Thinky Linky: Relativism, Neutrality, and Ward Churchill
posted at 7:23 pm on September 10, 2007 by see-dubya
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
There’s an important debate on the Right over exactly what lesson we are to learn from the Ward Churchill fiasco. Proponents of one view of academic freedom suggest that colleges ought to be utterly content-neutral, and that Ward Churchill’s firing was legitimate only because of his dishonesty and plagiarism. David Horowitz (and I also believe, Protein Wisdom’s Jeff Goldstein) advocate this view because they fear trading a liberal orthodoxy for a conservative one.
On the other side is today is a Hillsdale prof named Thomas Krannawitter whom you probably haven’t heard of, but whom I’ve heard lecture and found seriously impressive. He’s sparring with the Horowitz camp (in the person of Sarah Dogan) over whether or not institutional neutrality is really justified, or whether it’s just a soft form of Churchillian multicultural relativism:
Presumably, Ms. Dogan would agree that students in an engineering class must learn the basic truths about gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, and related matters. Presumably she would agree that engineering students should not be tested on the “diversity” of their views about engineering matters, but on whether they understand the truth about engineering matters.
In politics, as in engineering, there are certain fundamental, self-evident truths that form the foundation of legitimate government and free society. We Americans are fortunate in that those self-evident truths are enshrined in our own Declaration of Independence. As a teacher of politics, I believe it is one of my highest duties to help students and citizens understand those truths. But I wonder if Horowitz and Dogan would allow the teaching of those truths in our schools, or would they drive them out because they think those truths are merely “political ideologies” that have no place in higher education?
Far from “avoiding issues of academic and political controversy in the classroom,” of which Ms. Dogan accuses me, I engage directly in academic and political controversy in the classroom by directly challenging the reigning multicultural assumption that there is no objective truth.
Both sides make some fair points. An unthinking conservative orthodoxy would be only marginally better than an unthinking nihilist one, but I don’t think Prof. Krannawitter advocates an unthinking approach, nor one that avoids the fair presentation of alternative viewpoints. And “content neutrality” is an illusion: there will always be at least a de facto orthodoxy in academia as in every institution, one that enables decision making and that determines advancement. What those understandings and assumptions should be isn’t an eternally ineffable question. We can know some things. Reason isn’t all-powerful, but it’s also not utterly futile.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Nowadays I’d be happy if teachers at least stuck to the topics they were supposed to be teaching.
At least that would limit the political rants to the government and poli/sci teachers.
It’s when you have to listen to you gym teacher give a political rant that you realize how far out of control things have gotten.
JadeNYU on September 10, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Proponents of one view of academic freedom suggest that colleges ought to be utterly content-neutral, and that Ward Churchill’s firing was legitimate only because of his dishonesty and plagiarism. David Horowitz (and I also believe, Protein Wisdom’s Jeff Goldstein) advocate this view because they fear trading a liberal orthodoxy for a conservative one
by see-dubya
I don’t really think we need to be comcerned at the present time with the pendelum swinging permently to the right. We need to be concerned that the pendulem will be dismantled altogether while locked in the left position. It is hard to communicate the progression of the leftist ideology that I witnessed since the assasination of JFK, or what life was like in the USA. We are now at the brink of being disected without the possibility of ever regaining the rights guaranteed by our constitution.
sonnyspats1 on September 10, 2007 at 7:39 PM
A couple of days ago, I got a call from my daughter… 16 year old, from her HISTORY class.
Apparently the teacher was saying that there is now, nor ever has been, any Al Quaeda in Iraq… my daughter knows better, but needed some quick links to proove to her teacher that there were….
I talked to the teacher later, and she was not a moonbat, just completely uninformed and actualy thanked me for setting her straight…
Sad when we have those without knowledge, teaching…
Romeo13 on September 10, 2007 at 7:43 PM
Interesting idea. I think a wonderful way to begin would be to have Civics taught in publics schools again. I mean, didn’t that used to be a course of study? We didn’t have it in northeast Ohio – we had Social Studies…what a joke.
Dork B. on September 10, 2007 at 7:49 PM
Social Studies is what became of history and civics.
The books have lots of brightly colored pictures and cultural factoids so that we can have a better understanding of how wonderful other cultures are.
In the mean time, the majority of American college kids think that the Declaration of Independence is the exact same thing as the Constitution.
JadeNYU on September 10, 2007 at 7:58 PM
I guess I was debating ‘content neutrality’ the other day and didn’t realize it. But I saw video online of a professor and biologist go off on politics and religious people. It just didn’t sit right me. I really respected my political science and history professors in college because they didn’t insert their political leanings into their lectures.
terryannonline on September 10, 2007 at 8:08 PM
Could you elaborate on that?
SouthernDem on September 10, 2007 at 8:14 PM
One of the saddest things about America and the entire Western world is the politicisation of everything. It has destroyed education.
aengus on September 10, 2007 at 8:21 PM
Thats the key. Churchill types don’t just insert their leanings, they preach their beliefs as fact and do so daily. College students are still learning students and, silly them, tend to listen and often believe what a prof is saying. They shouldn’t need to verify every utterance from any one prof in any class…unless it’s a class on how to detect liars.
Both sides, or all sides if multi faceted, MUST be presented or the ‘leftie making machine’ (a university) does go unchallenged.
shooter on September 10, 2007 at 8:42 PM
What, pray tell, is liberal about a man who calls people jumping from a burning building, Eichmans? Is that what passes for liberal today?
No, Churchill is a leftist, and leftist orthodoxy, taken to its ultimate conclusion, is not a valid political view. It is nihilism with an agenda of, if it ever could be carried out, destroying the West, starting with America.
We have no moral, or ethical mandate to give this nihilism, that masquerades as humanism, any place in any institution of higher learning. This nihilism is not an honorable counterweight to conservatism. It is intellectually devoid of any educational value, just as it is devoid of any principles espoused during the enlightenment, that gave birth not only to America but to modern, parliamentary Europe. It is completely alien to the foundation of our culture. Why should that poison be afforded any weight?
Do we consider giving nazi-sympathizers equal moral standing? And they don’t even want to destroy America.
The question is, should we fire him for his views? Some libertarians feel that might set a bad precedent, as libertarians are wont to worry about slippery slopes as per their distrust of any institution. Yet, I say, that firing someone for making the statements he has made, is no worse than firing someone for any other inappropriate philosophy. Would we tolerate a white supremacist teaching biology? Should publically funded schools have no moral standards? Are libertarians so offended by the notion of moral standards, that even the nihilistic indoctrination of a Ward Churchill should be allowed to stand masquerading as a valid counterpoint to… what…. ? To Conservatism?
jihadwatcher on September 10, 2007 at 8:45 PM
aengus on September 10, 2007 at 8:21 PM
I agree. I think this guy raises some interesting points, but I tend to think of it more in terms of a power struggle. The whole Culture War thing. With one power having control over Education and the Media for over 30 years. I’m all for teaching the fundementals. But I also advocate a strong rebuke and defeat of Socialism in our Universities. Conservatism is not a mirror of Liberalism. If the Universities went conservative in their Political Science departments it would be a lot closer to the Truths of our government than what we see now. And possibly a bit less inclined to propagandize or indoctrinate.
Dork B. on September 10, 2007 at 8:48 PM
Damn good comment.
Dork B. on September 10, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Some think that liberals have politicized curriculum only so they can have more direct power and control.
Think about it. We live in a society where the civilians rule. The success of our decisions in self-rule stems from how well we understand ourselves and the world around us. The Founders saw how crucial education would be in our society.
If the liberals continue to dominate colleges and education as a whole, they will eventually end up reaping an inherently liberal voting public. And that’s just the best possible outcome of what’s happening. The worst? The mental poverty of America continuing to grow, leaving future generations unwilling or unable to make an informed decision.
unamused on September 10, 2007 at 8:55 PM
In response to a reference that I had made to some political player as “hilariously liberal”, my older brother the liberal (small l) correctly pointed out to me that using “liberal” as an epithet in our political culture is nonsensical, as “liberal democracy” is in fact the very basis of our political philosophy.
In the same sense, it seems to me that this debate between the Horowitz and Hillsdale camps as to the correct approach to changing the current environment in academia should be one of degree, more than polarity. It seems to me that, of course, they’re both right, but in degrees. But if the Horowitz/Dogan argument is actually that there are no objective truths, then put me on the side of Krannawitter.
Yes, of course there are objective truths, right and wrong.
For those who have never even heard of Hillsdale, and there are probably many, it is a rare and serious place.
Jaibones on September 10, 2007 at 9:54 PM
There is a bizarre notion that Liberals are the intelligentsia we need to infiltrate the educational system, and their union agrees.
Hening on September 10, 2007 at 10:05 PM
Speaking of moral relativism, how about a nice study abroad class from CU-Denver (same system as CU-Boulder and Ward Churchill) to visit the wonderful socialist utopia and totalitarian health care of Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela for MBA/MS International Business credit?
elpresidente on September 11, 2007 at 3:14 AM
I wouldn’t mind any institutional bias as long as all sides of a question were presented fairly and were allowed to be argued without repercussion.
Both my daughters had one particular teacher in high school who asked for opinions, but docked them for stating opinions contrary to his cemented mind. I actually had to report him and fight for one of their grades because of his blatant inability to allow a different viewpoint. I told him if it was a matter of grammar, or punctuation, or even developing the argument, he could dock away, but my daughter was NOT to be docked for her actual opinion when it was asked for.
He was pwned.
Mommynator on September 11, 2007 at 10:58 AM
There is already tremendous discrimination against conservatives in the academy. If you institutionalize content-based assesments, that is going to get worse, not better. The academy is filled from top to bottom with true leftists.
Clark1 on September 11, 2007 at 11:16 AM
I spent a long time not understanding something my Dad told me when I was in junior high, that the renaming of government/civics/history courses to “social studies” was a harbinger of a terrible trend in our nation.
Sometime after entering the Navy and beginning to see the bigger picture of our national history and founding principles, I understood more completely.
Now, just about anything that has the word ’social’ in its title raises a red flag with me, and seldom has that caution been unwarranted.
On this day of all days, extremism in the defense of liberty is not only no vice, but a necessary virtue.
Freelancer on September 11, 2007 at 11:34 AM
I think that public schools should avoid presenting opinion as much as possible, and present it as opinion when they do. On the other hand, for private universities, I think that we should encourage transparency, and let the market decide if they want to hire people who have been indoctrinated at a leftist university, or people who have been educated at a conservative university.
phelps on September 11, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Comment pages: