Why not chime in on this issue? Not that I imagine I have all that much to add. Of course that has never stopped me before…

1. It’s curious how the right seeks to turn the whole postmodern thing around. As in "if there’s no Truth, and all discourse is ideological, then academics must be promulgating a political (liberal) position in the classroom." It’s a dramatic misunderstanding of postmodern critique in that it equates ideology with politics. The fact that one might view American history as ideological, to use and example outside my discipline, does not necessarily mean that one must choose among conservative or liberal or "balanced" views to teach. When we talk about ideology, we’re talking about a structure of ideas that encompasses the various "positions" politicians perform. Properly understood and employed, I would think "postmodern" critique (or any rigorous analysis for that matter) would quickly dispense with the clownish conversation, left or right, that passes for politics in this country.

2. The complaint that academics are always critical of our country, that we are always pointing out historical misdeeds and lingering racisim and inequity, rather than celebrating our great accomplishments as a beacon of freedom in the world. Yeah sure, just go ask our neighbors how much they see us as a "beacon of freedom." There’s probably an accurate recognition here. I often tell my students that as a history major as an undergrad, I noticed the shift from high school history, which was America as great leaders, wars, and accomplishments, and college history, which was America as stolen land and stolen labor.

The fact is, it’s hard to overlook that America was built by slaves on land that was taken from Native Americans. It’s also hard to overlook the statistical evidence, provided by our government’s census, about the continuing economic divide in our nation. And yet, for the most part, public schools, mainstream media, and the government all do a fairly good job of looking the other way.

Higher education serves a cultural function as an outsider voice. Academics do have a different education and perspective from the average citizen. I mean there’s a reason why colleges don’t just pull people off the street to teach courses (well, except for composition).   

You can focus on the the way that perspective reflects liberal politics if you like, but from my perspective that outsider voice is as much a culturally conservative one as anything else. I mean who else complains about how no one reads _____ (fill in the canonical author of your choice) or comma splices or plagiarism and so on? When academics bemoan "intellectual climate," they mostly mean they want students to attend lectures, visit museums, enjoy "high art," watch PBS, etc. For the most part, liberal arts and general education are about conserving and passing on our culture.

I am fairly certain that even the conservatives don’t want the campus to look and sound just like FOX (both the news and entertainment networks).

3. The insistence that professors account for all views just makes no sense. Besides, it isn’t what they really want. They just want their view presented. But it is impossible to present "all" views. If you’re teaching in a Biology department, how are you really going to incorporate the viewpoint of "Intelligent Design"? It just doesn’t make sense within the context of the discipline. You can study intelligent design if you want; you’re just not inside the disciplinary paradigm of biology.

In a similar manner, many recognizable conservative arguments don’t fair well within academic discourse because they don’t stand up to the intellectual rigor of academic analysis. That doesn’t mean that conservative positions might not be constructed in academically rigorous ways, they’re just aren’t many examples of them. Why? Perhaps because there aren’t many academics interested in making such arguments. Most conservative arguments with which I’m familiar are the kind you hear on television and radio. The same is the case for students. When students mimic their favorite conservative argument, they are likely to produce rhetorical structures that don’t pass academic muster. The same, by the way, would be true if they mimicked some sound-bite liberal argument.

4. In my own practice I’m not sure how much of an issue this is. While I wouldn’t consider my subject matter non-ideological or apolitical, in teaching web design or writing fiction or technical writing, I don’t often find myself in a space where students have a strong political position they feel is being restricted. It was more of an issue in composition, where I like to deal with everyday cultural practices and institutions (e.g. school, work, media, etc.). In those classes we typically read pieces that speak to one another, usually in disagreement with one another. Students have to write essays that analyze those arguments and present their own argument.

Honestly I could care less what position they hold. Does that seem heartless? I just don’t see why I would be interested in trying to convince students to hold a particular political position. In my view, anyone who believes that a professor (or academics in general) can systematically shape a generation of students through their course work is totally nuts, and obviously hasn’t been in a classroom in a very, very long time.

The only thing this bill does is demonstrate how conservatives desire to control every aspect of every discourse that goes on in our country. Very few people will teach under those conditions. Few conservatives want to teach as it is. After all, if you are conservative and willing to go to college long enough to get a PhD, you can find far more comfortable and better-paying careers in the corporate world than you’ll ever find in education.

#plaa{position:absolute;clip:rect(485px,auto, auto,485px);}