when you start talking about content specific areas that they can be very picky…)
By jim d
March 13, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this
Just me,
indeed they are. The problem though is that they are teaching route memorization of the same old tired subjects and not challenging students to think independently, questioning what they have been presented. Again this is due to mass higher education being offered.
Even Jeff must admit, at this rate the Holy grails of math: the Poincaré conjecture, and the Riemann hypothesis, will never be resolved. Because students aren’t being taught to question the accepted norms of mathamatical theory.
By SET
March 13, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this
Next thing the legislature will be telling physicians what incisions to use when performing surgery.
While it’s true that Colleges now are generally infested with Marxists - and have been for some time - the solution to problems like this is to remove tenure completely. Along the way you force the Administration of both secondary and college institutions to actually run the place. If there are problems you replace administration publicly and suddenly.
The (only?) way you get a bureauracy to be responsive is to quickly fire people along the chain of command whenever you have a scandal or big upset. You get fewer scandals this way.
Walter Reed Hospital is an interesting example, except that the firings haven’t gone high enough yet. Trying to Micromanage from the legislature - be it the state legislature or the schools board - never works well.
One more thing. Marxists and their ilk do not live in the real world and can be easily disposed of when opposed by ruthless pragmatists. Sunlight is a good disinfectant. Left wing loonies wither when publicly exposed and confronted because their dogma is fundamentally irrational. And if you think I’m biased, the same holds true for the religious loonies. None of them can operate with transparency.
Extremists on both side (who have more in common than they like to admit) run on “faith” and can’t survive free public discourse and fact checking. They both always suppress these things. In any open debate they will become hysterical and try to resort to violence.
By jim d
March 13, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this
Jeff,
Are we talking political philosohy? religion or mathamatics here?
1) political philosohy: politics are all the same these days.
2) religion: as you said proof before bringing something into a classroom.
3) mathamatics: Poincaré conjecture, and the Riemann hypothesis
By JustMe
March 13, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this
Are these the same republican politicans that believe in LESS government? They want their noses in everything - colleges, bedrooms, liquor sales, and on and on and on.
Vote democratic!!!
By V for Vendetta
March 13, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this
Usually I read all the posts before I respond, but I just skipped down to the end …
This bill is a big pile of A$$. What a ridiculous concept. I really don’t care what anyone around me thinks, says, or does, I do my own thing. Always have, always will. If you are so weak minded that you need other people to tell you what to think then I have a place for you … It’s called church. Ooops, sorry, did I just say that out loud?
I’m being serious, how are profs sharing their political or world views any different from preachers or ministers sharing their faith with willing participants. How many young children are enveloped in the folds of organzied religion because they know no better. They’re never even given a choice.
This does not sit well with me at all and it only serves as further proof that we are swiftly moving in the direction of a theocracy. Let ignorance and blind faith reign supreme!
By jim d
March 13, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this
just me,
Dems? Reps? there is no difference today. If you just want less government, Vote Libertarian.
By jim d
March 13, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this
Yo V,
AMEN :-)
By Janine
March 13, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this
Yo, jimd…Amen to Libertarian!!!
By catlady
March 13, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this
Guess what? Professors and other students in college challenge you to think outside your narrow little world and your absolute black and white vision. That is one reason why folks go to college: to learn to think in other ways and see other viewpoints besides their parents’. If you don’t like the heat, stay out of the kitchen! If you want to learn to think, to learn to see more than one narrow viewpoint, go to college. If not, stay home and let your parents tell you what you believe. Unexamined views are not yours—they are ones you have borrowed from other people. To make them your own, you need to see the other side, be able to articulate it and argue for it. Then, you can decide what is YOUR stand.
By JustMe
March 13, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this
jim d-
No thanks. I will not throw away my vote to a very distant 3rd party candidate.
By catlady
March 13, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this
And who says all profs are liberal? My daughter went to college with a lot of very conservative profs. She benefited greatly by listening to them and then THOUGHTFULLY EXAMINING WHAT SHE THOUGHT WERE HER BELIEFS (what she had heard in our home). If you child is an idiot, keep them home and tell them what to believe. But, if your point of view is valid, they will be able to see it and OWN it if they learn to listen and argue for the other side. Don’t be afraid; if you are, it means you either doubt your child’s intelligence or you doubt that your viewpoint will hold up under critical examination. Which is it? College is not rote memorization, it is actually about thinking critically.
By Janine
March 13, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this
Agree, catlady. As I said above, I paid big tuition to get the benfit of professors’ experience, knowledge, and OPINIONS…to add to those which I had been taught…grown up with. Exposure, thinking, reflection, examination, and in the end, one comes to one’s own conclusions.
By jim d
March 13, 2007 1:08 PM | Link to this
just me,
then you get what you desrve—what you do vote for.
By V for Vendetta
March 13, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this
LOL, Jeff, I don’t usually single people out, but your comment about how the liberal profs and the conservative profs answer questions cracked me up.
But not in a good way …
The conservative prof answers questions OBJECTIVELY? With no moral superiority right? With no devotion to the tenets of religion right? With no slant towards the exclusion of people that don’t think the same way he does?
I’m not saying that the liberals are any better, I’m simply saying that the fact we are all having this discussion shows how weak minded so many people are. Most professors tend to paint their lessons in some kind of slanted viewpoint. The information contained within is sound and based on years and years of research and study. If you can’t extract the truth from the opinion, well, then maybe you don’t need to be in college to begin with. If you can’t make your own conclusions about the world and the people in it, well, then maybe you don’t need to exist within it.
Intolerance to other people’s views, ideas, and lifestyles is one of the most ignorant and mentally pathetic sides to take.
By Jeff
March 13, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this
V:
Ah, but what do you say about the prof that grades based on his/ her slant? For example (and this happened to both me and several friends of mine): Take a Sociology class. 99% liberal, most of the time, even at Kennesaw. MY prof in that class was GREAT (I even presented for her at the GA Socioliogical Association that semester), even though she had a clear liberal bent. HOWEVER, I had friends in a different section with a different prof that if students DARED disagree with him, he failed them. Even said so in front of the entire class. This same man claims to support “diversity” and “tolerance”. Go figure.
By jim d
March 13, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this
Jeff,
This prof sounds pretty diverse and tolerant to me. As long as you agree.
I think the point that has been made time and again today is that we just don’t need another stinking, uninforcable law that everyone ignores and carries no penalties. What we need is merely common sense by professors and college admin. When we start making ignorance illegal we’re all in a world of hurt.
By jim d
March 13, 2007 2:18 PM | Link to this
one further note jeff,
A professor that requires you to agree may well cause you to research even further to argue his side—thus providing one with an even stronger conviction that he’s wrong.
Think about it!
By Jeff
March 13, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this
jim:
I could agree that an unenforceable and penalty less law is not the way to go. I am simply trying to make the point that SOMETHING needs to be done.
BTW: Check out Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado’s “General Welfare” speech of Sept 27, 2005… This dude is a Republican presidential candidate….
By Jeff
March 13, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this
jim:
You’re missing the point. We are talking about intellectual DIVERSITY. How can a professor who claims to support “diversity” force students in his class to conform to his world view? Not very “diverse”, is it? He actually is being a hypocrite, isn’t he?
Oh, that’s right, we’re not supposed to point out the hypocrisy of liberals. How un-pc of me!
By Charles
March 13, 2007 2:28 PM | Link to this
We should have seen it coming. I attended a University about thirty years ago. The experience was an immediate shock to my system. In one class, we would have philosophical discussions and far too many individuals made no sense at all. It’s one thing to present an argument and have people to differ. It’s entirely a new phenomenon for individuals to present an argument and no one can differ or concur because no one understands the premise. Well, one can always differ and concur having ulterior motives. Most of the professors seemed to be competent during that period. Intellectual diversity and integration were in their infancy.
During a break, frustration caused me to confront an individual. I said, what are you here for? The young woman responded, I am here to further my education. I didn’t respond but tried to make sense of what was happening. What in the world are these white people going to do with these kind of people? The answer is that they would use them in the future, today, to bedevil the public Universities and the African American community. Shear ignorance clothed with the mask of education influencing public Universities and the masses. Thanks a lot for Intellectual diversity, integration, and diversity.
DR. Frances Cress Welsing, Author of The Isis Papers and creator of the Cress-Welsing theory analyzing the nature of white supremacy, usually preface every lecture by saying, I am the offspring of generations of doctors. My great grandfather was a doctor. My grandfather was a doctor. My father was a doctor.
She too must be aware of intellectual diversity and integration being problematic. Obviously, no intellectual diversity or integration determined her destiny. History shows that she would have become a competent doctor, MD or Ph.D., with the highest integrity had there been no intellectual diversity, integration, or civil rights movement.
By high school teacher
March 13, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this
I told my son to wise up and give the guy what he wanted on the next speech, which was good for my son to take an opposite view of the one he usually holds.
KA, that’s just part of the college game, isn’t it? My Early American History professor failed me on a paper because I made a link between the trials of slaves to that of the Native Americans (did I mention he was British?). He said I was wrong. So what did I do? I got the first C of my life in a class, and I learned to give the professor what he wanted.
I went to UGA, which of course has a reputation for being very liberal, and I learned quickly when I could share my views and when to keep my mouth shut. It’s part of the game of college. I received a great education (I was an English ed major), and learned some life lessons as well.
Jim D, you are right in that we have made college nothing more than a means to an end. Learning for the sake of learning is a thing of the past.
By Jeff
March 13, 2007 2:56 PM | Link to this
Interesting reading
If the link didn’t work, check out Rep. Tancredo’s speech to the House on Feb 01, 2005. It is on page H276 of the Congressional Record for that session.
Some relevant quotes: Regarding the Ward Churchill situation (dean at Colorado State that said the 9/11 victims deserved to die): “A lot of people in the State of Colorado have called for him to resign; others have called for the University of Colorado to dismiss him. Of course, that is not going to happen. We know no university today would dismiss someone for saying something so incredibly ludicrous or outrageous. And if they did, of course, he would sue. He would go to court and claim that he has a right to say what he has said because he is exercising his first amendment rights. And then they would talk about the fact that he has tenure and he is protected under that situation.
And in a way, I agree. In a way, I think it is right. In fact, I have chosen not to join the chorus of those people who are demanding that he be removed. I think what Mr. Churchill offers to us is a great example of what we on the conservative side of the aisle here and the conservative side of American politics have been talking about for a long time as a problem in our university system, in the halls of academe in general. They have been taken over by the loony left.
Mr. Churchill is a perfect example of the loony left. He is perhaps the looniest of the loony left and so, therefore, I want him to continue to speak out. I like listening to him. I hate what he has to say, but I like the fact that people are seeing and judging for themselves what is happening in our institutions of higher education, because he is an example. He is an example not just of what is happening at the University of Colorado or even in the major institutions in the United States. He is an example of a philosophy that permeates those halls of academe. It is a hatred of America, down deep, a hatred for everything we are and everything we stand for that he exemplifies.”
“There is in the country, and throughout the world of course, but certainly in the United States there is something I refer to as the cult of multiculturalism. This is exemplified by people like Mr. Churchill, who really and truly despise America down deep. They despise who we are. They would like to see a different America entirely, one that is not bound to any of the ideas or ideals upon which this country was founded. Why? Because those ideas and ideals were an expression of Western civilization.
If in fact Western civilization was the underpinning or was the foundation of who and what we are and if that civilization was based upon a set of ideas put down on parchment originally, paper eventually, about the nature of man and his relationship to government and his relationship to his God, that if those things were done by white males, at some point back all the way to the Greeks, then there is something bad about it. There has to be something we can take issue with.
Columbus, as I saw one time in a history textbook in a charter school in my district, as I was waiting for the classes to change, I picked up this ninth grade textbook, and thumbing through it I got to the chapter on the Founding of America, and it started out with the following sentence. And this was a declarative sentence. It was not a quote, it was not in italics, it was not a person’s opinion, it was set out as the beginning of the chapter. “Columbus Discovered America and Destroyed Paradise.”
Now that was the textbook’s analysis. That is what children read. That is what we teach them: There is nothing of value in the United States. There is nothing of value in our history, that we are a product of a corrupt system and mode of thought, and everything that stems from it has got to be derided and debased. That is what we tell our children, and that is what people like Mr. Churchill tell our students in his classes, who then in turn go and teach our children in the K-12 system.”
regarding today’s topic: ” I want to mention an anecdote here, something that happened to me a few months ago. I was in a school in my district, in a county in my district that is a very wealthy county, one in which I do not live, I should hasten to add, but, nonetheless, a very wealthy county, where the schools are the best schools that we can provide in terms of the physical structure, in terms of all of the accoutrements that go along with education, the books, the materials, the overheads, everything that we could want, the highest paid teachers. So of course we assume they are the best; right?
It was a brand new high school. It was a brand new high school, and I was asked to go and speak. It was a school where there were 250 some students, and they came into the auditorium and we had a 15-, 20-minute chat and then they started sending up questions.
The very first question I received was: What do you think is the most serious challenge or problem facing the United States? I said, well, before I answer that, I am going to ask you all a question, 250 students assembled there. I said, How many of you believe you live in the greatest country in the world?
Now, let me tell you, generally speaking, certainly when I was in school, and even for a long time thereafter, when you asked a student something like that in a junior or senior high, there would be a reaction sort of like, well, you know, they are talking about my team. So there is a natural reaction of exuberance and enthusiasm. They would say, yea, absolutely, it is great, it is wonderful, our school is wonderful, our team is wonderful, our country is wonderful.
So I said, how many people here believe you live in the greatest nation in the world? What followed was not the typical reaction that you expect from a group of high school students. There was this sheepish, this very tenuous, this very sort of scary silence as they looked at the teachers who were lined up on either side of the auditorium and the principal who was standing by me.
Finally, about two dozen raised their hands, again very, very sheepishly, cautiously. Nobody did anything exuberantly. Nobody. Not a single person jumped up or gave a feeling of, again, this kind of exuberance about yeah, absolutely, it is my school, my country, my State, it is all great. You know how kids are. No, they did not do that.
Something had happened in their life. Something had happened prior to their coming into that auditorium that made them very trepidatious about saying it. And I determined from that that it was not as a result of the fact that the other 225 or so students hated America. I do not think that is true at all. What I do believe is that they were completely and totally incapable of affirming that statement. They were afraid to raise their hands for fear that someone would actually say, “oh yeah, why do you think so?”
They could not affirm it, so they simply wanted to sit there, afraid to say anything, the children of this country, the children in one of the most affluent areas, with all of the amenities that could ever be given to anyone, tan from the slopes at Aspen, wearing the best clothes, driving all the nicest cars out in the parking lot, having all of these amenities, more things than have ever been given to any children on the face of the earth since the creation of mankind, and they enjoy it because of where they are, and I said, well, you know what, I think this is the most serious problem we are facing as a Nation.”
“The idea of individual freedom and religious liberty, these are Western
There is no reason to be ashamed. It does not mean we have to put down anybody else. It does not mean we have to seek the destruction of any other civilization. It simply says here is what we have done and we can be proud of it, and most of the world seeks it. In a begrudging way they seek it. Perhaps the strangest phenomenon we can imagine, the millions of people who come here from other countries, maybe with the intent of destroying us because we do not match their religious point of view, but coming here nonetheless for all of the benefits that Western civilization provides. We do not have to whitewash our past, neither do we have to degrade or debase it. If we do, there are consequences. The Ward Churchills of this world will succeed because they will have in their classrooms students who have never been confronted with the facts of life in terms of who we are as a society. They have never been taught about the things that we can and should be proud of as a civilization. They have only been taught that we should be ashamed of who we are, hence two dozen kids out of 250 in a high school in Douglas County, Colorado, two dozen sheepishly raised their hand and said yes, I kind of think we do.
We are in a desperate battle as a civilization because I think we are in a clash of civilizations, as Samuel Huntington has pointed out in his book of that title. I think we must do everything possible in order to be successful in that clash to have our own people understand who we are. And whether you come here as a black man, a brown man, a white man, or anything in between, you can come here and accept the ideas and ideals of the American creed. It does not make you a Democrat, it does not make you a Republican, a liberal or a conservative. It makes you an American. And then we can start dividing up.
But if we lose this whole idea of what it means to be an American, if that is not there from the beginning, all we are is a place on the planet made up of subgroups, of a balkanized culture, people who consider themselves to be something other, a hyphenated, something other than American.”
“I went on to say that school boards throughout the United States should adopt this measure because all we can do here in Congress is say this is what we think should happen. I do not believe that the Federal Government should get involved in the creation of curricula, but I certainly believe we have the right to express ourselves. School boards have the right to totally decide it. They can say here is what we want our students to be. Here is the kind of student we want graduating from our school. And they can say, therefore, as a school board, we say these children will have to be able to articulate an appreciation of Western civilization when they come out of our school system”
” Members cannot imagine the kind of opposition and hatred expressed towards this idea, some by the NEA, the National, quote, Education Association, and I put it in quotes because the NEA has nothing to do with education and everything to do with indoctrination.”
“So it is true, Mr. Speaker, that I am deeply concerned about the many things that happen to this country as a result of massive immigration when it meshes with, connects with multi-culturalism. These are tough issues, they are not easy to explain, and they certainly do not fit on a bumper sticker. But they are important for us to think about.”
OK, so I know that got long… sorry. But it gives you a decent highlight of the MUCH longer speech.
(BTW: The more I find out about this guy, the more in his camp I am. Dude ain’t perfect, but he’s probably as close to a Thomas Thorn/ Jack Ryan type as we’re gonna get.)
By JustMe
March 13, 2007 3:17 PM | Link to this
jim d -
Um, no. Living in GA, I do not get what I vote for. I vote democratic and I get republican….
By jim d
March 13, 2007 4:30 PM | Link to this
I don’t know Jeff, he seemed to miss the point that these kids might actually be pretty damn smart and refused to lie about how they felt about this country. Our leadership sure as hell hasn’t given them much to be proud of in their lifetimes. The propaganda machines in our schools isn’t able to whitewash the reality they can go home and watch on the news 24-7. Sounds to me like these kids may have had the ability to think and reason and were using it. Am I proud as an American that our kids may feel this way? NO! Am I ashamed that our government has caused this effect. Duh, yeah.
Just me, then you threw your vote away anyway. Didn’t you?
By Old Physics Teacher
March 13, 2007 8:38 PM | Link to this
I know this is a non sequitur, but there’s this site by working educators (as opposed to administrators) concerning what is wrong in education. I don’t always agree with each author’s conclusions, but each one is a blooded professional. Here it is:The Irascible Professor Enjoy
By WFC
March 14, 2007 8:20 AM | Link to this
Old Physics Teacher: great site! Thanks!
By JustMe
March 14, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this
jim d-
So you think if you vote for any candidate that doesn’t win, you “throw your vote away?”
By Janine
March 14, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this
OldPhysicsTeacher….what a great site. thanks
By Dan
March 16, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this
“Have we lost the respect our society once had for both students and teachers, when parents sent their children to college to gain knowledge that they themselves could not provide them, from scholars who had devoted their lives to research and instruction?” Betty Jean Craige, a literature professor from the University of Georgia, asked in an guest editorial last month. “Have we arrived at a moment when students no longer feel fortunate to interact with faculty willing to share their views in the classroom? Does the promotion of ‘intellectual diversity’ mean that all ideas are of equal value?”
This question illustrates beautifully the problem with the education community, they are baffled by this and it is the very thing that people find troubling. The accept as inisputable that a person that has dediacted his/her life to research and instruction is a good thing. Hogwash, first of all research and instruction are completly different diciplines and usually a professor that excels in one does not in the other. Secondly and more importantly in educational institutions you must never forget that deep thinking and exploring new boundaries are great and develope broad minded critical thinking, but they are no substitute for real life lessons which more often than not prove the idealistic whimsical views of lifelong academics wrong.
University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small. Henry Kissinger (1923 - ) and
If you are young and conservative you have no heart, if you are old and liberal you have no sense. Winston Churchill.
Academics are all about smelling the flowers, realists make sure the flowers get planted first
By Dan
March 16, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this
Nice site old physics teacher
By Lee
March 16, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this
I remember as an 18 year old college freshman, how in awe I was of these college professors.
Years later, when I went back to get my MBA after about 12 years of “real world” experience, I remember thinking how full of sh1t many of those professors were.
I think that anyone who spends their entire life in academia has an insulated view of the world. That is, they have no other basis on which to formulate an opinion, all they know is what they read in a book.
That said, a couple of the best professors I had spent some time in the business world and were able to not only teach the book, but give some real-life “war stories.”
Back on topic, this is a frivolous bill and is a waste of time. Do we think our college students are so naive they can’t figure out when the professor is spouting bullcrap?