Posted on 02/22/2005 12:55:58 AM PST by John Lenin
Brian Biglin
Contributing Writer
The issue of academic freedom has been brought to the forefront in recent weeks. Apparently academic freedom is being extended so far, in some cases, that a professor in Colorado named Ward Churchill can replace his ethnic studies curriculum with radical, anti-American, anti-capitalist establishment propaganda.
Churchill describes with accuracy his feelings regarding the Sept. 11 tragedy. While he says he mourns for the losses of the individuals in the towers and planes, his mourning is coupled with rants on how so many of the victims had it coming, comparing them to Nazis at one point.
He spends extended amounts of time rationalizing the terror tactics of those who hate America, demonstrating that he more fully understands radical Islam and the ideas that feed hatred than ideals such as democracy and justified military action against evil, perhaps even giving preference to the former.
In some disturbing cases, however, free thought is squelched so readily that the Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard University, cannot even mention the biological differences between women and men as a possible reason for women’s under representation in the field of science without having several faculty members leave the room.
Summers outlined a host of reasons why women do not often reach tenured professorships in science and math at a conference where such matters were a major topic. He offered inborn differences between the sexes among other factors in an informal and speculative discourse.
Bear in mind, he was asked to consider all possibilities, and since his remarks, he has been repentant to the people he offended, something I could not do.
I liken the people who left the forum after Summers’ remark, too offended to even ask him a question and discuss the issue further, with Churchill.
These are modern fascists, secular-feminist-socialist operatives with a feeling of entitlement and self-righteousness so strong they can’t even conceive of a person mentioning what Summers did, or being fired for teaching what Churchill has.
I do not know enough science to defend or refute Summers mentioning inborn differences. That is not the important point — Summers was doing what a learned person at a fine university should do: considering everything. He tossed into the ring a notion he did not say he believed to be completely veritable, but he paid for it, paid for trying to be a fair broker of intellectual discourse on the university scene.
That is a sad story. The neo-liberals who I’m discussing might, on a normal day, sound like the staunchest advocates of academic freedom, and they likely would come to the defense of people like Churchill. But I don’t think that leaving a forum where issues are being discussed freely and provocatively is an example of tolerating another person’s intellectual freedom.
It is clear that higher education is dominated by ideologues with their blinded vision of how and what young people should be taught.
This is manifested in small things, like the limited credence granted to students who raise conservative or even moderate views in class, or who are at least pragmatic about the motives of “the learned” and detect plain-to-see bias.
This fact also shows up in the curriculum of many courses, and especially the reading selections in courses at a public school like ours.
A good English course, especially at a private school, often revolves around a “Great Books” core of classic literature. My experiences to this point in two English courses have included a docket of new books where the majority of the content is driven by socialism and other radical interests but is treated as some form of enlightenment.
Are academic elites really making a stand for open-mindedness and intellectual freedom when they only choose readings that reflect their views? I think not.
This is why academia is so troubled. A group of people who selectively enforce the rules of intellectual freedom, making it limitless for liberals and constricting it for others, dominate the university scene.
Think about this as you go about your schedule of classes, meet different professors and encounter different curriculums. Many professors are fair and have undetectable bias, but keep your eyes open for instances where academic freedom is restricted or abused. Even if you agree with a particular professor, consider the way that their argument is made and how they handle opposition.
Usually teachers remind students to be politically fair and to keep an open mind. These days, however, it is often the teachers who need to be instructed.
This is what happens when small groups of people are allowed to make the hiring decisions and research agendas at universities. A group majority of leftist scholars uses its weight in numbers to stamp out any dissent in intellectual life on campus.
In todays Rocky Mountain News it has an article on how CU's out of state enrolement has dropped 15%...of course there is no blame given to Churchill....it was the slow economy....slow my backside...I bet the gifts to the university are down big too..no one wants this idiot on the payroll..and I bet there are 100 others at CU..it is very liberal...but of course they are at the Colorado Congress asking for more money to cover their loses...rather than cutting their expenses..like Churchill
Funny how they preach diversity and tolerance in the University when in fact a diversity of ideas is the last thing they will ever tolerate.
It's intimidation, how many people are afraid to speak their minds on campus and in the workplace because they fear the consequences of what the boss or professor might do to them ? I see it everywhere nowadays, it's intellectual fascism and it's running rampant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.