May 3, 2007

Inquiry or Indoctrination?

Let’s face it: Comp 101 doesn’t tend to be the most controversial of courses. But at the University of California at San Diego, a campaign officially begun last month to alter a required freshman writing and social science curriculum has already claimed two casualties.

Looking for a job?

See all 312 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 2,352
Administrative: 2,117
Executive: 155
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

Benjamin Balthaser and Scott Boehm, two graduate teaching assistants who have led the campaign to restore the year-long Dimensions of Culture sequence to what they say is its original form, have not been re-hired for the upcoming academic year — a circumstance all parties agree is attributable to their efforts to change the curriculum from within.

The graduate students charge that the year-long course sequence designed in the early 1990s to “challenge hegemonic assumptions about race, class, gender and sexuality” has lost its coherence as the program has been watered down into “a form of uncritical patriotic education that fails to interrogate the injustice integral to the founding of the U.S. and the current state of U.S. society.” A coalition of 15 to 20 graduate and undergraduate students presented a list of grievances and demands — including the development of a faculty and student advisory committee — to the administration late last month after what its leaders characterize as unsuccessful negotiations earlier in the academic year.

In turn, the program’s administrator says that he is resisting efforts “to turn this into a program of political indoctrination” — while ensuring that the university maintains an atmosphere of collegiality.

The Dimensions of Culture sequence is required for all freshmen at UCSD’s Thurgood Marshall College, which as one of the university’s six undergraduate colleges has a unique mission. Conceived by faculty and students and founded in 1970, the college has been distinguished by a particular commitment to issues of diversity and social justice. The Dimensions of Culture program specifically is supposed to consider the question of “how scholars move from knowledge to action” as a central, overarching course objective in each of three quarters focusing, respectively, on diversity, justice and imagination. Billed by the college as a “study in the social construction of individual identity,” the curriculum covers a range of issues surrounding the human relationship to the self, work, community and nation.

But while the course has come under fire on the one hand for what the grad students say is its growing conservatism, so too does it come under fire for being too leftist to begin with. Students consistently complain of a left-leaning bias in the curriculum on evaluations, says Abraham Shragge, the Dimensions of Culture program director — even still.

The Web site NoIndoctrination.org, gives a glimpse: One student in 2003 describes the course as perpetuating “the ideology that the United States is nothing beyond a despicable and hypocritical country that continues to oppress minorities and the disadvantaged.”

“Students were NOT encouraged to express opposing views,” another student wrote that year. “Each section was a frustrated attempt by the TA to reteach the course material because the lectures were so bad. The TA force-fed us material, and approached opinions in the course reader as if they were facts. I definitely did NOT feel comfortable expressing my viewpoints as a conservative.”

The Controversy

Depending on whom you ask, the critics of the Dimensions of Culture program as it’s currently taught are either political ideologues who want to see their own ideals perpetuated, or students and scholars committed to maintaining the heritage of the college by challenging freshmen to critically examine everything they’ve ever understood about the world they live in.

“From the beginning, the program was meant to be a de-territorializing experience that would make students question mainstream assumptions. It would be a very critical approach to questions of race, class, gender and sexuality in the United States,” says Boehm, a third-year literature student who, along with Balthaser (a fourth-year), was not rehired for his teaching assistant position this April after becoming an active and outspoken critic of the current Dimensions of Culture curriculum.

“We unapologetically feel that the program is there to raise very particular questions and particular issues,” adds Balthaser. “It’s okay that this program has a viewpoint.”

Yet, Boehm says that, probably in response to complaints of a left-leaning bias, the course began to change. Balthaser and Boehm describe a gradual retreat from controversial subject matter, a “militarization” of the curriculum, and a gradual sense of incoherence caused by the uncritical introduction of “alternative” viewpoints to the syllabus.

They describe, for instance, the loss of foundational texts by Stuart Hall on critical race theory, and the addition of the introductory chapter of Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind as the course’s seminal text — Bloom’s book being the biggest critique of the type of education the Dimensions of Culture curriculum traditionally purported itself to provide, Boehm says.

By failing to critically examine texts brought in for the sake of balance, such as a Family Research Council article on gay marriage, Boehm says the course instructors perpetuate a false notion that there are only two sides to every argument. “The both sides issue is used by the right often to oversimplify the issue and ensure that their viewpoint is included,” says Boehm — who adds that it’s fine if students critically examine writings by Bloom and the Family Research Council, so long as faculty situate the readings in their context.

Among other examples of concrete ways in which the course has changed, Balthaser and Boehm point to the replacement of a writing prompt on affirmative action with what they characterize as a less controversial prompt: In a recent year, students examined Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education. “I don’t remember what they were asked to do but it produced horrible papers,” Boehm says, characterizing the exercise as a wash for critical thinking skills. “Basically the students were put in a position to say Brown v. Board of Education was good and Plessy v. Ferguson was bad.”

“This program was a program designed in order to teach students how to teach critically,” Boehm says. “I’m concerned that my students are bored in this class, a class that was designed to shake them up.”

Shragge, the program’s director for three years now and a historian who studies civilian/military relations, concedes that there was a problem several years ago when faculty failed to critically address the Family Research Council reading — a problem he says he attempted to address. But he takes issue with the argument that the program has been watered down, and questions the political motivations of those behind the campaign.

“The T.A.s who have been so critical of the program have argued that this should be a program in political indoctrination; it’s supposed to lead our students to political and social action. That’s not the purpose and it never was: This is social sciences, humanities, writing, with social justice as the backbone of the readings,” Shragge says.

“One thing we have done in recent years is add some material that does articulate the other side of the argument.... I know some of the T.A.s really object to the fact that our reader could include a reading from [free-market economist] Milton Friedman. ‘How can we do that?’ “

But, he continues, “If you look at the syllabus, there’s a lot of pretty hard-hitting material in there. I don’t believe that the course is conservative in any way: We’re criticized by many of our students for being too liberal, too left-wing.” Among the texts in the first section of the course (on diversity): George Lipsitz’s The Possessive Investment in Whiteness, Audre Lorde’s “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House,” and Jonathan Kozol’s “Still Separate, Still Unequal: America’s Educational Apartheid.”

Yes, the course features a Milton Friedman article arguing that corporate boards have no reason to exercise social or moral responsibility, Shragge says, but it’s paired with an essay by Robert Haas, the former CEO of Levi-Strauss, describing the need for every corporation to act in a morally responsible manner. As for the switch away from the affirmative action prompt, Shragge says that with more than 800 students taking the course each year, prompts must be continually refreshed. And as for the Bloom and Hall readings, slight variations in the syllabus are often attributable to the varying interests of the three faculty lecturers assigned to the course each quarter: the inclusion of either of those two authors in future years, he says, will depend on faculty inclination.

What Next?

Boehm (who won a teaching award in 2006) and Balthaser say it was very clearly indicated to them that the reason they might not be considered for renewals of their T.A. positions in the Dimensions of Culture program this coming year had nothing to do with their teaching. When other T.A.s received notification last week they’d be returning, they received no word whatsoever.

“They get good ratings as teachers. That’s a fact,” says Shragge, who describes the T.A.s as undermining faculty autonomy and working outside the program guidelines. “But because I was not moving in the right direction and not moving quickly enough to address their demands that Dimensions of Culture be turned into a course in political indoctrination, they have gone all over the campus to stir up a lot of campuswide dissent that I find very damaging to the program. They’ve created a very hostile atmosphere; they’ve been very hostile to me. This is a working environment that depends on collegiality.”

Not surprisingly, not all faculty are pleased with the decision. “As T.A.s, as intellectual workers, they have a right to have a say,” says Luis Martin-Cabrera, an assistant professor in the literature department who works closely with Boehm. “It’s very clear to me that because they are using their freedom of speech they are being punished.”

Yet, the conversation about the Dimensions of Culture curriculum has emerged as an issue separate from the fates of Balthaser and Boehm. In addition to the efforts the two T.A.s have been spearheading, the Thurgood Marshall Student Council unanimously passed a resolution February 1 calling for a review of the Dimensions of Culture program by a panel made up exclusively of Thurgood Marshall students, faculty from critical race theory, ethnic studies, critical gender studies, literature, American studies and social movements, and members of the Student Affirmative Action Committee.

As for faculty, Ross Frank, chair of the ethnic studies department, and Lisa Lowe, a literature professor, say it seems as though a serious discussion about the mission of the program — and how that fits into the larger mission of the college and its commitment to diversity and the study of topics outside the academic mainstream — may be about to begin.

“This shouldn’t be an ideological battle,” Frank says. “It should be about whether one can have a discussion about curriculum issues without it becoming a campaign. Right now, it’s a campaign because one side says the other won’t negotiate.”

“It’s too early to know what all the views are, but the question is what sort of curriculum should Dimensions of Culture, and the university for that matter, have? Let’s hope we can get back to that somehow.”

— Elizabeth Redden

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

answer to the question in the title

Indoctrination.

fenster moop, at 7:30 am EDT on May 3, 2007

Diversity?

Gee, if one really believed in “diversity,” one might think that a classically-trained “intellectual” would have the cognitive strength to rationally present various world-views.

Does anyone wonder now, how the Spellings crowd gets political traction?

Buzz, at 7:30 am EDT on May 3, 2007

I spent my years in the trenches as a TA, and perhaps these individuals need to reflect upon that title—teaching ASSISTANT. When a TA works at cross-purposes to the professor that he or she is working for, then the subsequent metaphorical hand smacking should come as no surprise. I am not in a position to evaluate this course, but the TAs put themselves in an untenable position and were treated rather gently, all things considered. Why is this a story????

Scott, at 7:40 am EDT on May 3, 2007

Three cheers for UCSD!

A “de-territorializng experience” challenging “hegemonic assumptions.” Self-parody?

Publius, at 8:15 am EDT on May 3, 2007

But, can they write?

So....the course is taught by contingent faculty — including other students? How much are they paid? What does that say about “social justice"? And since when are graduate students expert in the teaching of rhetoric, critical thinking, and academic writing?

And does this course actually improve the quality of student writing, or adequately prepare students for writing in other courses? The syllabus is indeed challenging, but how many students could prepare an adequate summary of any particular reading — if they even DO the reading to begin with? And if the syllabus is pretty much unchanged from one year to the next, plagiarism must be out of control.

Do away with first-year composition completely. Require more writing in the disciplines — and require tt & tenured faculty to address the writing issues their students have. Quit enrolling so many grad-student field hands. Geez.

beppolina, at 8:45 am EDT on May 3, 2007

ECON 101

Start the students off with ECON 101. Then they will learn that everything has a cost. Then the students can begin to understand that one person’s “social justice” is another person’s tyranny. Take price gouging laws for instance. Some states have laws prohibiting a rise in the cost of goods following a natural disaster. What this means is that there is a reduced incentive to bring more price controlled goods into the area. Therefore less overall supply for everyone. Is this justice or tyranny? Let the class discussion begin.

thomassowellfan, at 8:45 am EDT on May 3, 2007

Paging Anne Neal and David Horowitz

Hmmm...let’s see. A couple of teaching assistants lost their jobs because “they have gone all over the campus to stir up a lot of campuswide dissent that [their boss] find[s] very damaging to the program.” Or, to put it another way, two students were punished for exercising their right to free speech and criticizing the ideological content of an academic program.

Quick! Anne Neal and David Horowitz! To the batcave! This case sounds like it’s right up your alley. Surely, ACTA and FIRE and all the other right-wing academic “watchdogs” will recognize ideological retaliation when they see it. I presume that the ACTA blogger is at the keyboard this very moment demanding justice for the La Jolla 2.

Or not.

Unapologetically Tenured, at 8:45 am EDT on May 3, 2007

Indoctrination is not the issue — Critical Thinking is

It’s hard to tell from this article what’s actually happened. But “indoctrination” is a misnomer.

In my experience, for “indoctrination” to work — that is, to actually “indoctrinate” — truly critical perspectives have to be omitted in a way that isn’t perceived.

I was an Economics major back in college. Our introduction to micro- and macroeconomics, excellently taught (or so I thought), was true “indoctrination” — invisible as such to all of us. There was no Marxist, anti-capitalist critique of classical economic theory, and we never learned that there was such a thing. This is true indoctrination: Economic theory was taught as a “given", as though it were scientific truth.

To train students to think critically is both desirable and not at all “politically neutral.” Critical thinking is not “on the conservative agenda” because intelligent exposure to critical viewpoints dismantles the “conservative” paradigm.

Likewise, the truth is incompatible with any form of “conservative” thought. Conservatism depends on avoiding critical examination of conservative shibboleths like “patriotism", nationalism, freedom (as in “free markets"), individualism, and so on.

Given the indoctrination that dominates in the mass media, primary and secondary schools, religious instruction — in short, given the elite indoctrination students have been imbibing for many years — exposure to critical perspectives, readings, and critical thinking will be experienced as “indoctrination” by many students.

This is to be welcomed — you are not reaching students unless they feel some cognitive dissonance — which some will experience as uncomfortable, others as liberating, and most, probably, as a combination of both.

In this case, UCSD, is it a matter merely of alternate, clashing readings? It’s vital to expose students to “conservative” readings for the purpose of critical examination and refutation.

(Parenthetically, I’d say the same about “liberal” readings — but that seems not to be an issue here, as “conservatives” conflate “liberal” with “left", “communist", Marxist, etc. “Conservative” pundits, in this way as in many others, are simply dishonest.)

I suspect, though, that it’s not merely a matter of “alternative readings", but of how all the readings are taught. And it may be more about personalities. If Prof. Shragge really did penalize Mr Balthazar and Mr Boehme because they carried their campaign to the campus at large, he ought to be removed. Making a campus-wide issue of how to teach an introductory course is a good thing! What could be better than a campus of students intellectually exercized over the issue of critical thinking?

I’m familiar with Noindoctrination.org — yet another dishonest Neocon site that really promotes what it claims to oppose: indoctrination, but in “conservative” ideas. If you are not making these people angry, you are simply not teaching either critical thinking or the truth!

So it is hard to know exactly what’s going on at UCSD. If it is a quarrel over “clashing readings", it’s trivial: clashing readings are good, perfectly compatible with teaching critical thinking and dismantling the “conservative” viewpoint, which is of course nonsense, false propaganda, but into which all of us have been “indoctrinated” to some extent.

If it is over personalities, and the program director’s desire to dictate how Balthazar, Boehme, and others teach, then Prof. Shragge should be stopped from ruining a good educational experience and the campus-wide controversy itself.

If it is over whether to teach the “radical agenda” — namely, critical thinking and good research — then, naturally, those who want to teach it must be supported, just as real, critical thinking, central not only to Western civilization but vital to all societies, will never be promoted by champions of the status quo such as “conservatives.”

Grover Furr, Montclair SU, at 8:45 am EDT on May 3, 2007

The UCSD Thurgood Marshall College is an unfortunate and embarrassing name for a university that has an African American student population of UNDER 2%.

paul, Thurgood Marshall College?, at 9:10 am EDT on May 3, 2007

just to clarify a point

Some “TAs” are not “teaching assistants,” but rather, as is the case at my university and many others, “teaching associates.” By this, I mean, that as a teaching associate, I run my own classroom, design my own syllabus, grade my own papers, etc. I am the designated instructor.

Luckily, my university gives graduate teaching associates considerably more leeway in terms of the content we teach. I think that the faculty in charge of the first-year composition courses should have worked harder to provide a variety of options for their GTAs. There is value in giving students an experience that challenges them, as long as all teachers welcome and encourage open discussion and critique of the content and methodology of their courses.

Anne Langendorfer, Graduate Teaching Associate at The Ohio State University, at 9:10 am EDT on May 3, 2007

I agree with Scott... if the story is accurate, it seems the TAs egos and actions as a teaching assistant are a bit too big for their britches.

K.T., at 9:10 am EDT on May 3, 2007

Good move by the UCSD administration. Now all it needs to do is to find good instructors who will just work to improve the students’ writing ability — something most college students badly need — without loading up their assignments with heavy-handed political harangues.

George Leef, Vice President for Research at Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, at 9:20 am EDT on May 3, 2007

I was a TA in the original Dimensions of Culture Program. The program has changed. Since it touches on topics of heated discussion within our country, I would be disappointed if the program did not change, did not generate controversy, and if its detractors did not shift periodically from those on the “left” to those on the “right.” I think is a program that needs constant critics and criticism to be effective.

In all of this, TAs play a crucial role in fostering discussions within the discussion sections. This is a difficult role to play. The contract I signed in 1991 required that I “teach the curriculum as designed” (I still have a copy of the contract), but most of the pedagogical guidance focused on teaching writing, not constructively running a classroom where students and even the TA are viscerally opposed to parts the curriculum.

Finally, in some respects, the course is not as radical as it is often represented. When I was involved, students were required to read controversial Supreme Court decisions, and excerpts from the Federalist Papers. These are worthy readings to discuss and debate regardless of one’s political leanings, and I hope such readings continue to be required in this program.

Kevin, at 9:20 am EDT on May 3, 2007

Truth?

Is this a Howard Zinn fight on the West Coast?

History is the selective presentation of the facts.

Alberto Gonzales is a great because he is the first of Mexican heritage to be attorney general or he is the symbol of incompetence.

The question to be asked, who tells the truth with their story. The professor is painted as merely politically correct —

Quizzical, at 10:05 am EDT on May 3, 2007

From knowledge to action

The stated purpose of the Dimensions of Culture program is to study how scholars move from knowledge to action, as a central, overarching objective of the course.

If so, then it should study how and why scholars have moved from knowledge to action. The late Phil Gramm, for example, was an economics professor for twelve years before launching his political career which culminated in his Senate seat. Newt Gingrich was another academic who went into political action. Condaleeza Rice, who earned her first college degree cum laude at age 19 and proceeded to earn two PhD’s, is clearly a scholar and as Secretary of State is obviously very active. If the Dimensions of Culture program ignores scholars who have moved from knowledge to action simply because they are politically conservative, then the course is not just indoctrination, it’s a fraud.

Jack Olson, at 10:05 am EDT on May 3, 2007

It’s worth taking a moment to understand the general education system at UCSD. Each of the six colleges has radically different general education and comp requirements. Students are admitted to a specific college, and know in advance what they’re there for.

A student who goes to Revelle is expecting to take five quarters of very-heavy-load writing courses over the ‘canon’. A student who goes to Warren is expecting to take three quarters of lighter writing courses, loosely structured around ethics & personal responsibility (if I recall correctly). A student who goes to Thurgood Marshall is expecting to take six (?) quarters of moderately heavy writing courses over exactly this kind of material.

This isn’t involuntary indoctrination.

Tom, at 10:10 am EDT on May 3, 2007

FIRE

FIRE is not right-wing, and that urban legend needs to quit being perpetuated. Before you make that kind of silly claim, you should actually visit their website and review the cases they have taken. Those cases cross the political spectrum completely.

James, at 10:10 am EDT on May 3, 2007

Regarding FIRE

James, There is something to the notion that FIRE is “right wing.” In the past most of their causes seemed to be religious organizations and GOP-type groups. This might have been because of their initial donor base. Today they seem a bit more balanced. But, whatever the case, although it is impossible to empirically verify one’s “wing” it is possible to list FIRE’s causes and donors.

Whatever the case, many of FIRE’s causes are not necessarily systemic problems with a universities, but rather profoundly bad judgment on the part of one administrator.

LArry, at 10:30 am EDT on May 3, 2007

Academic Freedom, Not Pedagogical Theories

I first reported this case on my blog a week ago, and I glad that InsideHigherEd.com investigated it further. I am particularly grateful that they were able to get Abraham Shragge, the Dimensions of Culture program director, to openly admit that he fired the TAs for political reasons because they stirred up “dissent” and violated “collegiality.” It shows how little respect exists for the rights of graduate students on campus when administrators don’t even try to conceal violations of academic freedom.

This debate has absolutely nothing to do with what you personally think is the best way to teach an introductory writing class (that’s a separate debate). But you can’t have an open debate if the TAs who express their viewpoint can be fired for disagreeing with the program director. This is a clear violation of academic freedom, and it is disturbing that most of the comments so far fail to see this, or openly cheer for attacks on intellectual freedom.

John K. Wilson, at 10:30 am EDT on May 3, 2007

Indoctrination???

Having gone through an experience of not being rehired, with one of the accusations (unfounded) that I was trying to “indoctrinate” students, I have to ask the simple question...

Why is it “indoctrination” to teach critical views of the status quo, while it is NOT indoctrination to let students remain comfortable with the unchallenged beliefs with which they grew up?

The indoctrination begins in the cradle. Elementary through high school education has to be approved by state boards for education — champions of the status quo. Finally in college students get their cherished assumptions challenged. Of course it will generate controversy. It’s about time!

Georgia NeSmith, Adjunct Associate Professor at University of Maryland University College, at 10:30 am EDT on May 3, 2007

Free Speech?

I live for Unapollogetically Tenured comments! They are the best!

When I person is hired to teach a class and they don’t teach it the way they were hired to do it, how do you confuse that as a free speech violation?

How can you not like the work of FIRE? Cite examples of their work’s harm.

Unapollogetically Tedious, Teacher, at 10:55 am EDT on May 3, 2007

As the worm turns.........

One of founders of FIRE was Harvey Silverglate, a long-term ACLU attorney.

If people like Larry and others laughingly deem FIRE to be somehow “conservative,” then, perforce, the ACLU is conservative too.

FIRE is primarily concerned to defend freedom of assembly and free of speech wherever it is threatened or restricted on university campuses. Over the past 20 years, the vast majority of attempts to restrict free expression have come from faculty, students and administrators who can be characterized as liberal, progressive, or simply left wingers.

If there wasn’t a need for FIRE, we wouldn’t have it.

In the November 2008 elections, there may be propositions on the ballots of five states that would prohibit universities from discriminating against or giving preference to admissions candidates or faculty hires.

Watch closely the behavior of the initiatives’ opponents in Missouri and Colorado.

You will detect an eerie resemblance between their intimidation tactics, shouting down speakers and attempts to stop discussions with the vile, fascist antics of Hitler’s brownshirted thugs of 70 years ago.

And once again it will be FIRE, not the ACE, AAUP or the NACCP that will step forward to defend those students and faculty whose right to assembly and freedom of speech will be threatened yet again by P.C. goons, anti-intellectual leftists, and spineless administrators.

Wagers welcome at any time.

Chuck, at 11:00 am EDT on May 3, 2007

Cherished Assumptions

As long as we don’t challenge the cherished assumptions of arrogant TAs that they are absolutely right and everyone else it absolutely wrong, or that any of the students really care what some TA has to say about politics, then I think everything is fine. Critical thinking is what we apply to people we disagree with, never ourselves.

Morse, at 11:20 am EDT on May 3, 2007

Quick Responses

1. Mr. Olson: Last I heard, “the late Phil Gramm” was still very much alive. His ideas, however, died a slow, lingering, and very public death and are buried in an unmarked grave on the grounds of the Reagan Library in California.

2. I’m always happy to bring that single ray of light into Mr. (Ms.?) Tedious’s otherwise dreary existence. But please go back and re-read what I said. The violation of free speech occurred when the program director suggested that the students were not renewed, at least in part, because “they have gone all over the campus to stir up a lot of campuswide dissent".

3. Chuck, having flagrantly (and laughably) violated Godwin’s Law, does not deserve a response.

Unapologetically Tenured, at 11:55 am EDT on May 3, 2007

Since many here seem to believe it’s alright to criticize the TAs, since they’re only TAs, everyone should know that two of the three “lecturers” assigned to the Dimensions of Culture program next year are in fact TAs this year. They are deciding on course material, making decisions about what Boehm and Balthaser are critiquing. This is not a case of arrogant TAs, this is a case of an arrogant director, Shragge, who believes he can appoint the TAs he likes to decide on the program, and fire the TAs he feels threatened by.

Isabel, Just TAs?, at 12:05 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

Comp 101 and Controversy

Having looked at the syllabus, I’m not sure that the course under question here is genuinely intended or offered as a comp course, but I have to take issue with the first sentence of this article: Comp 101 might actually be one of the most contentious courses in the catalog.

The “content” of a comp course might be how to write well, but a writing course requires readings so students have something to write about. Almost anything will do — Plato, Achebe, Marvel Comics or the New York Times — as long as it gives students something upon which to practice their craft. Most of us choose an eclectic reader or anthology with a mixed bag of options. But because one can pick almost anything, the first temptation is to pick material near to one’s own heart (confiteor: I do this, but I choose Greek drama and Arthurian romance). Whether one is radical or a neocon, a politically commited instructor is free to stack the deck with readings that advance a point of view.

The second temptation (which I’ve to date resisted) is to privilege mastery of that material over the mastery of craft — that is, grading students not on the clarity and coherence of their prose but on how well they replicate the instructor’s intellectual commitments. Such commitments always have political implications, and sometimes this leads to absurd results. I once sat in on a comp course conference at another school where the director and instructors were bewildered that the students just weren’t getting the idea of “selfhood as a social construction,” as if the notion ought to be as transparent to an 18-year-old just out of high school (and at a third-tier state U) as it is to a crop of Ph.D’s steeped in French social theory.

Of course, the dichotomy I give above invites controversy, too (one common at Comp conferences and in Comp journals): arguably, by privileging something called “clarity and coherence of prose” over, say, “individual voice” or “raised consciousness” or “multicultural awareness,” I am engaging in a subtle form of indoctrination — one I’m willing to be accused of, though, as in the long run I think the ability to argue and express oneself clearly makes those other objectives more attainable.

Now set all that aside. Consider the other controversies swirling through comp courses: do we teach academic discourse, or other forms? Do we give priority to process or product? How much emphasis do we give to standard usage and grammar? Do we allow personal writing or do we insist on an objective voice? Do we use a red pen?

And it really doesn’t matter where we come down on these issues, as no matter what we do the history and economics and sociology professors will insist that “The English Department doesn’t teach students how to write anymore.”

There is no course more contentious than Comp 101. It’s one of the most open spots in the curriculum, and anyone can fight for a piece of it. Everyone does.

John Marlin, The College of St. Elizabeth, at 12:05 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

CONDI, etc.

Looking at “academics” who became politicians necessarily will limit the universe of discourse of what political action is or could mean. And the suggestion of it necessarily suggests a conception where the only political difference can occur when one becomes a candidate.

GradStuInstruct., Carnegie Mellon University, at 2:35 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

Students And Faculty? ... Or Faculty And Students?

In recent days, InsideHigherEd has reported that ...

1. two students at Roger Williams University’s were are fired from their radio station positions because they defied their “boss’” dictum that they should not use the phrase “Nappy-headed Ho” when describing the Don Imus affair.

2. a faculty exodus at Louisiana College was the result of an authoritarian administration (president) effectively curtailing a “scholarly” assessment of Christianity.

3. Emmanuel College fired a faculty member (i) without warning, (ii) without discussion, (iii) without due process, (iv) by letter, and (v) by EC’s Department of Human Resources, essentially because he responded to an event EC requested he respond to, but in a manner that did not fit their unwritten list of approved responses.

4. the Missouri House of Representatives passed legislation stipulating, among other things, that state universities are required to formalize intellectual diversity; to wit, “such concerns shall include but not be limited to the protection of religious freedom including the viewpoint that the Bible is inerrant.”

5. now, two TAs were fired by UC-San Diego for disagreeing with their profs about course content ... and then taking it public.

About this – and you may be certain these actions are ubiquitous in academe these days — I have two things to say:

1. Sometimes being fired is small price to pay for standing up for one’s principles.

2. My primary disagreement with some who have written comments to this article (e.g., Scott, ECON 101, K.T., Unapologetically Tenured, Unapologetically Tedious) is that I tend to believe colleges and universities are all about scholars and scholarship ... and, in my opinion, that makes faculty and students the most important characters on the scene. If you tortured me for the purpose of getting me to rank the “importance” of the two in any community of scholars, I’d probably put the students slightly ahead of the faculty ... that is unless you wanted me to “decide” otherwise.

By the way, I once received a formal “letter of warning” from a VPAA – it went into my permanent record — for stating that students and faculty are the most important individuals at any college or university.

In any event, a college or university that endorses an organizational hierarchy that places faculty above students strikes me as being weird. I am obviously in favor of sufficient individual discipline to avoid anarchy, but, somehow or other, this devotion to and reliance on hierarchy as it applies to faculty and students is indicative of higher education having lost its way.

Now, Grover Furr, about your “critical thinking” nonsense, go to ...

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/03/30/mla

and read the posts by RWH and JBM.

RWH, at 2:40 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

As a teaching “assistant” and member of this group of educators that does 80% of the teaching at this PUBLIC university, I am more than a simple assistant. Our collective educational labor is part of what makes this PUBLIC university function. For those of you that KNOW what really runs this quarterly scheduled system of education (9 effective teaching weeks-50 minute classes: 40 effective) it might not come as a surprise that a “T.A” can and should question not only the program administrators, but the college provost, and super paid Chancellor.

As a “T.A.” that is actually seeing how the university wants to teach students, I can say that its goals are ludicrious. For those of you t.a.’s that are happy to accept the way decisions are made (top-bottom) in a PUBLIC institution, then continue to drink the KOOL-AID...

However, to be dismissed for questioning the administration, and doing it PUBLICly, then any critically, left or right, T.A. should raise a critical brow.

Graduate Student Associate, ucsd, at 2:40 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

FIRE and its wings

I think its silly to say, “Silvergate was a founding member, so there, that proves FIRE is not right wing!.” I mean, Bob Barr recently affiliated with the ACLU, so there, that proves the ACLU is not left wing.

FIRE has a neat trick that allows it to claim to be ideologically neutral. If you are a private college and up-front about having no respect for ideological diversity or academic freedom, then FIRE is just fine with whatever you do. You can fire faculty for denying the literal truth of Adam and Eve (Wheaton), for praising the works of Augustine (Patrick Henry), advocating gay marriage (BYU) and FIRE will consciously look the other way. They claim that its OK if a school just admits they have no tolerance for freedom and diversity as part of their mission (oddly they do not engage in behavior to urge these schools to change such policies, suggesting that it is simply hypocrisy, not denial of academic freedom and diversity that they oppose). This rigging of their game (which even they do not always follow, notice recently they have gone after Gonzaga, which the last time I checked was a private institution too) allows them to never have to worry about offending most of their donors and members and they can still claim to be ideologically neutral in their defense of academic freedom. By all means, go to their website and check it out.

Ken, at 2:40 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

response to Chuck regarding FIRE

Chuck, Read what I wrote. My point was that initially FIRE appeared off-balance and have a political agenda. This seems to have changed. Moreover, the ACLU takes in its share of free-speech cases and, as a practical matter, is much better-equipped for large litigation because, quite frankly, it has more money. To give you some perspective, FIRE has NEVER taken a case to the Supreme Court on the merits. By some accounts, the ACLU is the second-most frequent merits litigant (after Uncle Sam.)

At some point FIRE might develop the resources (i.e. knowledge and money) to actively litigate every campus speech issue. But this is a long way away, and right now, I am told that a lot of their large donors have specific goals in mind when donating. The ACLU isn’t handicapped that way. But, this is the nature of public interest litigation.

In fact, a quick look at the ACLU website reveals about a dozen on-going campus litigation issues. They first six are: More, Scott, (A Vagina Monologues case with an unamed young student), Watson Chapel School District, Agin, and Johnson.

I suspect that your comments about the ACLU were motivated by political comments rather than any substantive knowledge of the ACLU’s litigation (which is meticulously catalogued on their website).

Larry, at 2:40 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

John Marlin has a good take on this. The question is what is the goal of the course. It may be a compelling political science or sociology course. To me, it sounds more like a course with judgments on content rather than process. Isn’t the goal learning to write and express ideas clearly? Who cares what the ideas are, liberal, conservative, etc. Doesn’t have to be neutral, just clear.

To Grover, so anything ‘other’ than what you believe in is 100% wrong?

“…intelligent exposure to critical viewpoints dismantles the “conservative” paradigm.”

“…the truth is incompatible with any form of “conservative” thought.”

“It’s vital to expose students to “conservative” readings for the purpose of critical examination and refutation.”

I love it when somebody goes off about how it is bad to restrict ideas and then states that the other side of what they believe in can be taught only so it can be refuted. So to get an A, one must refute? That’s regurgitation.

Frank, The goal?, at 2:55 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

Celebration Time for Unapologetically Tenured

Memo to “Unapologetically Tenured” —

This good news just in.........after months of public pressure, Michigan State University (MSU) has ended its controversial Student Accountability in Community (SAC) program.

It was none other than FIRE that urged MSU to end the SAC program because it forced students whose speech or behavior was deemed “unacceptable” to undergo ideological reeducation, or else face effective expulsion.

If MSU decides to resuscitate this program of thought reform and compelled speech (aka “indoctrination") FIRE promises to be there to make sure the university does not use it to deny students their constitutional rights.

Viva FIRE........

Chuck, at 2:55 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

Phil Gramm resurrected

Unapologetically Tenured is right, Phil Gramm is still alive. He is even a prospect for the presidency of Texas A&M, where he taught economics.

Prof. Marlin, I find your comment interesting. If the history, sociology, and other academic departments complain that the English department fails to teach student to write anymore, are they right? Or, if wrong, why their misapprehension?

Jack Olson, at 2:55 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

FIRE is hott! (but not as hot as the ACLU)

Chuck, Read what I wrote. My point was that initially FIRE appeared off-balance and have a political agenda. This seems to have changed. Moreover, the ACLU takes in its share of free-speech cases and, as a practical matter, is much better-equipped for large litigation because, quite frankly, it has more money. To give you some perspective, FIRE has NEVER taken a case to the Supreme Court. By some accounts, the ACLU is the second-most frequent merits litigant (after Uncle Sam.)

I suspect that your comments about the ACLU were motivated by political comments rather than any substantive knowledge of the ACLU’s litigation (which is meticulously catalogued on their website).

Larry, at 2:55 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

Been There ... Didn’t Get Enough Support To Do That!

Based on my first hand experience – granted it was at a private university without a tenure system – I’m confident that with $5.00 and the support of FIRE, AAUP, and the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Speech you can get an over-priced, high-calorie, bland-tasting cup of coffee at Starbucks.

On the other hand, I contribute to ACLU.

Frizbane Manley, at 4:55 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

Coherent Skepticism?

I am a bit puzzled by one of the dismissed TA’s objections that the diverse set of opinions in the recent program has made it “incoherent.” Shouldn’t diversity in a diversity program be incoherent by definition and intent?

I now require my upper-division students to stop writing those tidily coherent and deadly “student papers” that they properly learned to write as freshman—those narrow-minded persuasive papers suitable for debaters and trial lawyers. “Coherence” is just another name for nothing else to lose.

David E., USC, at 4:55 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

Larry’s Leaps in Logic

Atta boy, Larry.

Your latest rambling set of “suspicions” (and who knows what other “mental crimes” you assume are loose on the land) merely confirms you unwillingness or inability to recognize the corrosive, stultifying, heinous nature of left-wing attempts to silence opinions and perspectives on campus that don’t jive with their social reformist campaigns.

I think it may be because you spend so much time poring over law books and very little time on a real campus, as opposed to those in your imagination.

My comments are motivated by nothing more than 30 plus years of personal experiences at three private and public universities. I suspect I know what motivates your ramped and narrow views but I’ll leave it to you to confirm them in your next posting.

Over to you Mr. lawyer man.....

Chuck, at 4:55 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

Damn ... I Feel A Triple Haiku Coming On

From the Prof. ...

TAs are peons. / They’re here to do my shit work. / Everyone knows that.

From the TA ...

“Seen the big asshole?” / “In his lab doin’ research.” / “Jerk! ... can’t even write.”

And from Grover Furr ...

Boys! ... Girls! ... please be good! / We’ll do critical thinking ... / Isn’t that better?

Frizbane Manley, at 5:00 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

To Jack

Mr. Olsen, thanks for your comment and question. This is a rich subject fit for a venue of its own, but I’ll do the best I can here. I do hope others chime in.

When professors from other departments complain to me that students can’t write well, what they frequently mean is that students can’t write well in their own disciplines. Sociology, history, philosophy, theology, etc., all have different disciplinary conventions they expect of their students that in a single semester, let alone two two, we English types can’t reasonably teach.

The solution, by my lights, is a genuine writing-across-the-curriculum program that includes professors in all disciplines trained in writing pedagogy, following a strong introductory writing course that focuses on argument.

But the fact that I can’t get this to happen at my own small school makes this a pipe dream. I wish you better at yours.

John Marlin, The College of St. Elizabeth, at 5:00 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

FIRE has not had to take a case to the Supreme Court. The lower court decisions have made it unecessary.

thomassowellfan, FIREd up, at 5:05 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

re: Ken

Ken, why are you making straw-man arguments. FIRE doesn’t claim to want to protect ideological diversity. It seeks to ensure that public schools live up to their 1st Amendment obligations and that private schools live up to what they promise. Nothing more. Maybe you should go to their site and read that...

Unapologetically Tedious, Teacher, at 5:05 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

“3. Chuck, having flagrantly (and laughably) violated Godwin’s Law, does not deserve a response.”

Heh. Except for this one?

JBM, at 5:05 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

A response from a D.O.C. founder can be found below:

http://ucsdguardian.org/viewartic...mp;year=2007&month=05&day=03

Shane, at 5:05 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

I am naive?

Chuck, I looked at your last comment a few times. You did not offer any specific rebuttals (such as showing that indeed, FIRE is better-funded, or more “liberal” or less hypocritical in its representation of campus people). Even an antidote about how a legitimate case was rejected by the ACLU, but represented successfully by FIRE might show (but not prove) that you had a point. You offered none.

Strangely, also said that I was naive because I didn’t spend enough time in an ivory tower. That one takes the cake! Yes, I guess you are right. Out-house counsel does not spend enough time on campus.

Finally, a general note. Litigation of constitutional issues is hard. The people that litigate them (well) are specialists. Even in First amendments issues there are sub-specialists. Just like medicine. And, since First Amendment issues might not be too lucrative (even with 42 USC 1988 and donors), starting a successful public interest firm is hard.

The rest was insult, so I take it you concede the substance of my above post.

Larry, at 5:15 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

No straw here...

To Unapologetically Tedious: Here is the mission statement from FIRE’s website: “The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America’s colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience—the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity. FIRE’s core mission is to protect the unprotected and to educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them.”

SO private colleges that fire professors for teaching evolution or Augustine are not violating sancitity of conscience? When BYU comes down on a prof for writing an article criticizing the LDS view on same sex marriage, thats not a threat to freedom of speech? I’m afraid I called a duck a duck, its you who seem to have straw in your eyes...

Ken, at 5:50 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

“Indoctrinate”

How about examining carefully the key word at the center of this discussion, “indoctrinate"? What does it mean? How is it done? How about some clarity of terminology and some sort of theory or model of the phenomena being discussed to at least uphold the pretense that this is anything more than political sniping?

Can a single college course actually indoctrinate young adults who have virtually unfettered access to a world of information, not to mention a slate of other courses during the very same term? I think not. (Please provide three examples, if you think it is even possible, let alone likely.) To use this term in the irresponsible way it has been in the quotes in the aticle and commentary on it undermines the significance of actual instances of indoctrination and sensationalizes the entire discussion. Such catastrophizing further diverts discussion away from issues of genuine significance to education about which we might actually gain some insight.

What I find most troubling about the case is that apparently good quality instructors were fired from teaching jobs because they sought to change (and from their view, improve) the course they were a part of. Given the disengagement of so many UC faculty and grad students from teaching this is a travesty, and for undergraduates one more example of how UC gives low priority to their experience on campus.

NV, at 5:55 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

Political (In)Correctness at UCSD

Wow—what a barrage of exchanges, charges, and countercharges! No classes to teach? No classes to attend? No books to read?

And, by the way, who is paying the tuition costs for students at UCSD who spend their time studying or arguing about this drivel—on the right and the left?

Sheldon, at 6:40 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

UCSD—the Marshall College specifically—has created a valuable model for reflective thinking and potential engagement by their undergraduate students, both in the curriculum as designed and the current conflict, if well managed. Whether these fellows have impeded that opportunity through undue imposition of personal bias is unclear to any of us not on the scene. Certainly, we can all empathize with having our own actions misjudged from afar on this or that issue of the day. Fodder for the debate, as it were. Absent complete information, I applaud them all—including a program director taking action well within his due authority and t.a.’s challenging course content they find troubling. And, the engaged path toward resolution appears as solid as it is unassailable. If they each address this problem with the same character that allowed for it, UCSD will once again demonstrate its collective clear thinking on matters of importance.

M., at 8:10 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

Still doin’ it Ken

“SO private colleges that fire professors for teaching evolution or Augustine are not violating sancitity of conscience? When BYU comes down on a prof for writing an article criticizing the LDS view on same sex marriage, thats not a threat to freedom of speech? I’m afraid I called a duck a duck, its you who seem to have straw in your eyes...”

I abhor these actions as much as you but that’s not what’s actionable here. What is, is whether these private universities violated their own standards and practices by taking these actions? If they did, FIRE would pursue them.

Unapologetically Tedious, Teacher, at 8:15 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

As a current UCSD student I can respond to Sheldon’s question: I pay my tuition. Thanks buddy.

Also check out the two letters to the editor at http://ucsdguardian.org/viewartic...mp;year=2007&month=05&day=03

(one is by the current provost of Marshall College and one is by a dismissed TA.)

AA, at 8:15 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

Two questions for anyone

1. FIRE has never lost a case. Is there one you think they should have lost or not pursued? If so, please explain why.

2. Are there liberal students on any college campus who’s speech rights are being violated and to which FIRE is refusing to help?

Unapologetically Tedious, Teacher, at 8:15 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

Point of fact

” .. SO private colleges that fire professors for teaching evolution ..”

UC San Diego — owned by taxpayers of California. Subject to public review.

UCSD not private. Big difference.

Unapologically Tedious — write on! You’re no worse than the rest! Real talent has possibilities, versus the dull, average typical “good enough for government” crowd.

That crowd assumes a need to “develop critical thinking.” As if 16 years of “The Simpsons” wouldn’t. What a f’ing joke!

Buzz, at 8:15 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

Unapologetically Tedious: I’m glad you abhor such actions. They’re abhorable.

FIRE may not have a legal case against the institutions that are at least following their clearly stated (though abhorrent) policies. But FIRE says clearly in their mission statement that legal actions are not the only thing they aim for, they also state their aim to “educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them.” Yet they do not “educate” the public about these “conservative” institutions. I’m sorry but that makes them hypocrites in my book.

I agree with your major point though, that the cases FIRE takes are usually worthy causes. It is wrong when academic freedom is violated by the left and the right. But I submit agencies like the AAUP, which stand up to liberals AND conservatives when they violate academic freedom, have much more integrity than agencies like FIRE.

Ken, at 8:45 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

FIRE these hypocrites

I think I was actually far too kind to FIRE in my past posts. This organization reaches levels of hypocrisy that are extraordinary indeed. On their website they state: “Liberty cannot exist in a society in which people are forced to conform their thoughts and expression to an official viewpoint. Differences of opinion are the natural byproducts of a vibrant, free society. At many of our nation’s colleges and universities, however, students are expected to share a single viewpoint on controversial matters...” They then list a litany of matters the Left often endorses indocrinating students about, such as speech codes, but astonishingly fail to mention things like the faith statements used to literally force unanimity on various issues on the campuses of religious colleges nationwide. FIRE’s websites entry on BYU (and other religious colleges) states “When a private university states clearly that it holds a certain set of values above a commitment to freedom of speech, FIRE does not rate that university.” So while it’s wrong to force a “single viewpoint on controversial matters” its OK for the literally hundreds of religious colleges that demand uninamity on ideas concerning evolution, lifestyles, and myriad religious matters. Hey, as long as it’s clearly stated (another canard, since many of the speech codes FIRE rails against are fairly clearly stated), anything goes! Why don’t they just “clearly state” their mission as it can be ascertained from their actions: when a college engages in any restriction of speech for Left leaning reasons we will make quite a fuss, but when it does it for a traditional or Right leaning reason we will turn the blindest of eyes to it...

Ken, at 10:15 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

Ken, buddy, I think we’re getting somewhere...

We abhor the same things!

Maybe FIRE should be publicizing these actions. Where can I read more about them?

FIRE is not a teacher’s union. They’re a civil liberties legal action network seeking to make legal precedent to protect individuals on college campuses. Although FIRE does serve the interests of professors, their caseload suggests a greater need to protect students from professors and the administration.

As Ms. Janet Jackson would no doubt ask, “what has the AAUP done for students lately?”

Unapologetically Tedious, Math Teacher, at 10:15 pm EDT on May 3, 2007

Now we move backwards Ken.

“This organization reaches levels of hypocrisy that are extraordinary indeed.”

I don’t agree with your premise that FIRE is hypocritical but if they were, would this really be EXTRAORDINARY hypocrisy? Not going after universities that can’t possibly lose? Sounds like rational decision making.

“They then list a litany of matters the Left often endorses indocrinating students about, such as speech codes, but astonishingly fail to mention things like the faith statements used to literally force unanimity on various issues on the campuses of religious colleges nationwide.”

How is FIRE wrong in attacking speech codes? Which ones do you support Ken? PUBLIC schools cannot ban the speech that so many of them try to ban anyway. And don’t religious students openly expect faith statements from religious schools? They do have the right to assemble together under the same beliefs and require others share those beliefs. That is how PRIVATE differs from PUBLIC is it not?

“So while it’s wrong to force a “single viewpoint on controversial matters” its OK for the literally hundreds of religious colleges that demand uninamity on ideas concerning evolution, lifestyles, and myriad religious matters. Hey, as long as it’s clearly stated (another canard, since many of the speech codes FIRE rails against are fairly clearly stated)”

Yes Ken it is wrong to force any viewpoint on any student at any PUBLIC school. And yes it is ok to require PRIVATE students at a religous school to hold certain beliefs or face action. You’re forgetting the right to freely assemble protects PRIVATE schools in doing these things.

Why do you want FIRE going after schools they can’t litigate against because their actions are constitutionally protected anways? How do you reconcile that position Ken?

Finally, no “canard” here. FIRE doesn’t go after PRIVATE schools that live up to their “clearly stated” rules. They do go after PUBLIC school for their “clearly stated” rules because they don’t get that privilege Ken!

How would that rule look in a SCOC anyways?

“You may not do or say anything to cause offense to anyone ever” ***

***By clearly stating this rule, the First Amendment does not apply.

Unapologetically Tedious, Math Teacher, at 5:10 am EDT on May 4, 2007

Not Indoctrination

I have been a TA at Thurgood Marshall College, one of the 6 colleges at UCSD, for 4 years now (and no, I’m not one of the TAs who’s been fired). When I first started at DOC, we were told that yes, the curriculum would be perceived as indoctrination, BUT that most of the students had only been exposed to mainstream thinking about social issues, which let’s face it tends to be conservative. Students, we were told, were supposed to feel uncomfortable because their world views were being challenged, but of course TAs did not abuse conservative students. Though let’s face it, it’s pretty challenging when students counter an argument about structural racism with “Blacks are lazy and don’t want to work,” and they tend to feel particularly empowered to voice such ideas when there are no Black students in the classroom, or even on campus.

The origins of TMC — “Third College” as it was originally called, in solidarty with the Third World — sought to bridge the divide between the university and the San Diego community. UCSD is located in La Jolla, about 16 miles from the center of San Diego and one of the wealthiest communities in the county. I grew up in South San Diego and can attest that the student population at UCSD is not reflective of the San Diego population. The campus is 1% African American and 8% Latino in a city with a city demographic of 7% AA and 27% Latino.

Third College was created as a space for underrepresented populations in an elitist institution. The DOC curriculum was designed to provide students with a challenging counter to the ideologies with which they are inundated in the other facets of their lives. It was also created to give voice to the experiences of populations underrepresented both on campus and in U.S. culture overall. While Michael Schudson was certainly a founder of the program, so was George Lipsitz. You can find out more about his scholarship here: http://humwww.ucsc.edu/americanstudies/lipsitz.html

Let me remind you that this is a freshman class, and first-year students are not the most sophisticated readers. In Schudson’s editorial, he noted that LZC TAs had objections to Mary Blair Loy. The first year she taught in the program, all the TAs who taught in her lecture (10 of us thereabouts) met with Shragge to voice concerns about the way she taught the class, as it was not coherent. She also included an article about the “immorality” of gay marriage by the Family Research Council without contextualizing it. This was NOT an academic piece; including it in the course curriculum is fine IF the piece is explained and critiqued. But to present propaganda as equally valid as academic research does a huge disservice to freshman as well as to academic research.

Finally, I want to point out that many of the recent lecturers (many of whom are not tenured faculty) have not understood the structure of the course themselves and have had to rely on their TAs for recommendations for lecture material. In fact, a lecturer did not cover a short story the students were then asked to write on. When many TAs asked how the story fit into the course (remember, we do not have input into the syllabus), she said told a TA she didn’t know, which is why she didn’t lecture on it! But she did let students know they should talk about the story in section with their TAs! This IS about coherence, when faculty themselves can’t explain why readings were chosen!

DOC TA, TA at UCSD, at 5:10 am EDT on May 4, 2007

A distinction, but no difference

Unapologetically Tenured: But Gonzaga, whom FIRE goes after lustily, is a private and religious college, right (go to Gonzaga’s web site). And they pretty clearly state their policy? So that can’t be the distinction, can it? You say “Why do you want FIRE going after schools they can’t litigate against because their actions are constitutionally protected anways? How do you reconcile that position Ken?” This makes me wonder, have you been reading the past posts UT? Like the one where I state “FIRE may not have a legal case against the institutions that are at least following their clearly stated (though abhorrent) policies. But FIRE says clearly in their mission statement that legal actions are not the only thing they aim for, they also state their aim to “educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them.” Yet they do not “educate” the public about these “conservative” institutions.” So please, stop the lame argument that its because there are not legally actionable issues, FIRE does not, and does not claim to, limit its actions to that. You then state “They do have the right to assemble together under the same beliefs and require others share those beliefs. That is how PRIVATE differs from PUBLIC is it not?” I say no, and no. If a place represents itself as an institution of higher ed, then “requiring others to share th[e]se beliefs” is antithetical to their mission. Sure they should be ALLOWED to, but they should be PERSUADED not to. Why doesn’t FIRE do that persuading (well, why do they not do it only in cases of Right leaning schools that force dogma on students?). And the distinction between private and public is simply one is taxpayer funded and the other is not. The latter does not imply dogma, indeed as I say dogma is antithetical to the goals of higher ed in any setting. As FIRE says (and as they apply to MANY private AND religious colleges, as long as they are pushing Left leaning dogma only of course):"Liberty cannot exist in a society in which people are forced to conform their thoughts and expression to an official viewpoint. Differences of opinion are the natural byproducts of a vibrant, free society.” Now if only they would live up to their words (which is what integrity is all about, the opposite is hypocrisy, so I stand by my charge.”

Ken, at 8:10 am EDT on May 4, 2007

Just Trying To Help UT and Ken ...

It appears to me that Ken and Unapologetically Tedious have learned a few things during their back-and-fourth here. I have some first-hand experience, however, that may add to their understanding.

Near the end of a 40 year career that included stints at Princeton, Yale, and Michigan (twice) – so at least a few decent schools thought I was tolerable – I found myself at a small, private, church-related, very mediocre university in the Shenandoah Valley. The school had an extremely authoritarian administration, none of the top dozen or so administrators (even the VPAA) had scholarly credentials, there was no tenure system, and to give you a sense of what it was like, the president often made both administrative and faculty appointments in the absence of search committees. Indeed, sometimes he interrupted and terminated a search committee’s deliberations to choose a candidate not even on the committee’s list. To top it off, the community in which the university is located is remarkably conservative ... I am not.

Don’t ask why I was there .. that should be irrelevant.

In any event, after three years of quite spectacular reviews (by students and, reluctantly, by administration) and better than average raises, I was fired. My sin was writing a small number of satirical essays on my home computer and distributing them via my own ISP to a small number of “friends,” some of whom were my colleagues. None of those essays targeted specific individuals. Well, one of my “colleagues” – a full professor, no less, who had only one publication (and in a non-refereed “journal”) — was not as collegial as I thought, and took exactly one of my essays to the president and VPAA, along with his assessment that I was “dangerous.” That was it.

So, I decided to sue ... and, in turn, contacted AAUP, ACLU, FIRE, and The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression. They all agreed that were I on the faculty of a public university, I would have had a very strong case. They all refused to provide support because (1) the university was private (although it did accept federal monies to satisfy various objectives), (2) since the university did not have a tenure system, I was not tenured, and (3) the case would almost certainly be heard in a court system that was notorious for ruling in favor of institutions, not individuals. In addition – and this was more than two years ago – FIRE indicated that they were primarily interested in taking cases that were related to formal documents restricting “free speech;” i.e., speech codes. At the conclusion of two very frustrating years of trying to make something out of “nothing” – not that I thought it was nothing — I reached three conclusions ...

1. As I have said in an earlier post, sometimes being fired is a small price to pay for standing up for one’s principles.

2. Both academic freedom and First Amendment rights to free speech have very pragmatic implementations. The theory and practice are often miles apart.

3. Somehow or other, there should be no organization that is exempt from both (1) the responsibility for embracing free speech and (2) paying federal taxes. Academic freedom – whatever that means – is absent from a great many campuses across this land. I can live with that. But a college or university that routinely ignores First Amendment principles of free speech (because it is not applicable) really irritates me, especially when it is exempt from paying federal taxes.

Oh yes, one other comment ... if you are a young scholar, vulnerable to the whims of senior faculty and academic management, whatever you do, don’t write satire. We live in a world today in which a large percentage of those intellectually challenged folks just don’t get it. Jonathan Swift wouldn’t last ten minutes at most of our esteemed colleges and universities.

RWH, at 8:45 am EDT on May 4, 2007

P.S.

Although I try to avoid the “conservative/liberal dichotomy” when describing individuals — because I don’t think it is particularly meaningful (individuals can only be modeled in n-space) — I am going to use it here.

With that caveat, don’t you think it is more than a little odd that there appears to be something of a conservative legislative assault on the character and substance of higher education these days and no significant movement to have colleges and universities pay their fair share of federal taxes? And isn’t that especially so for private colleges and universities?

RWH, at 10:25 am EDT on May 4, 2007

RWH, Just a small comment: When you say that theory and practice are often “miles apart” I suspect that you are just misunderstanding the “theory” of the First Amendment and academic freedom.

In most disciplines, “theories” refer to a way of connecting a set of observations – usually with predictive value. FIRE and the ACLU’s “theories” seem to be spot on, and predict the “practice.”

Lawyers often use the term “legal theory” as descriptor of arguments that certain relief from an injustice is required. For example, if we were to get into a car accident, I would likely sue you under a “tort” theory. But, I had hired you to drive my car to California in 10 days, and you took 12, I would likely sue you under a “contract” theory. Some legal scholars say that these two uses of theories are similar (in that there are underlying concepts of justice, and a legal argument is simply a plea to a court that it must recognize that concept in its ultimate decree or judgment). Others say that they are distinct, because they are no observations about the nature of the world in the first place, but rather just a means of interacting with the government. Whatever the case, you wouldn’t be able to assert a “constitutional” theory against your old employer.

Larry, at 11:10 am EDT on May 4, 2007

FIRE burns

“But Gonzaga, whom FIRE goes after lustily, is a private and religious college, right (go to Gonzaga’s web site). And they pretty clearly state their policy? So that can’t be the distinction, can it?”

Ken I asked you for links to the other school cases you mention but you didn’t provide them to me. I can’t comment any further on this issue until I read more.

“please, stop the lame argument that its because there are not legally actionable issues”

Why is it lame to suggest an organization make rational decisions on what to do with limited resources. Ken, what would the ACLU be today if they didn’t pursue actionable cases and only spoke of what they didn’t like? We need results more than we need shaming. I cannot understand why you condemn FIRE when they have been the most outstanding and successful student rights group in the country. I again ask why is the AAUP superior? What have they done for the academic freedom of students at America’s colleges recently, if anything?

“They do have the right to assemble together under the same beliefs and require others share those beliefs. That is how PRIVATE differs from PUBLIC is it not?” I say no, and no.”

You say “no and no” Ken. Why? How did I confuse this issue?

“And the distinction between private and public is simply one is taxpayer funded and the other is not.”

Ken that’s not the only difference and you know that. The ability to restrict speech by a PUBLIC school administration is severely limited. There’s no First Amendment for PRIVATE groups and there never will be.

Unapologetically Tedious, Math Teacher, at 12:10 pm EDT on May 4, 2007

Trying To Bail Myself Out

Well Larry, I hoped you would weigh in on this. You’re right, my vocabulary was imprecise ... but your explanation was not quite what I was trying to say.

When public service (protection) organizations like AAUP, ACLU, FIRE, and TJC indicate that “under certain circumstances you would have a strong case, but [along with other difficulties] if it were ever tried, it would most likely be argued in a court that is notorious for ruling in favor of institutions, not individuals,” then that struck me as being a disconnect between something (I mistakenly called it theory) and practice. I realize that’s the way the legal system works, but in my case, a significant majority of my “peers” (and judges) are very conservative and apparently have much more reverence for institutional rights than they do for individual freedoms.

As far as my situation is concerned (see the above post) the First Amendment doesn’t mean beans.

UT, you conclude with “There’s no First Amendment for private groups and there never will be.” Needless to say, you are exactly right about that ... and I must admit that the fact that there will never be a First Amendment for private colleges and universities saddens me greatly. The old argument that, “You wouldn’t blame Microsoft if they fired an employee who went around saying Apple’s OS-X is far superior to Windows Vista” is completely bogus vis-a-vis higher education. That is so because the federal government – and state and local governments for that matter – afford private education – as well as churches and religious organizations – with very significant special considerations that they would never dream of granting to Microsoft. And putting employees of Microsoft in a First Amendment equivalence class with untenured assistant professors at Washington University – St. Louis or Georgetown University or Emmanuel College strikes me as being bizarre ... not that I’m accusing you of having done that.

RWH, at 1:15 pm EDT on May 4, 2007

Once more into the breach

Amen, RWH. As I’ve been trying to argue with UT, there may not be a LEGALLY ACTIONABLE case to be made for certain private institutions to respect freedom of speech, but there is a moral and utilitarian one (makes for a better campus climate), especially in higher ed. And your mention of the fact that these institutions, unlike the Elks Club or Microsoft, get lots of taxpayer cash in various forms, even if private, is to be well considered.

UT, I sympathize with you. I’m glad FIRE does some of the things they do. But my charge is hypocrisy. You can’t say, well, FIRE doesn’t go after private religious colleges because they don’t have a viable legal action. You can’t first of all, because FIRE does NOT only purport to engage in legal action (please read their mission statement). Secondly, you can’t say that because they DO go after private religious colleges. Here’s a link, a very easy one to find:

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/5535.html (click on Gonzaga under FIRE’s spotlight).

It details their negative rating of Gonzaga and actions against them. Need I remind you Gonzaga is a private Catholic school? Their sin seems to be they engaged in left leaning censorship. That, and only that, is what FIRE fights (don’t get me wrong, it should be fought). Ironically, since they claim to target institutions that violate their own creeds, FIRE violates its own mission statement. That’s why the charge hypocrisy fits so well on them. They’re hypocrites that pose as hypocrite fighters!

As for the AAUP they have taken very public stands against speech codes on campus. You can go to their website and search for cases and actions (not always ‘legal actions’) that they have taken in defense of MORE speech and academic freedom. But, thank goodness, they have also stood up against the codes that traditional relgigous “colleges” have as well (called “faith statements"). (Disclaimer, I am not now, nor have never been, a member of the AAUP or FIRE).

Ken, at 1:55 pm EDT on May 4, 2007

Loose Logic Larry

Poor lost and edgy Larry......commenting about university classrooms while admitting that he’s rarely set foot inside a real one for many years. The only thing that I concede is that you confirm how evidence and logic are strangers in your cramped and narrow world of comments on university life.

Of course, you deserve to be mocked and satirized ("insulted"?) because your pieties and sanctimony are laughable.

FIRE works to assure that universities defend freedom of expression. So does the ACLU. If you have a problem with what they don’t do, then make a contribution to FIRE and cite a case that you do want them to investigate.

Please report back the results of your investigation.

I can’t wait to read how you defend your tepid lack of concern to next year’s rabble-rousing, threatening, intimidating, quasi-criminal behavior on college campuses in Colorado and Missouri when the brownshirted thugs and wastrels of BAMN work overtime to squash dissent and free speech.

Chuck, at 7:20 pm EDT on May 4, 2007

Elitist tones in here

RWH says, “The old argument that, “You wouldn’t blame Microsoft if they fired an employee who went around saying Apple’s OS-X is far superior to Windows Vista” is completely bogus vis-a-vis higher education. That is so because the federal government – and state and local governments for that matter – afford private education – as well as churches and religious organizations – with very significant special considerations that they would never dream of granting to Microsoft.”

I don’t like your suggestion that the government AFFORDS anyone anything. The government exists to provide this protection for us. This post begs the question, what “special considerations” do churches get that Microsoft would not? These are both private groups that are free to decide their own courses of action without interference.

“And putting employees of Microsoft in a First Amendment equivalence class with untenured assistant professors at Washington University – St. Louis or Georgetown University or Emmanuel College strikes me as being bizarre ...”

RWH, you elitist snob.

Ken, thanks for the link but I’m familar with all of FIRE’s cases. I was asking you for information on the cases you say FIRE is not pursuing. I’d like to write to FIRE and get their response.

Ken you say, “Their sin seems to be they engaged in left leaning censorship. That, and only that, is what FIRE fights”

You don’t know jack about FIRE Ken...

They forced a catholic university to allow a NAACP chapter, http://www.thefire.org/index.php/case/656.html,

they helped a fired Iraq-war protesting professor, http://www.thefire.org/index.php/case/650.html

helped a professfor for expressing anti-military comments, http://www.thefire.org/index.php/case/663.html

The list goes on Ken. You say all the do is go after liberal policies. That’s not true but IL-liberal policies are the biggest problem on campus, are they not? Aren’t conservative students statistically more likely to be viewpoint suppressed/oppressed? How does the left answer for this?

“As for the AAUP they have taken very public stands against speech codes on campus. You can go to their website and search for cases and actions (not always ‘legal actions’) that they have taken in defense of MORE speech and academic freedom.”

Students can rest better everywhere knowing the AAUP has taken a “public stand” on an issue. I think we’d all prefer something more proactive.

Unapologetically Tedious, Math Teacher, at 7:20 pm EDT on May 4, 2007

A Note For U R Tedious:

I’m not quite sure what your question “what ‘special considerations’ do churches get that Microsoft would not?” means, but I’ll give it a shot. No, instead I’ll direct you to Austin Cline’s description of tax exemptions for churches and the manner in which a great many churches have used those exemptions to simultaneously enhance their property holdings while decreasing their “charitable” contributions ... and at considerable cost to the rest of us.

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchestaxexemptions/a/churchexemption.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchestaxexemptions/a/whyitmatters.htm

http://www.taxchurches.com/

Indeed, in some states, lobbyists for “the church” have effectively made them immune even to sales taxes. And Microsoft? Well, I don’t think so.

I can assure you that if Austin doesn’t answer your question to your satisfaction, I surely won’t be able to either.

Second, I do take offense at your calling me a snob ... I am anything but. I readily admit to being an elitist in many respects, and am not sure why so many individuals who care about excellence resent being call “elitist.” On the other hand, your taking my statement, “... putting employees of Microsoft in a First Amendment equivalence class with untenured assistant professors at Washington University – St. Louis or Georgetown University or Emmanuel College strikes me as being bizarre ...” and then using it to conclude that I’m an “elitist snob” causes me to think either your missed the modifier “First Amendment” or else you’re ... well ... bizarre.

Finally, given that you don’t see much difference between the desirability of First Amendment-like rights at private universities like the three I mentioned above as opposed to similar rights for Microsoft employees, I seriously doubt that we’re going to see eye to eye on much of anything related to academic freedom or freedom of speech.

RWH, at 7:15 am EDT on May 5, 2007

beyond the First

RWH, Well, I don’t know the facts of the case, and it would take me quite some time to understand every detail of your perspective and then investigate the legal and factual weaknesses in your case.

I don’t think it was proper of FIRE to tell you that the court is “notorious” for ruling against people. Maybe they were just in a hurry so they treated you like a lay person. Instead, if they had respected you (and not been in a hurry) they would have explained precisely what the law is, what the ambiguities are, and why they believe you wouldn’t prevail. Or, if they think that you are not a good plaintiff they would say so. (FIRE and the ACLU choose their plaintiffs carefully. Plaintiffs are generally chose because 1) they are credible; and 2) they reach some political objective. You don’t really think that the ACLU chose a former Bush advisor as a plaintiff in a suit regarding warrantless wiretapping because he was the only person that might have been injured”?)

The law on this subject is a little more complicated than just the First Amendment. There are other legal theories people proceed under. There are contractual ones, various state laws, and various civil-rights statutes with retaliation provisions that can be used. Again, I don’t know your specifics. However, many organizations that would represent you might not care to use these theories, because they don’t fit into their worldview.

Whatever the case, the First Amendment is alive and well. Maybe it isn’t protecting every teacher’s paycheck, but it protects many other people.

Larry, at 8:20 am EDT on May 5, 2007

Getting carried away

UT-you’re letting ideological proclivities you have run away with you (it’s always such a sad thing to see; how do people live their lives constantly feeling the need to defend some ideological point of view, constantly forcing their views of empirical reality into the square holes of leftism or round holes of conservatism?). Let’s deal with your critique of RWH first:

“what “special considerations” do churches get that Microsoft would not? These are both private groups that are free to decide their own courses of action without interference.”

Well, RWH was quite plain in his point, that churches and religious groups recieve tax protections that Microsoft does not. In addition, religious schools take literally millions of dollars in federal aid funds. That was RWH’s point.

You also fail to see what I thought was pretty evident about RWH’s point that putting a Microsoft manager and a professor at a college in the same situation is bizarre. Microsoft is not an institution supposedly dedicated to exploring and testing truth through reason. A speech code or faith statement at Microsoft is probably not a good idea, but its not as egregious as it would be in a place of higher learning. That’s not snobbery, it has to do with the relative missions and purposes of the two organizations.

If you’re familiar with “all” of FIRE’s cases (do you work for them?) then we’d love to hear your explanation as to why the Gonzaga case is kosher but not a case against BYU, or Patrick Henry, or Liberty or some other University that imposes blatant censorship on its faculty and students.

You then fire off three odd statements (odd for one who is non-ideologically committed to exploring the truth):

“That’s not true but IL-liberal policies are the biggest problem on campus, are they not? Aren’t conservative students statistically more likely to be viewpoint suppressed/oppressed? How does the left answer for this?”

Last one first, I’m not much of a leftist so I don’t know how they would anser for “this.” I don’t know that conservative students are statistically more likely to be viewpoint oppressed. Is there some empirical study to that effect? As someone who has been the victim of left leaning bias inhis education and career (I’m quite conservative actually, but not bound to keep my ideas within any ideological restraints) i’d love to see it. I will say this, if conservative students “viewpoints” are straight from Hannity, Pat Robertson or the like then I’m not surprised if they don’t get much of a serious hearing on campuses (they should get a fair hearing of course, but let’s face it, a lot of what passes for conservative thought is talk radio foolishness, it is often dismissed by academics not for its orientation but for its lack of rigor). As to your first point, whether one sees left-leaning bias as “the biggest problem on campus” may depend on which campus you are on: there are over a hundred traditionally religious campuses which are conservative culturally and politically and which force a strong dogma on their faculty/students with regularity (and pride I might add).

Predictably, it seems you did not take the time to sit down and explore the AAUP’s history on these issues. Isn’t that what a scholar would do before proclaiming a conclusion? The AAUP has a long record of defending conservative faculty and students as well as liberal ones in the name of academic freedom and freedom of speech. They have used a variety of tactics, public statements, censure, legal actions, lobbying. Where legal action is appropriate they initiate it. But what they understand is that there are many ways one can, indeed must stand up for these values. For example, they maynot be able to sue BYU or Liberty when they trample on their students and faculty rights, but they can advocate against them. FIRE simply turns the blindest of eyes. Despite their own avowed mission statement: ““Liberty cannot exist in a society in which people are forced to conform their thoughts and expression to an official viewpoint” they continue to ignore the dozens of Liberty’s, Regents, or BYU’s that vigorously force their school communities to conform their thoughts and expression to an official viewpoint. In their letter to Gonzaga they implore them not to “abandon the principles of fairness, openness and free exchange of ideas.” Why wouldn’t they write a letter asking conservative traditional religious institutions to not abandon them as well. Don’t they care for “vibrant” and “open” discussion and deplore “forc[ing] thoughts and expression to conform to an official viewpoint?”

Ken, at 8:20 am EDT on May 5, 2007

Chuck, I am not sure that I “commented about university classrooms.” First of all, I have contributed to FIRE, and, indeed, I contributed to the ACLU. FIRE is simply a smaller organization with less money and less talent. In the past they have been accused of being too beholden to other (larger) contributors. In practice, they spend a lot of time telling people that they “threatened” lawsuits and wrote letters, but the fact is that they have never brought any controversial issues t the Supreme Court. They just don’t have the resources to take on difficult cases.

Again, you lobbed a few insults at me (i.e. Of course, you deserve to be mocked and satirized ("insulted"?) because your pieties and sanctimony are laughable.), but you didn’t address most of my points, so that seems that you have conceded them. As an academic I am sure that you are aware of the absolute necessity of identifying specific parts of a person’s argument and explaining why they are wrong. Instead, by “mocking” me without identifying specific arguments, you have conceded many of my points.

I don’t know what “quasi-criminal” means, and I don’t care. Unless you can identify what laws people are breaking (and you could even argue that people breached a contract), indeed, I don’t care.

(And I don’t know anything about the “brown-shirted” groups that you talk about, so I have no position on them.)

Larry88@mailinator.com, at 8:20 am EDT on May 5, 2007

FULL REVERSE

Ken, RWH, you’re good people and I’m enjoying this! Let’s none of us ever get so blinded by our positions that we forget to enjoy debate...

LET’S reverse directions on this topic. How does the AAUP feel about FIRE’s cases? Would they have pursued them? Did they make a “stand” on those issues, Ken? How does the AAUP feel about speech codes? Is it a “keep up the good work of silencing voices” or “shut up and let the kids talk, no matter how stupid they sound” attitude?

Fill me in!

Unapologetically Tedious, Math teacher, at 4:05 pm EDT on May 5, 2007

If anyone commenting here knows the students involved, please encourage them to contact us. To the extent these students are being penalized for publicly criticizing the university and stirring up dissent, we may be able to be of assistance.

Samantha Harris, Director of Legal and Public Advocacy at Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, at 1:55 pm EDT on May 7, 2007

FIREd Up

Here is FIRE’s statement concerning academic freedom and private religious colleges:

Private universities are not directly bound by the First Amendment, which limits only government action. However, universities have traditionally viewed themselves—and sold themselves—as bastions of free thought and expression. Private colleges and universities should be held to the standard that they themselves establish. If a private college advertises itself as a place where free speech is esteemed and protected—as most of them do—then it should be held to the same standard as a public institution.

Furthermore, private colleges and universities are contractually bound to respect the promises they make to students. Many institutions promise a free marketplace of ideas but then deliver selective censorship once the first tuition check is cashed. They may not be bound by the First Amendment, but private institutions still have legal obligations to deliver what they promise. Private institutions may not engage in fraud or breach of contract.

The freedom to associate voluntarily with others around common goals or beliefs is an integral part of a pluralistic and free society, and if a private college wishes to place a particular set of moral, philosophical, or religious teachings above a commitment to free expression, it has every right to do so. If a private university states clearly and publicly that it is devoted to a given orthodoxy, that institution has considerably more leeway in imposing its views on students, who have given their informed consent by choosing to attend.

Source: http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/5675.html

This seems to make perfect sense to me.

John Bane, at 1:55 pm EDT on May 7, 2007

Jobs Related to Inquiry or Indoctrination?

or search for jobs directly.

2008/09 Teaching Specialist or Lecturer-Arabic-African American & African Studies
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Director of Sponsored Projects
University of Texas—Dallas

Be a part of UT Dallas’ drive to become a Tier I research institution. see job

2008/09 Term Faculty Series — Geography
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities