Federal Judge Upholds Thought Reform at EMU
Yesterday, good news, since we were elated to acknowledge FIRE’s victory for academic freedom at a California community college. Today, back to the more familiar bad news, since a federal judge has upheld the right of Eastern Michigan University to expel Julea Ward, an evangelical Christian student who was training as a high school guidance counselor. Ward, as we’ve reported previously, was just shy of graduating from EMU’s counseling program when she was mugged by PC ideology. Because of her religious convictions, she could not agree to counsel prospective homosexual clients in the affirmative manner required by EMU’s program. Should such a case arise, she said, she’d simply refer gay clients to other counselors able to accomodate their needs. Oh no, said EMU, that’s not good enough, not by a mile. Sign this paper, or out you go. I can’t, she insisted; you’ re gone, they replied. Supported by the Alliance Defense Fund (read the ADF’s press release here and an Inside Higher Education article here), she sued the school, contending that her First Amendment rights had been violated. Ordinarily, you’d expect First Amendment claims to weigh especially heavily in a case such as this, but the judge, alas, bought the university’s argument about needing latitude in designing its curricula and programs, and the courts have always deferred in such instances, etc., etc. This isn’t about thought control, insisted the counseling program’s directors, it’s simply a matter of recognizing the need to deal with a wide variety of clients, including those with beliefs different from one’s own. Who could disagree? Maybe I’m cynical, but I somehow don’t think a gay atheist will be required to declare that he’s willing to counsel Southern Baptists in a manner that affirms their beliefs. ADF is appealing the case, and we wish them well. Increasingly though, it seems that the acceptable parameters for discussing homosexuality on campus these days are narrowly one-dimensional. And if you don’t see the issue that way and you’re a faculty member without tenure, or if you’re a student and want your degree in counseling or social work, better keep quiet or go elsewhere.
Less Effort, Higher Grades!
In this week’s Pope Center Clarion Call, Emory University history professor Patrick Allitt discusses the research finding that college students are putting in less and less time on their coursework, yet expect (and mostly get) high grades.
I’m particularly glad to have Professor Allitt comment on this because his 2004 book I’m the Teacher, You’re the Student was such an eye-opener, detailing his difficulties in getting students — at a pretty strong university — to take the work seriously. You can read my review of his book here.
Human Heredity Hoopla at SJCCD
California taxpayers are now on the hook for $100,000, which the San José/Evergreen Community College District (SJCCD) has agreed to pay an adjunct professor in lost earnings in exchange for dismissal of her First Amendment lawsuit.
The background of the lawsuit? Sheldon had led a short discussion about the nature/nurture debate regarding sexual orientation in her Human Heredity course. She was then fired due to a student complaint and went to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for assistance.
“This welcome settlement demonstrates that colleges cannot get away with punishing a professor for teaching relevant class material, even if a student finds it offensive,” said FIRE President Greg Lukianoff.
An aspect of this case worthy of the attention of NAS afficionados is the SJCCD’s contention that Sheldon was teaching non-scientific material as science.
In any event, congratulations to Sheldon and FIRE for persevering in this good fight. And condolences to CA taxpayers.
Another Comment on the Flap Over Grants to Teach Rand
Philosophy professor James Otteson weighs in with some thoughtful comments here.
FIRE Scores Again for Academic Freedom
Our friends at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education continue their stellar work defending the academic freedom and First Amendment rights of college faculty members – especially untenured adjuncts – who collide with stifiling campus political orthodoxies. This time, they’ve scored against the San Jose/Evergreen Community College District, which will have to pay 100K in lost wages to an adjunct instructor who was terminated in 2007 after a student complained that her brief classroom discussion of the origins of homosexuality was “offensive.” The district will have to pick up the tab for legal expenses as well. Too bad for them – and the taxpayers who will carry theses costs – that they didn’t simply respect the instructor’s academic freedom in the first place.
But while I’m glad that FIRE was able to intervene successfully in this case, I also wish that they and other organizations such as the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) didn’t have so much work to do. This is getting to be a depressingly familiar scenario: 1) Instructor in a psychology or ethics course examines homosexuality or sex differences, says something that a student finds “offensive.” 2) A complaint is forwarded at the speed of light to the administration, cc to the campus women’s center, the dean of multicultural affairs or the LGBT office, who don’t necessarily need to interview the instructor, but nevertheless agree that yes, yes, the classroom discussion was indeed “offensive.” 3) The administration informs instructor that she’s outta here. 4) Board of directors upholds administration, unimpressed by quaint ideas about academic freedom or First Amendment protections.
Honestly, I wonder what the worst aspect of cases such as this one is. It’s appalling, of course, that such an Orwellian intellectual climate exists on so many campuses, and the examples of outrages such as this one seem to pop up weekly. See Ashley Thorne’s recent post detailing the latest incident involving a socal work student whose religious convictions ran afoul of a counseling program at Augusta State University in Georgia. But what about boards of trustees, such as the one in the San Jose/Evergreen case? What could they, as the governing bodies at a public institution have been thinking? Apart from the deserved embarassment their school has incurred and the hefty settlement costs they’ve handed to taxpayers, what does academic freedom or First Amendment protections mean to them? Not much, I have to conclude, since they upheld the administration’s outrage, without apparently seeing it as such. Kudos to FIRE once again, which seems to have a much firmer grasp of the academic enterprise and its mission than do many of the people to whom it’s been directly entrusted.
Is Muslim, Pro-Hamas/Hezbollah Speaker Indoctrinating NYC High-Schoolers?
Islands of Words
Back when Bravo provided high culture, I was entranced by a South Bank Show episode on a Caribbean poet named Derek Walcott. When I saw Walcott would read at Stanford, I raced to hear him in person, only to be appalled by the meager audience which clapped and immediately dispersed. Alone with him, I nervously asked how his book Omeros was coming. Surprised someone knew of it, he said there were publication delays but it would be out soon. Shortly after, he received the Nobel Prize for Literature.
A few years later, friends and fortune combined to bring Derek for a reading. That afternoon, he said he had always wanted to see a redwood tree, so we hopped into my Ford Focus and headed for Palo Colorado Canyon, but stopped just south of Carmel so he could survey the light, the surf, and the hills along the coast. Walcott also paints, and looking through his framing hands, he slowly rotated and said, “Everywhere you look is a painting.”
Derek’s sold-out reading was magical, including Tiepolo’s Hound, “A Letter from Brooklyn” and his Odyssey section on the Cyclops, a metaphor for all totalitarian dictators who have no depth of vision.
Next day, Derek became impatient as his companion Sigrid embraced everyone, kissing, hugging, saying goodbye. He turned to me and said, “Let’s show them how men say goodbye.” He looked me straight in the eye, firmly squeezed my hand, and said, “Goodbye.”
I felt like a child in his presence, this aging yet vital man, numinous, strong despite infirmities and occasional vertigo. His masculinity was overwhelming.
Now his latest, and perhaps last, book has arrived, White Egrets. His lines move like waves and trade winds, elegiac, abundant with his island, the sea, sunlight, fields, lost friends, memory, art, and the enchantments of erotic women. You can own this treasure here.
Keep John Galt Off Campus
In today’s Pope Center piece, my colleague Jay Schalin writes about the flap over the fact that some colleges have accepted funds from BB&T Foundation with the proviso that the money be used to support courses in which students will learn about Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism and in particular her defense of laissez-faire capitalism.
The argument raised against this is that colleges are supposed to allow the faculty to decide upon curricular matters. Naturally, some professors who are adamantly hostile to the case for laissez-faire (although I doubt that many have ever read Rand’s Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal or have heard a thorough explication of the damaging consequences of government interference in the spontaneous order of the free market) say that schools should shun BB&T money. Jay gets a whiff of double standard here, since professors on the left don’t much complain about the importation of material into the curriculum they find congenial. Rather than a defense of princple, their stance seems to be an instance of selective indignation.
Econ 101 is often taught as a dull, mechanistic and to many students baffling exercise in graphs and abstruse theories having little apparent relationship with life. Adding a BB&T catalyzed course that allows students to see how Rand and other advocates of laissez-faire (Ludwig von Mises, e.g.) looked at economic questions would be a beneficial offering.
Colleges should be open to the marketplace of ideas. Like the marketplace of goods and services, sound ideas tend to win out and unsound ideas tend to be rejected. (I say “tend” because it doesn’t happen automatically. After all, we still have cigarettes in stores and professors who preach socialism.) John Allison of BB&T is trying to get colleges to open their curricula to another idea (or set of ideas). No harm in that.
Let’s Give Diversity the Gate
I could be wrong, but in the wake of all the mudwrestling that’s followed the NAACP’s recent branding of Tea Partiers as racists, I think that the ideological fulcrum of the “diversity” debate has significantly shifted ground. For once, the response by public figures has been direct and emphatic, instead of the usual backpedaling after some vague, apologetic mumbling about the need to “include” all groups, the value of a diverse work force or the wish to avoid offending anyone, etc., etc., etc. The public rejection of the NAACP’s allegations, moreover, has been bi-partisan, including prominent Republicans such as Sarah Palin and no less than Vice President Biden and President Obama on the Democratic side of the aisle. Hopefully, this means that absurd or silly allegations of racism will no longer compel politicans and bureaucrats to jump through the hoop as they’ve done so frequently in the past.
Especially encouraging, though, is this piece by Virgina Democrat James Webb in today’s Wall Street Journal. Webb argues that although “diversity” policies had their origins in the laudable and necessary efforts to redress the unique injustices suffered by black Americans, they have long since become obsessed with skin color or ethnic background, often with unconcealed hostility toward whites. Thus, newly arrived immigrants often benefit from these policies, even though their own experiences don’t remotely resemble those of blacks. It doesn’t stop there either, since in many academic institutions, “diversity” and “inclusiveness” now extend to ever -expanding categories of sexuality, life experiences or those with physical disabilities. A particularly hard sell for me has always been affirmative action for “women” within the diversity rubric, as though the largely white, middle-class feminist movement could claim grievances comparable to those suffered historically by blacks. Yet many academic job postings routinely specify that “women and ethnic or racial minorities are especially encouraged to apply.” That doesn’t compute.
Anyway, Webb says it’s now time to end racial preferences, stop discriminating against whites, and simply treat everyone equally under the law. Amen.
Striving for Socio-Economic Diversity
In this Chronicle post, Richard Kahlenberg responds to some criticism (which he labels as “right” and “left”) of his signature issue, namely promoting socio-
economic diversity as another criterion in college admissions. I don’t think his responses are convincing. Moreover, he overlooks two assumptions his case rests on. I know that at least the latter of the two has been attacked because I have done so.
First, Kahlenberg leaps to the conclusion that just because a student comes from a relatively poor family and succeeds in school well enough to qualify for college admission, that student is a “striver” who has “overcome obstacles.” I don’t think that follows. Being relatively poor in the U.S. does not mean deprivation of anything essential. And with the lowering of academic standards, graduating from high school with “good” grades is pretty easy these days. Some kids from poorer homes no doubt have had to deal with serious problems and disruptions around them, but we shouldn’t assume that low-income status implies that. Besides, there are non-poor students who have managed to deal with difficulties.
Second, what is the reason for thinking that it’s a “reward” to go to an elite college or university? If, for example, a student from a relatively poor family in eastern North Carolina could get into East Carolina on his merits, is it much better for him to instead go to Duke? The assumption seems to be that schools with higher US News rankings are “better” schools, but what justifies that assumption? Courses are not necessarily taught better at Duke; they may be taught less well. Will the student have a brighter, more lucrative career with a Duke pedigree than ECU? Possibly, but it’s by no means certain. The reverse is possible, especially if the student is near the bottom of the more intellectually competitive student body at Duke. Finally, the more prestigious degree might help the student land his first job, but in the long run people are rewarded on their productivity, not their credentials.
I’m with Roger Clegg (see his comment) in thinking that the less colleges give preferences to applicants because of characteristics such as family ancestry and circumstances and the more they evaluate them on academic interest and aptitude, the better.
NAS.org articles
- Renewable Debate: Progress vs. Sustainability Daniel Bonevac
- Collegiate Press Roundup 7-28-10 Glenn Ricketts
- Aikido-Style Grading Jason Fertig
- Reaching for the STARS Ashley Thorne
- Hamilton College to Prof. Paquette: Shut Up Peter Wood
Recent Comments