The Ivory Tower and Indoctrination
 

It's long been a pet-peeve of mine how a very rigid set of left-of-center (very left-of-center values) are pushed on students by faculty under the guise of being "open minded".

George Will put together a good article with examples of these practices with regards to social work programs on college campuses, but I assure you it is rampant in other programs, from education to philosophy, theater to environmental sciences. If you do not buy the politics with the course work, you will not pass.

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/205838

ahh, the "National Association of Scholars"

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Association_of_Scholars

So it is rampant across the disciplines? What are the details of the failure to pass a class in, say, chemistry due to political leanings?

Irving Kristol is on the board, so it must be right. ;)

Academics, like everything else, has its own agendas. . .

Another inconvenient development. The distribution of ideas that Chris does not support. ****!

This is such sad news. C'mon guys, cheer me up. Tell me the story about how the most ignorant people in America are the ones who traffic in information as their profession. You know, teachers and writers and news people. Tell me again about how these people know less than Bubba and Billy-Bob, and how education is damaging. I always enjoy that story.

No one mentions the Christain colleges that have an equally biased agenda and have their spokesmen on TV each and every day. There is a degree of balance in the system.

Other than that, it amazes me that so many people think that voicing opposing views is somehow unpatriotic when we should be listening to each other and taking the AA slogan to heart:

"Take what you need and leave the rest."

I can give you an example from personal experience. I took a business management class senior year of college. The professor (tenured) threw out department guidelines for the course. On day one he told us that his goal was to get us to switch majors from business to "something more productive". Instead of learning about management decisions, we got 16 weeks of how evil corporations were.

He said: "I encourage open debate in my class", but he shut down any debate that he didn't agree with. He used a variety of tactics (many you see here) from feigning confusion to bulldozing with vague statements like "all the experts agree that...[you're wrong]".

Not surprisingly, I challenged this professors views at every opportunity. I found that his views weren't well-reasoned, and instead were quite dogmatic. Eventually he resorted to saying: "moving on to the next topic" any time I spoke.

We were divided into teams and each member of the team turned in an identical final project. I essentially wrote the project single-handedly. I got a "C", my two team members got "A"s. On identical projects!

I did launch a complaint with his department, but as that was my final semester at school and I didn't get the grade until after I graduated, there wasn't much I could do.

Those evil educators!

http://elgg.net/stuartd/files/807/24...The%20Wall.jpg

Good point, but I hardly see that as balanced. Christian colleges tend to be small and expensive. They are largely preaching to the converted anyways. What I'm speaking of occurs at everywhere from small liberal arts schools to large state universities--the other 95% of colleges in the country.

Perhaps what bothers me the most is these schools claim to be "open-minded" but are anything but. The hypocrisy is astounding. If they advertised themselves for what they were, I wouldn't have such a problem with it. But instead they promote themselves as a "big tent" and funnel students towards very specific beliefs.

so you have one personal anecdote to back up:

"I assure you it is rampant in other programs, from education to philosophy, theater to environmental sciences. If you do not buy the politics with the course work, you will not pass."

Then you say:

"Not surprisingly, I challenged this professors views at every opportunity. I found that his views weren't well-reasoned, and instead were quite dogmatic. Eventually he resorted to saying: "moving on to the next topic" any time I spoke."

Well then. Case closed!

One of my degrees is in Philosophy. In those kinds of courses, you'd think that independent thought would be appreciated. And it is, to some degree. But the dean of that department was old school, and was determined to ensure that students learned what famous philosophers thought. Socrates, Aristotle, Seneca.....to Kant and Hume and Berkeley.....to Russell. (Rand, as I have said, is a joke)

As you might expect, philosophy courses attract people who think they are brilliant. People who think they are brilliant also believe that demonstrating their brilliance is a service to the community. Dr. Seaman was patient with this fellows, to a point. It was clear when that point was reached and exceeded. Dr. Seaman was the teacher. The student was not.

I gave one example.

I had a philosophy professor who was similar (and good friends with the management professor). As this was earlier in my academic career I kept my head down and my mouth shut in that class and got through okay.

I also had a political science professor whom I thought was a closet conservative. Could he have feared negative repercussions if found out?

I also had a gay RA sophomore year. I asked him during a floor meeting on "intolerance" why he was so intolerant of my [beer drinking] lifestyle. He reported me to building staff and I had to write an essay apologizing. In hindsight, I should have pushed the issue and gone before the student judiciary.

I had an earth sciences professor who was already a convert to the Church of Man-Made Global Warming (ten years ago). To speak heresy in his presence would get you a severe tongue lashing. His arguments (as do most man-made global warming arguments) centered on the idea that scientists had reached consensus on The Truth and not the actual science behind the process. Once again, head down, mouth shut.

I'm a Poli Sci major, and I have yet to have a poli sci professor push his agenda on to me at this school. Years ago this was not the case, almost all of my professors would try to shape you into a miniature version of him/her.

I've spent a good deal of my adult life surrounded by politics, and through this course of time, I've learned to keep my mouth shut unless I'm in a dark smoke filled room cutting deals.

This semester I have a class that encourages open discussion on policy. The prof. doesn't push his agenda at all. I still find that there are a ton of young students that still haven't figured it out, but hey, they're young.

It's no secret that if you challenge the prof. you don't get good grades. You just hadn't learned that at the time, but it does sound like you learned that lesson, albeit too late.

I am, however, all for others speaking their mind, it lets me know what their weaknesses are. I'm also kind of baffled as to why they teach how government is supposed to operate. Maybe that's all they know though. They've had their noses in the book so long, and have no real experience with the applications they profess and how it doesn't apply.

Seems a little hypocritical to me to say that you encourage open debate--but your own ideas are off limits. Either you encourage open debate or you do not.

a) what school is this?
b) whenever I talk to friends who complain about failed relationship after failed relationship, I usually ask them, "what is the one constant in all of these situations?"

Any educational institution will have a mixed bag of nuts. But sounds to me like the "intellectual agenda" isn't only on the faculty side. Ymmv.

My only agenda in college was to challenge peoples' ideas. I thought that was what college was about?

Certainly most of my professors were great educators and did a good job of encouraging an open learning environment without dominating it with their personal views. But there were enough that idealogically bullied students that I took notice. Not only were these bullies never held accountable for their intellectual dishonesty, they tended to be the ones to win recognition from their department and national awards and such. That set off alarm bells in my head that this kind of teaching seemed to be encouraged, not discouraged.

I don't teach the class. Maybe the Prof hasn't come out of the closet yet. He doesn't lead me to believe he is anything other than apolitical. He does a great job of bouncing ideas around, but does nothing to reveal his political stance.

I actually like the debates, but yes, my ideas are off limits to the class and the prof. I've been around politics too long to go running my mouth in front of a bunch of people I don't know, or trust.

Imagine that ~200 days / year, you teach four or five classes, with a few people in each class challenging you daily. And this goes on for years. You might want to b!tch slap a student or two, don't you think? You're dealing with real people with real feelings, shortcomings, etc. Just like the real world after college.

Your other major reason to attend college is to learn from others (professors, fellow students, the RA that babysits you and the other kids in the dorms, etc.). You don't have to agree with them. Maybe you ignored this part of getting an education. :)

Sounds like a fun class.

My poli-sci class was similar. It was the choice of books that we were told to read that made me think I might have a clue about the professors leanings. (Thomas Sowell sticks out in my mind...) It was a comfortable atmosphere, and I often found myself taking a side that was opposite of my personal beliefs if that side was not being adequately argued.

College is not the real world. Things happen there that would not be sustainable outside of the protection of academia. A student can write a scathing review of their own school in the school newspaper. The can claim they have the right to do this under the guise of academic freedom, the need for an independent student press, the first Amendment...there are probably dozens of justifications. Do you think the NY Times would let its own reporters exercise such unbridled honesty about its own operation?

No, the illusion that is sold is one of total academic freedom. I know that it is an illusion--such a thing could never possibly exist, but that doesn't mean I won't challenge things that don't meet that standard.

The media has a similar role with our government. The illusion is of a perfect government--free of corruption and dishonesty. Clearly this does not exist (nor ever will), but that does not mean it is pointless for the media to challenge the government on its shortcomings.