Students whose beliefs already match professors’ ideal ideological paradigm are rewarded. Those who refuse to conform are at the very least persecuted, and they are often denied graduation.
In a recent column, I commented on the repression exercised by college professors upon their impressionable students. Their goal is to mold those students who come in without many beliefs until they reflect, in perfect uniformity, a secular worldview. Students whose beliefs already match professors’ ideal ideological paradigm are rewarded. Those who refuse to conform are at the very least persecuted, and they are often denied graduation.
Richard Rorty, whom I’ve mentioned previously, justified the state of academia in a statement directed towards parents. He explained that it was the role of academia “to discredit you in the eyes of your children . . . to strip away your fundamentalist religious community of dignity . . . to make your views seem silly rather than discussible.”
That is the reason for which most college faculty and administrations are not willing to facilitate debate, opting instead to prohibit conservative speech by calling it offensive. They don’t want to disprove conservative viewpoints; they want to make them seem outrageous.
Mike Adams, a professor at UNC-Wilmington, reminisced upon being overheard by a Dean as he “was complaining about a university speech code banning all ‘offensive’ speech. The Dean said the code was ‘not that bad’ because it only sought to ban certain types of offensive speech.” Of course; it was only meant to ban speech that was offensive, say, to homosexuals – not to Christians. “I thought that made it worse,” wrote Adams.
Sometimes, simply silencing Christian students is enough. But a preponderance of the time it is not. Some students are given an option to either adhere to the philosophy of secularism or face academic probation, demerits on their record, or expulsion.
Emily Brooker, who sought a degree in social work from Missouri State, was required as part of a class project to sign a letter to the state’s legislature supporting gay adoption.
When she refused on the basis of religious conviction, the university’s ethics committee interviewed her. They asked questions such as "Do you think gays and lesbians are sinners?" and "Do you think I am a sinner?" She was then made to write a paper and sign a contract stating that she would conform her religious beliefs to the ethical and social ideology of the university and to the social work profession.
Fortunately, a lawsuit she filed after graduating succeeded in forcing the university to reimburse her and to open an investigation.
Occasionally, students aren’t willing to play along to get along. One person who comes to mind is Troy Scheffler, a former graduate student at my own Hamline University. When he e-mailed President Linda Hanson with the suggestion that campus policy conform to state laws allowing for concealed handguns, he was expelled and an armed guard was posted outside his classroom’s door.
As a 31-year-old graduate student unlikely to change his worldview, the university probably concluded that it was unable to influence him. Worse yet, he disrupted its ideological conformity. So they called him dangerous and kicked him out.
Mark Moyar is a history instructor who wrote about the challenges that face conservatives trying to become professors. When he applied for a position at the University of Iowa, he noted that their hiring manual mandated the hiring committee to “assess ways the applicants will bring rich experiences, diverse backgrounds, and ideology to the university community.”
He then referenced an Associated Press article in which Iowa students complained about having to “cloak their political leanings to appeal to professors . . . Conservatives say the abundance of Democratic professors affects course offerings, reading selections and class discussions, shaping impressionable minds.”
It would seem to follow that Dr. Moyar might contribute to the university’s diversity. But as he came to find, his level of “diversity” wasn’t assessed. When he filed a complaint with the local diversity office, he was told that the university “does not expect hiring departments to make this type of assessment of every candidate.”
The hiring search committee also complained that the book he wrote on Vietnam (which offered a conservative interpretation of events) didn’t include citations to any Vietnamese sources when, said Moyar, it actually contained more than two hundred. They made up baseless excuses not to hire him.
In the end, the department hired someone who had been out of graduate school for eight years without publishing a book. That candidate may not have been the paragon of excellence, but at least he wasn’t a conservative.
Examples abound; space does not. Suffice it to say that if you have ever wondered why there were no conservatives in higher education, you've been informed. They aren’t allowed to progress that far.
RudyTakala@Yahoo.com
Read more articles by Rudy Takala
Rudy, the uncompromising secular view on university campuses probably will not get better. Mike Adams has pointed this out many times with many different examples. Your position might better address how students with differing viewpoint can be protected or at least supported. Just think how many students will be arriving at campuses with a drastic difference in world view from the entrenched academics as the veterans begin using their bloodily won benefits. They are not as likely to back down as an unblooded 19 year old nor are they as likely to acquiese rather than fight the system.
Comment by Mickey G | February 4, 2008
Actually, patronizing Leftist profs is good training for later on in your career. Many will be the times you will be asked by your employer to compliment the proverbial emperor's clothes all the while you believe he is naked.
Comment by sedonaman | February 4, 2008
Re: Troy Scheffler:
The linked article says, " '… there are plenty of students complaining that this (VA Tech massacre) wouldn't have happened if the school wouldn't have banned their permits a few months ago,' Scheffler wrote."
And perhaps it wouldn't have happened if Leftist professors didn't constantly harp on the "evils of America" and "white privilege".
"Was Cho taught to hate?" by James Lewis poses some interesting questions and observations.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/04/was_cho_taught_to_hate.html
Comment by sedonaman | February 4, 2008
The bias toward conservative students is real, prevalent, and has been around a long time. I was a student at Calif State Univ, Chico 1972-1976 after serving three years in the Marines. I didn't realize it then, but my liberal professors despised the military and had a very negative view of me. After one semester, my counselor, a graduate from the University of Berkeley, told me that I was better suited for a career in the trades and should switch to Industrial Technology. Instead I switched counselors. But that still didn't stop them from making things difficult. It took me several years to understand why I could do so well in one class under one professor and barely pass another.
It was good training for the real world. Once I started looking for a job I realized that the bias wasn't limited to academia.
RJ
Comment by RWJones | February 9, 2008
RWJones:
Your comment about counselors drew my particular interest because of my experience with one when I first started college.
I did not have the worldly experience of military service behind me at the time (that came later), so I accepted my counselor’s advice (he was a history professor). He said that based on my test scores, I should major in liberal arts. My first year grades were poor, to say the least. The following year, the exact same counselor looked at my record and asked, “You should be majoring in some technical field; who told you to take liberal arts?” Somewhat peeved, I said, “Well you did.”
Because at the time I was unaware of the animosity between the liberal arts and conservative sciences/math, it didn’t occur to me at the time that I was perhaps being set up to flunk out, but your experience gave me pause to think. I never went back to any counselor after that.
Since I was the first in my family to go to college, I had to struggle on my own until finding a major that I could succeed in. For example, it took me several years to learn that half the battle of any course is finding the right instructor, or more specifically, knowing which ones to avoid. I swore my kids would not have to suffer the same fate and did some asking when my first was about to enter college. That was in the days before the internet, and now (thank God) there are any number of websites dedicated to exposing poor professors.
Comment by sedonaman | February 10, 2008
Sedonaman:
I was an engineering major. My engineering counselor was into eco-friendly design. He was a transportation engineer of the type that wanted to get rid of the automobile entirely. For awhile, Berkeley tried to ban automobiles from downtown.
I can't prove it, but I am sure he set me up with the worst calculus professor on campus. That professor would pepper his lectures with all sorts of political comments. While explaining the subject matter he would face the board and never turn to the class to ask for questions. If you did get a question in, he would reply so tersely that you wondered if he was talking about the same thing you were asking.
I had to drop that course or I would have flunked. Once I got a decent counselor I did OK. I switched to a math professor who was more into teaching. After that I made A's and B's in all my math classes. I could tell you more, but it just would reinforce the point you already understand. At the University you have to meld politically or you won't make it.
RJ
Comment by RWJones | February 10, 2008
Sedonaman,
Regarding post #2, you nailed it. I could swear that Scott Adams (the author of Dilbert) works clandestinely at my company in order to gather material for his strip. In one day, he could easily harvest a year's worth of storylines.
I have largely given up trying to change things and have become quite proficient at complimenting the emporer's clothes each day while wearing sunglasses to ward off the glare from his bare buttocks. The organizational inertia is simply too great — I'd stand a better chance of altering Jupiter's orbit.
Comment by Steve Sabin | February 10, 2008
Steve:
Drop me a line. Go to my website at:
http://www.ThePublicView.com
On the left it says "send us a comment". Use that to send me an email and I'll give you my direct email address.
Thanks,
Richard Jones
Comment by RWJones | February 10, 2008
Steve:
That's the key to Scott Adams' success. Everyone says that about Dilbert. His timing is uncanny also. He was doing a series about reorganization at the same time we were actually reorganizing.
RJ:
I ended up an engineering major also.
Comment by sedonaman | February 11, 2008