coffee grounds

Academic identity politics

The recent proliferation of stories like this one in the Chronicle about how Republicans suffer so in academia are fascinating as a study in how stories take on a life of their own. There is much here for some future historian of the politics of higher education.

Why now?This discussion doesn't seem to have been sparked by more than a couple of exit polls from the recent election, now augmented by tales of woe from Republican assistant professors (on which more later).

I think it's pretty clear that the Democratic lean of the professoriate is much higher than in the 1950s, but really, it's important to know if 2004 was that much different than 2000 or 1996; in other words if this is a real problem it would be helpful if the change could be dated so we know what it might be related to.

If the Democratic lean of faculty is related to long-term structural change in higher education (decline of tenure, increased participation by women and minorities) that's something different from faculty voting preferences attributable to who is President.

And as I've said before, it's not all about ideology. Democratic support for funding higher education has been stronger in the last couple of decades.

Many of the stories of partisan oppression don't demonstrate what they set out to

Take the Chronicle story, for example by the pseudonymous William Pilger.

"During an "Introduction to Political Science" class, for example, I was required to write paper on how to solve global warming. My paper suggested that perhaps there was no reason to, since the scientific evidence was inconclusive. I got a D."

Well, if you don't follow the requirements of the paper you probably deserve a D. In some papers students do get a chance to take their own position and argue it. Yet there is real intellectual value in being required to argue a position that you don't agree with. A real conservative intellectual would know that, and write the paper as requested.

This, of course, goes both ways. I don't expect students to agree with John Calhoun about nullification, but it would be a fine assignment to get them to write a paper supporting him.

In another class, I fell victim to my own indignation at having to use inclusive language in my papers. Flexing the muscle of my perceived linguistic superiority -- the masculine third-person singular pronoun across many languages functions as the generic, genderless third person, after all -- I argued that "he" should be in and "s/he" should be out. Another D paper.

Seemingly more damning. But if he thought the D was just for "he" instead of "s/he" why didn't he complain about the grade. In fact, the absence of a story about a grade appeal which was turned down, is evidence that the paper must have had other faults. Because if the grade appeal was turned down that would be even stronger evidence of bias in the academy.

With ample practice over the years -- and after several naïve attempts to present myself as an enlightened conservative ended in rejection letters ... William Pilger is the pseudonym of an assistant professor of classics at a university in the South.

Classics! Why is "William Pilger" even letting his present-day, 2000-years later views on politics be known to his colleagues?

I had finally pushed the right button to get a reaction, but not the right button to encourage discussion. The students objected en masse to the political nature of the question. So I gave a cursory sketch of two opposite ways one might relate the Aeneid to Iraq, and moved on.

After class, I asked one of the students for his read on what had happened. How could the response be so heated but the question left unengaged? He replied: "You know how it is. Students don't want to disagree with their professors. Most of the students around here are pretty conservative, but they get the strong sense that their professors are liberal. And on issues like these, they're afraid to disagree." They had made assumptions about how I would think and were reluctant to contradict me.

One student. Who happens to agree with the professor. How convenient. Perhaps "William Pilger's" students are different, but it's difficult to get students to speak on any issue. Students are often reluctant to speak, not because they don't want to contradict the professor/instructor, but because they feel their own thoughts are not well thought out.

The interaction with colleagues Prof. Pilger cites is also just a little less supportive of the thesis than he thinks. For example:

A couple of days later, during the Republican National Convention, I ate lunch with several colleagues. The discussion turned, inevitably, to politics. The anti-Republican tenor at the table remained unbroken, but reached its zenith with this vehement comment from one colleague, "I'm not even going to watch [the convention]. I can't stand it."

I could no longer blame the students for shying away from hot-button issues like Iraq: For them, the academy does not foster thoughtful discussion of thorny issues, but harbors the potential at any time to unleash the visceral reactions of their superiors to what students think are their own reasoned political positions. For students, the risk of speaking up is much the same as it is for me: They risk losing the respect of professors and perhaps endangering their long-term aspirations.

"I can't stand it" My, <sarcasm>that strongly worded difference of opinion would be enough to make me feel out-of-place.</sarcasm>

Prof. Pilger if s/he exists is teaching classics. There's little to no sense in which what he's teaching has any connection with present day partisan American politics. His colleagues disagreement with him about things that happen today has little relation to their views on the classical past.

Notice also how Prof. Pilger cites the faculty discussion at lunch in support of his argument that students feel cowed by faculty views. Really? Were there students present at lunch? Faculty are as entitled as construction workers to be opinionated and boisterous in their opinions over lunch. It says little about what they do in the classroom where different conventions apply.

Prof. Pilger's argument would be stronger if he could point to one of his colleagues actually browbeating students into thinking something about politics. But again, he's teaching classics. How often does (or should) discussion of contemporary politics come up??

That Prof. Pilger is silent on this more direct source of evidence about how faculty views affect college life says he couldn't find better evidence.

So, at most we have evidence that some faculty express pro-Democratic positions over lunch, and no evidence at all that faculty in Prof. Pilger's department take their positions into the classroom.

Posted by robe0419 at December 15, 2004 05:22 PM | TrackBack