My Dialogue with a Prof

Accuracy in Academia ^ | April 24, 2006 | Julia A. Seymour

[JSedreporter]

Since I began working at Accuracy in Academia one of my primary tasks has been reporting on the academic freedom movement. In pursuit of these stories, I have been able to attend hearings in Pennsylvania of the state House Select Committee on Academic Freedom at Temple University and Millersville University. I’ve listened to radio programming from Lion Radio at Penn State and have conversed with Pennsylvanians on the topic of academic freedom whenever possible.

Last week as I searched for new information on the issue I found an opinion piece by William Kashatus, assistant professor of History at Luzerne County Community College on CentreDaily.com.

His article begins by saying that when he was a graduate student a professor wrote a comment on his dissertation draft that read, “You’re religious! What else is wrong with your thinking?”

“I immediately understood that my beliefs and his Marxist interpretation were at odds and that if I wanted a doctorate I would have to compromise my position,” wrote Kashatus.

He then briefly explains that David Horowitz is championing an Academic Bill of Rights and mentions the committee hearings that have been going on in Pennsylvania.

Then Kashatus comes to his conclusions, which are that the ABOR is a politically motivated attempt to stifle liberal speech, not simply to protect conservative speech, that the accumulated anecdotal evidence is not an “accurate barometer,” and that it discredits the intelligence of students and the integrity of professors.

“Most college professors are decent people who chose their career because they were inspired to teach young minds. In doing their jobs, professors are teaching critical thinking skills—how to formulate an argument, to question the stereotypes of society, to analyze a text—not trying to change the beliefs or political orientation of their students,” wrote Kashatus.

The article intrigued me, so I decided to ask Prof. Kashatus a few questions myself. Here is part of our email conversation:

JS: Do you believe students can play those politics while retaining their views or can playing politics erode their views?

WK: I refused to play the “politics of academic” and that’s why I was so disillusioned with the dissertation process. I’m certain that one could do so and still feel as if they retained the integrity of their own views, but I didn’t. I did however resolve the issue by going to the university’s ombudsman, part of the grievance process at that particular university. I might also add that shortly after I earned my doctorate, the graduate students formed a union in order to protect themselves from similar situations.

JS: Do students use the grievance procedures in place?

WK: Having taught at the University of Pennsylvania, West Chester University and now Luzerne County Community College, I have observed the grievance process and supported it at two of those institutions. From my experience, the students who use it are those who are highly motivated, intellectually curious, and aggressive in pursuit of a grade. Those are not value judgments, simply an observation. Some try to manipulate the process and I do not respect that. I do, however, defend their right to appeal because of my own experience in grad school.

JS: Are grievance procedures adequate and are they publicized? Do students know about them?

WK: The “adequacy” of the existing procedures is relative to the individual. I’m sure those who feel they’ve been victimized by a liberal professor feel that the procedures are not adequate, those who haven’t probably do. That’s where my op-ed originated. I was a victim. That is why I am very careful to respect the intellectual and political views of my students. My grades are based on the ability of a student to defend their position, orally and in writing; not on their position itself. At the same time, I do believe that the existing grievance procedures at the three institutions I’ve taught at are, indeed, adequate and students, if the issue is important to them, will be counseled on how to use them.

JS: What do you think will happen if the Academic Bill of Rights is adopted? How and why? Specifically, how will that stifle liberal views?

WK: My concern is not whether liberal views are stifled, but that all views: conservative, moderate and liberal, may be expressed in an atmosphere that is respectful of the intellectual enterprise and without fear of reprisal, either by a professor, or a student, which is just as likely these days. How, for example, will the ABOR protect a professor who is actually doing his/her job and grading student mastery of critical skills when the students claims that a poor grade reflects the professor’s liberal bias? Finally, I cannot see how the proposed ABOR would be implemented without violating the First Amendment.

Julia A. Seymour is a staff writer at Accuracy in Academia.

[Marxbites]

It used to be that students could not tell their teacher's political affiliations - as it should be.

However a geography teacher that nearly every day bashes the president & republicans must not be seen as fair to the students, and certainly belies a bias not interested in addressing issues from both points of view.

[Maceman]

It used to be that students could not tell their teacher's political affiliations - as it should be.

It's just because nobody bothered to notice.

I was in high school from 1964-68, and then college. I can assure you that there was no shortage of leftwing agenda driven professors back then.

[Marxbites]

Well, I graduated in 70. Joined the USCG in 72. Graduated from the UofF in 82.

Thinking back, I did have some leftwing teachers in the late 60's, and of course was leftwing myself out of shear ignorance - afraid of getting drafted and ergo anti-war.

The sh#t is that Nam WAS a bad war, as was WW1 that Wilson promised he'd never get us int,o and which no few scholars have said that the UK, France & Germany were about to peter themselves out anyway without us. But his Bank of London entwined puppeteers had $$$ in their eyes over war profits - those who egged him into it also financed and supplied and profited from both sides of both wars. The reality being that Hitler would have never come to power were it not for our unconstitutional intervention into WWI and the overburdening Versaille Treaty. Not to mention that FDR goaded the Japanese into attacking first over resricting their oil the same way Lincoln goaded the South into attacking first over taxation. Remember the Maine too?

Of course I did NOT learn this in school, but just since the Internet, so maybe I was NOT paying attention in grade school after all. I was in the College of Architecture/School of Building Construction at UofF and I'm pretty sure most of my professors weren't lefties but conservative in general. Now had I chosen architecture I'm pretty sure it would have been the reverse!