On academic freedom

Those who years ago called for balanced and alternative perspectives on college campuses were proven resoundingly prescient, as the need has never been more urgent than at the present time. Certain perspectives on issues, often wildly outside the mainstream of a plurality of the local public’s opinion on said issues, are lauded to the point of deification. Whether through outright malaise or simple ignorance on the part of university faculty and staff, young minds are inculcated with these precepts to which an incalculably small but vocal minority of the entire population adhere.

As has been discussed in your classes, the scientific method is the dominant methodology of inquiry in much of the academic world. It requires divorcing one’s own biases and ideologies from the process of inquiry as much as possible in order to produce an objective result. Though they are more likely than not highly critical of dogma in the religious world, many of these critics fail to see the hypocrisy in building a diametrically opposed dogma to that which they are supposedly opposed!

When eighteen year olds come to a college or university directly out of high school, many have not sufficiently emerged far enough out from under the parental wing to be able to make a decision on the “meaning of life”, what their positions on “polisociorelgiious” issues are, who they “are,” and have not contemplated the colossi of life to any sufficient degree. These are the giant existential questions which define the human being that we’re all told to try and find an answer to in freshman philosophy classes that many institutions obligate students to take. Questions that have been asked without a consensus answer since antiquity. A philosophy course that is likely taught by politically, socially, and economically liberal professors who aren’t representative of “middle America,” who are likely espousing only marginally popular views in the public-at-large to their students, and who exercise a disproportionate influence on a large number of the next generation in relation to their percentage of the population. Does this not present a problem to most people? The problem isn’t endemic to a specific field; it’s metastasized throughout the university.

It is not my intention to inundate this letter with personal anecdotes (with which I am UNASHAMEDLY poor at developing to a cogent point), but I know of no other way to adequately convey my thoughts on the subject. I came into ETSU after graduating from a local public high school without any great distinction or education beyond the state’s mandated requirements, and had little idea of what I wanted to do. I was raised in a passionately Democratic (although pessimistic) household and had developed an interest in liberal politics, so I decided to major in political science. It is only through an innate intelligence, biological I assume for no other reason could be determined, that I would be blessed to be at the position I am now. For if I solely relied on the instruction I was given, my knowledge would indeed be in a sad state of affairs.

Consistent pessimism and playing the victim card will get no one anywhere, but my major was indeed quite shabby from a functional standpoint. The graduate program was cut out long before I attended the school, and classes that were once taught on an annual basis may only be taught every other year now, if at all. The best word I can find to describe the situation would be outright neglect on the part of the university staff. It’s possible that some of the faculty doesn’t want to push the program to excellence, but many faculty members, along with some of the students, want to realize the program’s potential. That hasn’t been done.

In fairness, I think all of the professors in the political science department are excellent people in their personal lives, and some of them have helped me with things outside of the classroom. However, saying that the opinions of our political science professors are even mildly representative of the local area (from which ETSU draws a great number of its students) is absurd. All but one lean left; the remaining individual is center-right. All but one of the liberal faculty members were, in hindsight, highly favoring liberal points of view, and disparaged conservative views on the very same issues we were studying, if the conservative viewpoint was mentioned at all. What did this lead to? Since I would wager
that the majority of the student body at ETSU (even in the liberal arts) is politically conservative (wouldn’t we just be a microcosm of the area from which we draw?), there was definite tension, with the occasional shouting match and profanity sprinkled in, between many students and their instructors. This had to be immensely frustrating for the few erudite conservatives existing at this school, which has a student body only negligibly more socially aware than someone in a persistent vegetative state.

Political and social conservatives were likely to grow frustrated with our political science program, perhaps to the point of some even changing majors. Furthermore, the liberal students in the department (who are, once again, likely outnumbered by conservatives, and I believe considerably more scholarly on the whole) are simply having their views confirmed without any challenge or having to question them. I can’t recall a time when I felt penalized for my then hardcore New Deal stances, or know a political conservative being penalized for their ideology, but I can say that I did receive benefits for my political views on more than one occasion. While such favoritism and bias occurs everywhere from the college campus to Fortune 500 boardrooms, it is still not ethical and educators, by virtue of their profession and their perhaps disproportionate influence on subsequent generations, should redouble their efforts in eliminating faculty members from throwing treats to their copartisans.

I was involved in a series of exchanges with an instructor this semester which only further confirmed my suspicion on attempts to curtail open dialogue and penalizing exceptional individuals by some faculty and staff at this institution. The instructor asked the student body to define capitalism to what was initially complete silence from the room. I chimed in to define it, a definition which the instructor wrote on the board in its entirety. The instructor expanded on capitalism, prompting students to define terms such as “good” and “service.” There was once again nothing from the roughly thirty or so people in the room. I stepped in to bridge the divide on yet another occasion. At this point, the instructor looked at me and said to me directly that “while my knowledge was appreciated, I shouldn’t be answering more questions.”

My first issue, and perhaps the most troubling one, was that I was told to essentially shut up not because I was making ignorant statements, but rather because I was making correct ones to questions that other people were either unwilling or unable to answer! After my first reply, I waited until the instructor made a remark about the class being unable to answer the question before giving my response. I did not seek to dominate the discussion and I was not saying anything rude or controversial. Instead of letting me guide the discussion and give other people direction on what they may need to brush up on, I was eliminated from the discussion in order for the instructor to be able to coddle other students so they will not feel ignorant. Merit is useless in this class; it’s all about being “inclusive” and having a “diversity of opinion,” to use some of the more frequent talking points. The very things they’re championing are the virtues they end up limiting. How ironic.

I understand the instructor’s obvious frustration. This was not a “1x00” level course with kids right out of high school and the average two-bit schmuck off the street coming in; most of the people in class are majors in the field and should have more knowledge than this. What the instructor was asking from the student body was no more than what a competent 8th grader or the average 12th grader should know (No wonder our economy is running into the ditch when most people don’t even have cursory knowledge of simple economics). How can an instructor teach to people with expansive knowledge about a wide variety of topics ANYTHING when you have to also teach the completely ignorant who don’t even know capitalism from a command economy? It is an impossibility and serves no one. To test the intellectual reservoir of anyone in the class, I would offer a $100 reward to anyone in the room who could calculate compound interest. Compound interest is a common financial practice, yet I doubt any student in any of my classes could figure this out. Welcome to ignorant America.

Although my opinions are diametrically opposed to the opinions of this instructor on many political and social issues, we’ve always managed to keep our disagreements respectful. I was allowed to resubmit a rather poor paper I wrote. The instructor is not obligated to grant me this courtesy, and while I’m thankful for the personal charity, it still doesn’t change the fact that I’m hearing nothing more from this “educator” than advocacy of certain viewpoints on issues. Positions that don’t agree with this person’s political ideology either go unmentioned or are disparaged. Once again, tolerance and diversity extends only to other leftists.

Even the textbook for this course presents mostly issues that are mainly of interest to the upper crust, white, liberal academic, and the content of the book will not interest most. How many people talk about “hyperconsumerism” around the kitchen table? The book becomes redundant in its declarations of the evils of capitalism, while never championing any of its virtues. The baseless rants against globalism are particularly appalling; many of the readings on globalism would fit rather well in a diatribe from David Icke or Alex Jones, and shouldn’t be found in a textbook claiming to be from “experts.” Fareed Zakaria, no neoconservative or Bilderberger himself, champions globalism in his most recent book, The Post-American World, as having been largely beneficial to the world. Only extreme protectionists, conspiracy theorists, and people on the fringe of religious thought in mainstream America utterly despise globalism to the extent that the authors appear to from their “selected” readings on the issue. If I held the same opinions as David Icke, Jones, and John Hagee, I’d be reevaluating the horseshit that was coming from my mouth. These authors don’t seem to get the point.

Why are they so quick to bite the entrepreneurial spirit that feeds them? The authors are quick to point out the inequalities that capitalism creates, but make short shrift of the past 200 years of capitalist thought as the most prosperous period in the history of mankind. These authors masquerade as objective, but the content of their book shows anything but. It’s an entrenched system, from the textbook author and publisher to the faculty members, which perpetuates this anti-Americanism. Only in the West would these dissenters and buffoons have the protection, and not the wrath, of the government on which they are spitting. It is the political conservative, not the liberal, who maintains the existing order and allows the full spectrum of views to be heard, no matter how divisive, ignorant, and asinine they are.

This class is required for me, but I have no intention of doing more than that which is a sine qua non for an “A,” or contributing in any meaningful way now. Am I an aberration because I’m intelligent and have some semblance of success as of late? Should I be penalized for it? I’m not of that opinion, but I have no doubt that there are those in the university who seek to denigrate success, simply because they are jealous of what they do not have themselves. Ad hominem attacks only prove the lack of substance and tact on the part of the attacker, and for any true academic freedom to be gained, shameful behavior must be curtailed. No one will ever get anywhere as long as we are at each others’ throats slinging insults and wanting people different from us to shut the hell up.

I am not an ideologue; I hope that people who have met me, even if only in some tangential way, know I value producing results over simply replicating the routine, and function over form. I am willing to listen to and consider anything, and, like any reasonable person, have changed my mind on numerous occasions based on the things I’ve seen and learned. If a person is not refining his or her views, that person has stopped learning. Even the best of us slip up from time to time and shout down other people. This should be an anomalous behavior, not the damn policy.

While it is important to pursue academic freedom, I seriously wonder if this particular school will even listen. Many people have vested interests in maintaining the status quo. A conservative reformer not only has to deal with the “system,” but also with the apathy of the student body. I have been here since 2004. Many well-intentioned student organizations could never get off the ground because no one gave a shit. For any student organization to do well, people have to care. To be frank, I just don’t see that from most people here at ETSU. Social life and a sense of community is practically nonexistent here at ETSU; I sometimes go up to Milligan to see friends, and I attend public functions there from time to time. The student whom I have met welcomed me with open arms, and I have forged better friendships there over the past few months than I have in years at ETSU. Many of these people are dear friends, and my affection for a few is almost to the point that I could call them family. For what it’s worth, this is just one man’s experience, but based on what I’ve experienced at ETSU, I can see only incremental change coming, if anything at all. I’d like to see a little bit of this hope and change, and change and hope that everyone has been talking about as of late. Would it be that it were really so!

Honestly, I do not see much hope at this school without a significant culture change. People have to stay on campus, form bonds, and actually talk to one another for any reform to take place. The reform in academic freedom will come from the students up. The students have to demand better than what we get a lot of times, and few at ETSU notice or care about problems. The most telling example of our problems is when a class dismisses and everyone quickly picks up their cell phones and dials a distant person. We don’t know the person sitting next to us in a class from a turkey, but we’re sure going to rush to talk to our significant other or our families.

Because issues of academic freedom have mainly been dragged into the public sphere by political and social conservatives, any organization that promotes true egalitarianism of thought in academia will likely be regarded as a Republican hack. While it is my hope that this would not occur, it is likely inevitable in our increasingly polarized universities and the fact that the vanguard of the status quo will not even welcome the debate.

The first challenge this type of organization would face is that because it’s perceived as learning toward the political Right, it would attract people who are simply in rebellion against “the system,” for whatever reason. Some people may feel that they were penalized by a professor on the basis of their political viewpoints, and it may not be true. Their grades may be completely of their own doing, but it’s impossible to sort this out as a third party not privy to an objective view of the situation. It’s also conceivable that religious conservatives would enter an academic freedom group to “stick it to those godless pricks.” While I may have common ground with religious conservatives on certain points, shaping the cause of an organization for academic freedom to placate someone’s religious conviction is disingenuous to the cause and irresponsible. An organization like this should be not be used as a mouthpiece by dogmatic groups.

The second challenge is allowing the general public access to the organization. If meetings are publicized and anyone can show up, rabble is bound to come in. Like I said earlier, attracting extremists and people on the margins of society is not what most organizations would want to do, but an organization based on controversy means that ideologues from all sides will show up. My judgment would be to make this organization invitation-only to start. All events would need to take place off campus property. Keep the public at a distance and screen people before inviting them in. When a cause is unpopular, allowing the public in will likely cause more destabilization than good.

People and organizations do not need to feel singled out by what an academic freedom group would be doing. My opinion is that public criticisms of ideas should be kept as general as possible. The least thing that the organization would want is some offended faculty member or liberal interest group trying to dismantle it.
As for me personally, I’m running for the exits of this institution at the first available opportunity. I will graduate in May and am not seeking a continued stay. I may come back here for a graduate degree at some point, but I’m tired of liberal public schools for the time being. I’m taking a course at Milligan in the spring to sort of acquaint myself with the school and its people on a larger scale, while not risking a significant amount of money. Although I’ve never attended another school, I think the same kinds of problems are going to be evident in most major universities and even in small colleges that are located in a liberal area, are historically leftist, or have an anti-traditionalist bent. I’m sure some bastions of reason do exist, but as I age, I’m seeing more people driven by liberal emotional appeals and less by principled conservative reason.

What I see at ETSU drives me further toward conservatism. Not toward McCain/Palin, but toward an opinion for a less politically correct and more open world. I want views to be heard, but I want people to state them with at least a modicum of tact and decency. I didn’t pay $2,600 this semester to have anti-Americanism, anti-globalism, and anti-Semitism pushed down my throat. I didn’t pay to learn things from only a single point of view, thus distorting what I learned and voiding its utility.

Change to the academic establishment has to come from both the students who are tired of “taking their medicine,” who are sick of hearing how utterly satanic their nation is, and from the seditious faculty members who have the audacity to make these dangerous claims. The faculty members are the cornerstone of the university. You will be at ETSU shaping lives long after I am forgotten. A student can demand the change, but it is up to the faculty members to implement and protect fair change.

I feel that it is important to note that I am not a pessimist by default. I am currently upbeat about my personal life and see that things can go well. I can get an undergraduate degree with absolutely no debt. My standard of living can be higher than that of my parents and grandparents. I see that the American dream is alive and well for many people who make correct decisions and live a conservative personal life.

Many of my peers do not have this luxury. Some kids whom I’ve known since kindergarten are $30,000 in debt, if not more, for undergraduate degrees which may be of little value in the private sector. I have no children, no debt, and no major obligations which would prevent me from doing what I want to do. Once I get out of undergraduate school, I will be going elsewhere and doing something else. “Elsewhere” may be ten minutes away to Milligan. “Elsewhere” may be Dubai or the UAE. ETSU, however, is not in my immediate future. “Something else” may be investments and wealth management. It may be early Christian history, which I fell in love under Dr. Burgess and while reading the works of Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman. It may be education. It could be anything.

Hopefully this has given some further insight to my views on academic freedom and intellectual development.