Re-thinking both sides

As a liberal, minority academic myself, I find the behavior of these students reprehensible—at best, it’s thoughtless naivete, at worst, a pre-meditated smear campaign against unpopular professors. Perhaps the problem that they have in “voicing their opinions” in class is one of intellectual immaturity, not lack of opportunity.

That said, I think it’s imperative that faculty realize that their students ARE, for the most part, intellectually immature, and unprepared to challenge or counter the political arguments that they encounter in many classrooms. While they may have valid disagreements with the views of certain faculty, they may also feel intimidated, dismissed, or threatened by a professor who makes strongly-worded statements of personal ideology a regular part of class discussion. While we could dismiss such concerns as over-sensitivity or grade-grubbing, I think it’s only fair that faculty DO take a hard look at their teaching methods and demeanor in the classroom, and ask whether or not they’re providing a fair, open, and accepting environment for intellectual discussion.

I have argued repeatedly, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, that most professors ARE open, and in fact welcoming, of disagreement and discussion in the classroom. And I still believe that that’s usually the case. But, on the other hand, I’ve also witnessed examples of the kind of bullying and intimidation that these students complain of, often from professors who express dismay that students aren’t “engaging” in discussion as they should.

While we shouldn’t tolerate sloppy thinking or inaccurate assumptions, I believe that it’s our job to guide students toward more rigorous discourse by showing them how to proceed from the evidence, not by introducing our own conclusions before they’ve had a chance to discover them on their own. I, personally, don’t care if they end up agreeing or disagreeing with my ideology, as long as they’ve demonstrated a willingness to question, evaluate, organize, and argue their own ideas effectively. Clearly, those posting “Commie” flyers haven’t received that education yet.

J.M., at 9:51 am EST on March 7, 2005

I am one of the 10 professors who was targeted by the 2 students. Some clarifications:

We did not “hastily arrange” a press conference. Our faculty emails, reacting to the targeting among ourselves, were penetrated by students who sent copies to the local TV station indicating there was a story and the TV station called us. When we showed up the republicans (who had been “Anonymous Students") were already there, wanting to be interviewed. The TV station decided they had to wait, but the students later claimed faculty were prohibiting their freedom of speech by not including them.

These are certainly ambitious, organized, orchestrated rightwing people. They have been trained and indeed, indoctrinated (to use their word) by the agenda of Horowitz, Students for Academic Freedom, Calif College Republicans etc. into a stance of accusing without ANY complaints or facts on record. I have never even seen either of them before this week. They are seeking to seize power across america in public institutions, by using an “affirmative action” argument for white middle class conservatives. There are many issues here. I have never stifled debate in my classes; i promote it. Indeed, my fellow colleagues in this are exactly the very people who care about those whose views are typically marginalized in our society. We also care about teaching, learning, inclusion., and serious intellectual thought. This “Operation Red Scare” (as their publicity originally named it) is pure conservative hogwash and backlash. Academia is one place where they don’t completely control discourse. It has NOTHING to do with communism or any other construct du jour. This is a pre-emptive strike.

Dr. Joyce Johnson, at 4:38 am EST on March 8, 2005

The actions of these students, and others like them around the country, are clearly cause for serious concern. Looking at the Students for Academic Freedom web site, all the evidence I see there indicates that they are intent on pursuing their own brand of indoctrination. For example, I found only one posting in the SAF complaint section pertaining to one-sided promulgation of a conversative point of view. There are articles about liberal bias but none about conservative bias. There is nothing negative about the many conservative colleges and universities (see for example, a “top 10″ list at http://www.yaf.org/2004-2005_top10.asp ), despite that fact that these institutions are explicitly and unabashedly one-sided and at least one of them apparently does not allow any representation of alternate points of view. Where is SAF’s outrage about these schools?

Rather than living up to their slogan ("you can’t get a good education if they’re only telling you half the story"), SAF seems more intent on eliminating the other “half” of the story altogether. The Young Republican students at Santa Rosa JC appear to be unwitting pawns in a much larger attempt to stifle dissent in academic institutions altogether. The ultimate aim appears to be domination, not balance...

J Sener, at 10:22 am EST on March 13, 2005

Liberals and conservatives in academia

I always find it entertaining when right-wing activists complain that there are so few (so-called) conservatives in academia. What’s keeping them out? How about this: academia is dedicated to open-minded consideration of multiple perspectives. Academics (at their best) have to be willing to investigate other cultures, other belief systems, other lifeways than their own. This is, by the way, the definition of “liberal.” Those on the right wing of American politics and society are not willing to allow the validity of any point of view but their own and, as a result, find academia downright distressing.Of course, there is a second explanation for the absence of right-wing academics: the political right has linked itself with economic policies that value financial success. Academia can clearly never make anyone rich, and thus is an unattractive home for “conservatives.”

Michael Sugerman, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, at 3:36 pm EST on March 20, 2005

A Few Comments Upon Reflection

My name is Michael Aparicio. I am one of the instructors who was targeted in this incident. Over the last two years I have maintained a web site on this incident and other incidents challenging us to reflect upon the nature of academic freedom. In the process of reviewing my site’s links, I came across this article and its posts; and I wanted to add a few thoughts. First, to understand this incident it’s important to remember that none of the students who participated in Operation Red Scare (The name the California College Republicans gave to this incident) had ever attended any of the targeted instructor’s classes, nor did they speak with students who had. They merely walked through the campus and selected faculty offices with posters, announcements, etc, which these students found unacceptable. For example, I had taped a Farenheit 9/11 poster on my window above an announcement informing students they could watch this and other documentaries for free in the school library. Second, only three days after the campus Republican club publicly announced they were responsible for Operation Red Scare, the club’s president admitted they had “no specific complaints, no threats or specific accusations” against any of the instructors. Third, not only did the club’s President publicly declare that “this is just in time for one of our senators introducing the academic bill of rights in April. : )”, but the state senator sponsoring this bill published an editorial in the campus newspaper, 1- clarging “In some cases, our public campuses are morphing into hotbeds of incivility, intolerance, lack of intellectual diversity, harrassment, intimidation, and breach of contract,” 2- alluding to two alleged examples of academic bias, 3- claiming “some [faculty] humiliate students who offer dissenting opinions or employ a two-tier grading system that punishes the GPA of those expressing alternative perspectives,” asserting 4- “a growing number — both liberal and conservative — run their classrooms as if managing little Abu Graibs,” and 5- charging the American Association of University Presidents has “abandoned” a Statement of Principle which declares “The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free expression.” He never responded to my emails asking him to explain the relationship between his vaguely worded, emotionally loaded allegations and Operation Red Scare. To this day these incidents seem to me like nothing more than an attempt to manufacture public support for this bill by raising vaguely-worded McCarthy-like allegations of political subversion with reckless disregard for evidence. Thankfully it did not succeed.

Michael Aparicio, at 6:00 am EDT on April 20, 2007