|
![]() |
|
|
| |
|||||||||
The Dialogue Question:
Should discrimination against conservatives on our college campuses concern us? Again, obviously, "yes." There has been discrimination against many groups over the years, but in recent decades it has been predominately those who fall under the vague, misunderstood rubric, "conservative," which includes even old-fashioned Lockean, pro-capitalist, pro-constitution, genuine "liberals," for whom the term "neo-conservative" had to be coined. This is the result of two pervasive agendas among administrators and faculty: the drive for "diversity" on the faculty, and for multiculturalism in the curriculum, which together wreak monstrous havoc upon a truly liberal education. How so? The overwhelming majority who favor this agenda hold virtually identical views on every important political, social, economic, and ethical question that should be a matter of serious debate. The result is that the more "voices" we hear nowadays, the more they sound the same. But diversity of thinking should be the only diversity that matters to educators. Instead, students no longer hear the radical ("to the roots") debates they deserve. My evidence is, of course, anecdotal. Here's one example. When a former student of mine circulated on the Internet a list of "conservative" political philosophers to other interested graduate students, we got frantic calls from around the country from young scholars who asked to have their names removed. Why? Not because they were not "conservative" (as defined above), but because they would be denied tenure or promotion if their colleagues ever discovered their names on any such list. This is a national tragedy. * Michael Palmer, a member of the Associated Faculties at the University of Maine, is a professor of political science and serves on the honors faculty. He publishes regularly on the history of political philosophy and is president of the Maine chapter of the National Association of Scholars .
Higher education is responsible for development of the next generation of leaders, and the cultivation of great minds requires respect for diverse opinions. When we seek to understand why others hold opinions different from ours, we are better able to express our own opinions with reason and confidence. The concept that educated individuals would persecute colleagues over a difference in political persuasion has no place in an institution of higher education. Research may point to a majority of university faculty being more sympathetic to liberal political thinking than conservative political thinking, but this does not add up to discrimination against conservative thinkers. Many business departments, for example, remain bastions of conservative thought. But more importantly, the enterprise of higher education itself is heading in an increasingly conservative direction. The increase in for-profit institutions has spurred the growth of business, technology, and job qualifying programs. And the drive by administrations to focus on education programs that fill the needs of private sector employers has led to a lessening emphasis on liberal arts and general education courses that might lead to more liberal thinking. On top of this, conservative state legislatures and Boards of Trustees have championed organizational models of university governance that follow the "corporate America model," as a more corporate friendly approach to secure research funding. Pity the poor liberal who runs afoul of the (conservative?) campus proponents of MBO (management by objective), TQM (total quality management), JIT (just in time delivery), or any of the other corporate reforms of liberal higher education. * William Figg, a retired U.S. Army major, teaches computer information systems at Dakota State University. He is a member of the South Dakota Education Association Council of Higher Education and serves on the the Council's negotiating committee. |
|
^ Back to Top |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
| |