IN QUEST OF VIEWPOINT DIVERSITY.
Robert at Signifying Nothing links to a
George Will column raising the by-now-standard recognition of leftist bias in the academy. Herewith America's most erudite Cub fan, who is also a defender of American Flyer against Lionel. (Yes, I can document these things but look it up yourself.)
Many campuses are intellectual versions of one-party nations -- except such nations usually have the merit, such as it is, of candor about their ideological monopolies. In contrast, American campuses have more insistently proclaimed their commitment to diversity as they have become more intellectually monochrome.
Mr Prather wonders if the biases of the academy had something to do with the rise of the conservative think-tanks that provide intellectual ammunition for the
vast right wing conspiracy. Let me return to
this.
Right Nation [details or compare prices] also offers a better treatment of the vast right wing conspiracy financed by five families than [What's the Matter With] Kansas [details or compare prices]. The money from the Kochs, Bradleys, Scaife, and the like has been helpful, but without ideas and resonance among the voters the return on that investment would be small indeed.
The "best and the brightest" had to be revealed for the poseurs they were, and it is true that some of the new commonplaces were reviled in the common rooms. On the other hand, that the universities lacked receptivity to such ideas is also true (I recall some hostility to Milton Friedman's approach to economics at Wisconsin, although that was not shared by all faculty or all graduate students.)
Right Nation (pp. 72-73) presents another element: the mistreatment by the "best and the brightest" of some of their own.
The neocons hated what was happening to America's universities, the institutions that had lifted them out of the ghetto. How could the high priests of America's temples of reason stand idly by while students trashed university property? How could people who were supposed to care about intellectual standards agree to the [re -- ed.] introduction of quotas? Criticizing the war in Vietnam was all very well, but how could these overprivileged brats burn the American flag? How could they argue that America was always wrong and its critics always right?
Why only a partial reality check for the academy? Some disciplines are more grounded in reality than others. Physicists can pursue unified field theories without regard for laws of conservation in economics. Political scientists, economists, and sociologists cannot; and those disciplines are far less p.c.-positive than physics, let alone history, English, or the assorted area studies disciplines (want fries with that?)
(I really have to locate and post that "Costs of Correctness" essay. Here I go repeating points from it ... Stick around, Christmas is coming.)
The good news is that some of the
less transgressive remnant in English recognizes that they have a problem.
Critical Mass comments,
When the academic humanities are finally, definitively destroyed by the studied, self-important irrelevance of theorists' dogmatically inaccessible progressivist stance, no one will be able to complain that there were not cogent warnings of what was to come.
Excellent. Perhaps one of these days the Economics faculty will receive
capstone paper drafts that look like proper papers.
SECOND SECTION. Evidently the universities have not suffered enough.
Captain Ed notes that the expense-preference behavior goes on. At the
Washington Post, the big problem is a lack of ... minority enrollment at the name colleges.
Post staff writer Michael Dobbs reports that numerous other large universities are reporting declining black enrollments; these include many campuses in the University of California system, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the private University of Pennsylvania. The University of Georgia experienced a 26 percent drop in African American freshmen this year, Ohio State University a 29 percent drop and the Urbana-Champaign campus of the University of Illinois a 32 percent drop.
And the solution: more of the same.
The key to increasing minority enrollment lies partly in intelligent affirmative action programs; partly in awarding tuition aid on need, not merit; and ultimately in increasing the number of students ready and able to apply. No matter how committed to diversity or recruiting of minority students universities may be, they can compensate only so much for the profound failures of the primary and secondary educational systems that generate their applicant pools.
Let the reality check begin. The Captain adds,
The true cause of falling enrollments is a public-school system that locks children into failing institutions with no hope of upward or outward mobility. Middle-class parents of all ethnicities can move to the suburbs or exurbs, where fewer students and greater resources create a better environment for their children. Upper-class parents can afford to send their children to private schools, where teachers have to produce to remain employed. Other parents remain locked into urban school districts that attract few talented teachers and, because of idiotic state laws, cannot expel troublemakers except under the most critical of circumstances, forcing them to spend money on security that would be better spent on education. And without economic mobility, the children must go to these schools, whether they teach well or not.
That's part of the solution, but it also behooves the "best and the brightest" to consider
Michael at 2 Blowhards's suggestion (via
Spitbull) intended for the Angry Left, but apt advice to the academy in particular.
Perhaps what many Bush voters were doing instead was voting against Kerry's backers, many of whom have been fantastically abusive and snide towards Red America. As far as I can tell, it almost never occurs to the left that the other half of America might not like being ridiculed, being called stupid, and being put down for what they believe in. Yet as dumb -- or at least clueless -- as this demonstrates them to be, these same lefties persist in thinking that their only problem (and the only reason they lost) is that they're too smart for the rest of us. Good lord, what to make of this?
And, hey, has anyone else been as struck as I have by the way lefties -- so quick to ask "what have we done to make them hate us?" when we're attacked by foreign nuts -- never think to ask the same question about why so many of the people they share their own country with dislike (or at least mistrust) them?
Substitute "academic administrators" for "lefties" in the above. It scans.
Oh, and it's time for a reality check for the students. The extended Thanksgiving recess has ended at Northern Illinois, and the
Northern Star is following up on the National Study of Student Engagement. (No, this has nothing to do with granting M.R.S. degrees.)
Stephanie Guido, a freshman pre-physical therapy major, said studying more than 25 hours a week is just too much to ask.
“Nobody wants to study for 25 hours a week, that’s too boring,” Guido said. “I only study 15 hours a week.”
Although this year’s study found the typical student isn’t putting in the “appropriate” 25 hours or more to achieve his or her grades, 40 percent said they earn mostly As, while 41 percent said they earn mostly Bs.
“You can get As and Bs without studying that amount,” said Brian Murphy, a sophomore physical education major. “If they are classes within your major, they are naturally going to come easier to you, I would think.”
Other NIU students said the study fails to acknowledge other aspects of college life.
“College is not about academics all the time,” said Vince DaCosta, a sophomore business administration major.
Other important aspects include going out and meeting and connecting with other people, DaCosta said.
Prepare yourselves! The Academic Ninja
(TM) returns in January.