I am an economist that teaches at a major university. In my microeconomics course, I talked about resource allocation and why the free market price system is the most efficient way to allocate resources.
This is the exact opposite of the “social justice” school which believes that the free market price system is discriminatory because minorities have less wealth than whites. Once you move away from the price system, you have rationing which is what the Democrats want.
Ayers is wrong (on many levels) about everything being inherently slanted, biased and political. In the soft areas like English, Sociology, Education, etc., that is not from the truth. Ayers is an intellectual weakling that hangs with the other “Easy A” professors (a good play on “Easy 8”s for you veterans). Hence, I have tried for years to get rid of the soft areas (typically unionized).
By the way, OBAMA WAS NOT A LAW PROFESSOR AT UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO. He was a lecturer (which is an adjunct position). And UI-Chicago where Ayers is located is a joke compared to University of Chicago, Northwestern and UI-Champaign.
P.S. I was a Professor at University of Chicago for 8 years.
That's not exactly what he said in the section I quoted. He said, "school is always a contested space – what should be taught? In what way? Toward what end? By and for whom?"
People always have disagreements about these issues. They are inherently political.
Choosing to teach the truth is every bit as much a political choice as choosing to teach falsehood. In today's world, oddly enough, doing so, as you do, is wildly revolutionary.
As Thomas Sowell has pointed out, the essentially libertarian vision of the American founders is the only truly revolutionary political ideology. All others insist that the people must be dominated by an annointed elite group, differing only about who that group should be and what they should do with their power.
Only the American Revolution came up with the idea that the people should be allowed to lead their own lives as THEY see fit.