I really don’t want to get into this, but it well-covers a subject that has been bugging me a bit since I first stepped onto a college campus. At Asymmetrical Information, there is an entry entitled, “A Hell of a Long Post on Conservatives in Academia.” Shouldn’t be long, since there are damn few, but that’s her point.
Now I probably lean to the left, with a firm grip on certain conservative values. I don’t mind sex and politics entering into courses that are definitely relative, as I strongly feel that these elements have driven the history of the world and rightfully belong in History, Literature, and hey–Political Science!–among some others. And I agree with the concept that its purpose is to provide a thought process towards application of the course being studied. However, I feel it is often being shoved down the throats of students who are hopefully approaching higher education with an open mind, and after all, this is a bit one-sided. Extreme liberalism seems to feel liberal towards the rights of everyone except conservatives. There’s little room for diversity in this area anyway.
Example: A conservative professor in English Comp in an election year who suggested a paper on who we would likely vote for (strongly encouraging the students to vote) and why. This subject was challenged and brought up to higher authority as a violation of privacy. Maybe, maybe not; this was, after all, a writing exercise and didn’t need to be an open declaration but a valid argument. The only instructor whose political affiliation I didn’t know by the end of the first class was one of my Algebra teachers.
Another example: Liberals are quick to stick labels on people, yes, really. In first semester Spanish I learned that blond was rubio/a and brunette was moreno/a. In second semester Spanish, being asked to describe my lovely classmate who was a Polish/African brunette, I said, “morena.” Well, I was quickly corrected and made aware of the fact that I was a white, middle-aged woman and my response was expected but should have been more politically correct. Frankly, the reason I don’t make a lot of noise about homo/hetero, or black/white/purple is simply because I don’t see the difference in people and see no need to point it out. The differences I do see, while products of ethnicity and culture and upbringing, is in the individual. These are good things. The difference between piorogi and ravioli is a couple eggs.
There are good and bad points on both sides of this topic, but I don’t see good reasoning behind the intensity with which politics enters every classroom. Sex is more natural and acceptable, and, I suppose, less open to controversy. But presidential bashing isn’t, to me, a great thing to be teaching. I didn’t notice a lot of it going on when Clinton’s flaws came to light, but I felt that thank goodness the man gave us something as acceptable as oral sex to focus on; it took the spotlight off his shady financial dealings and lies.
Why not make Political Science (probably the only required unbiased instructor) a first year course requirement and be done with it? It’s certainly a valuable study for all students regardless of program of study, and will be used throughout one’s lifetime–more than Algebra, surely–even in the day to day politics we face with each other.
Anyway, it’s worth checking out the weblog entry and the comments.
Excellent argument going on at The Forager regarding artistic denial and censorship. While I might tend to think that some moral structure should be in place, I agree that it should be placed within the individual, and not left to a society to regulate. The individuals form the society, and public opinion will always prevail, even over laws and closed minded groups who set themselves up as a form of censorship for the masses. Thus, art need not be burdened with a moral responsibility, but rather free to explore all of man’s nature. Its meaning and its value will be decided on that basis.
The Lost Children: A Charity Anthology
