"Liberal Arts faculties at most universities are politically and philosophically one-sided, while partisan propagandizing often intrudes into classroom discourse. It is appropriate for faculty to want open-minded students in their classes, not disciples. Faculty bias is reflected in the curriculum of courses available, in the manner in which they are taught, in readings assigned for classroom study, and in discussions only open to one side of a debate." -- SAF Mission and Strategy
It is utterly amazing how many things are wrong in that simple statement and it alone should be an alarm to anyone interested in joining the group. First and foremost, where are their facts? How do they know that most Liberal Arts faculties at universities are one sided? There are hundreds if not thousands of universities across this nation and I highly doubt they have checked each one to make sure that their faculties are non-biased. If they claim this broad generalization to be true, what else can they claim to be accurate information?
Secondly, who decides if a curriculum, course, teaching method, discussion, or reading assignment is biased to begin with? Are they going to set up a committee at each university whose job it will be to monitor courses and professors, thus deciding the status of both and eliminating them if the committee declares them to not be "unbiased enough?" I would certainly hope not, as the idea of what is politically charged or biased is completely open to individual interpretation and as such should never be considered in an argument. Nevertheless members of this group continue to believe that they can tell what is biased and what should not be in a classroom and to this point I ask: How can SAF promote intellectual diversity if it refuses professors the right to speak their minds? A member of the organization may answer such a question with a quote from their mission statement such as:
"In The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declared: "Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject." --SAF Mission and Strategy
Once again, and I cannot stress this enough, who decides what “matter” is relative to the subject being taught? Apparently SAF has and since they have taken it upon themselves to attack the Liberal Arts, which we will now look at for an example.
The Liberal Arts consists of a variety of subjects that are considered "Humanities" like Philosophy or "Social Sciences" like Sociology. I chose one of these two for my example because on the many Facebook Group pages dedicated to SAF, students seem to have the most problems with Philosophy departments. According to these students the professors in the aforementioned departments are chief violators of the American Association of University Professors 1940 Statement of Principles and it’s the job of SAF to stop them. However I have to urge caution before you, the reader, jump to your own conclusion because I feel it is necessary to highlight the following points:
First, many if not all of the Liberal Arts disciplines are impacted by politics. As such the government affects professor’s studies and they are in their right to comment on the government's actions and how it affects their discipline or society as their discipline views it. An example would be a Philosophy professor giving his/her view on abortion to a class via lecture and their own written work. Perhaps the professor believes that Pro-Choice is the best option and explains how he/she feels it is wrong for the government to project a Pro-Life stance because in their scholarly opinion, the government should not be involved in trying to answer such a question. Given in this example, was the professor stepping out of line? By SAF standards they were, but I myself am not so convinced.
Philosophy professors often examine society, the individual, and morals. In fact some people might argue that a philosopher’s greatest contribution to humanity is to examine the morals and values of our society and critique them. In the scenario above the professor thinks Pro-Life is not the best option for everyone and because of this feels the government is morally wrong by supporting it. By stating such a view, the professor is lecturing to the student body on the moral questions involved with abortion by using his/her own opinion and written work. The intention is that the students digest the professor’s lecture and when coupled with other information reach their own conclusions about the topic at hand, in this case abortion. Keeping this in mind I ask: How is this any different then lecturing or being tested on Plato's view of government or Nietzsche's thoughts on God? According to the SAF it is.
Based on SAF standards and members’ views, it would appear that it is okay to study the works of classic philosophers, but wrong to study and be tested on the works of modern ones, especially if they are teaching the class. Is the professor above, who has a doctorate in Philosophy and has studied subjects like abortion for years, not worthy to have their work be examined and tested on? Most SAF members it seems would tell you “yes,” but I am sure the majority of them would jump at the chance to take a class taught by Plato that focused on his work "The Republic." Though I have to wonder what Plato would test on…but SAF views do not stop there! They have more to say about professors:
"In an academic environment professors are in a unique position of authority vis-à-vis their students. The use of academic incentives and disincentives to advance a partisan or sectarian view creates a environment of indoctrination which is unprofessional and contrary to the educational mission." --SAF Mission and Strategy
SAF claims that professors use their position of authority to indoctrinate their student body with whatever viewpoint they see fit. Yet how is a professor’s position unique or different than that of an elementary or high school teacher?
When I was in elementary school I was told not to trust strangers and to look both ways before crossing the street. It was drilled into my head, along with every other child’s in America, that these two precautions were the right way and because of this I was indoctrinated to believe that trusting strangers was wrong and not looking both ways would bring certain death. Still I have not seen a group called "K-6 for Academic Freedom." Why is that? Once again the answer is perception.
In society today I think, we would all venture to agree, that children should not talk to strangers. We believe this because we have heard stories about the youth of our nation being kidnapped, raped, or worse. However right in those few words lies the main point against SAF's illogical statement. Because everyone believes that children should not trust strangers, no one seems to have issue with teachers "indoctrinating" our youth with this and other such agreed upon ideas. Then again once these same people reach a collegiate level, where people are supposed to think for themselves, they suddenly take issue with a professor preaching about how a particular party might be ruining the country. Why? Probably because they might not agree with it and because they don't agree with it, they feel it is indoctrination and not mere opinion and active dialogue. In spite of that however, still more absurd is their idea that professors use academic incentives to advance their views.
If a professor offered extra credit to all those who attend a viewing of the film Birth of a Nation, does that mean that the professor in question is trying to push the Klu Klux Klan? No! It does not because the film can be used as a mode through which to study American culture and the Klan's role in society at the time of the films release. However if I felt the professor was promoting the KKK I could just as easily say: "This is just another example of a professor using their authoritative position and an academic incentive to push their views on me."
If I said this to someone, they would probably think I was nuts because of the nature of the topic. But if I said it about a professor giving extra credit to watch the Democratic debate on CNN, suddenly in SAF's mind I am in the right and the professor in question needs to be stopped! It doesn't take a genius to see that SAF is completely absurd and using perception as a weapon against our intellectual community. If you do not believe me, here is another quote from their mission statement:
"It is the goal of Students for Academic Freedom to secure greater representation for under-represented ideas and to promote intellectual fairness and inclusion in all aspects of the curriculum, including the faculty hiring process, the spectrum of courses available, reading materials assigned, and in the decorum of the classroom and the campus public square." --SAF Mission and Strategy
The quote above basically states that students should have to right to decide who gets hired and fired as well as what should be assigned in classes, what should be in the curriculum, and what should occur in classes and campus common grounds. This statement alone signals the desire of SAF to crush the intellectual community by taking control of our nation's universities and dictating how they're run! If this step was ever reached, it would only be a matter of time before they would be cutting out certain ideas all together, thus truly indoctrinating us with those they see fit and given their attack on Liberal Arts faculty, I think I have an inkling of which ideas would be force fed down our throats.
Therefore in light of this it is easy to see, from just a few examples, how the arguments made by the SAF organization are irrational and completely driven by perception and opinion. They continue to stress their so called goal of “academic freedom” by strangling the free exchange of ideas and turning personal grudges against liberals into a debate about class censorship. Frankly put, what they are doing is wrong and they should be fought at all costs as I am convinced that Students for Academic Freedom is the most anti-academic freedom group in this country. If it grows too powerful, then it will be our job as educated individuals to stop them and preserve true academic freedom for all, instead of a cheap hybrid that revolves around interpretation and political grudges.
No comments:
Post a Comment