September 17, 2007
UC-Irvine Gets It
Wrong by Revoking Offer to Liberal Dean Candidate
This week, the
University of California at Irvine rescinded its job offer to
distinguished Duke law Prof. – and eminent liberal – Erwin Chemerinsky,
because, according to Chemerinsky, the chancellor “didn’t know how
controversial I would be” and “some conservative opposition was
developing.”
Chemerinsky, who has
represented Valerie Plame and a Guantanamo Bay detainee, penned op-ed
pieces for major publications and offered a liberal point-of-view to
various talk shows, had been offered the position of dean at UC-Irvine’s
fledgling law school.
Even conservative
scholars were puzzled by UC-Irvine’s decision, because Chemerinsky’s
deanship would have given the law school a formidable start, and it is
unlikely that other equally qualified individuals will be vying for the
opening. Although the university’s chancellor insisted politics had
nothing to do with it, the job offer was coincidentally withdrawn after
a piece by Chemerinsky appeared in The Los Angeles Times
criticizing the Bush administration.
Whether or not UC-Irvine’s
decision was politically motivated, it adds another dimension to the
debate about the role politics should play in education. College
instructors often opt to skirt political issues in their classrooms, but
should they also curb their political lives outside of it?
At that question,
some conservatives are probably asking: “Since when do college
instructors avoid political discussion? Our public universities are
nothing if not liberal indoctrinators!” But I can assure you as a
university instructor that many of us have pondered how vocal we should
be about our political leanings in the classroom, in fear of sparking an
inextinguishable debate. As I prepared my syllabus this quarter, I found
that, given the textbook graduate students are required to use in
teaching college composition, political discussion would be
unavoidable.
I have decided to be
open about my political views, and all instructors should have the right
to do so, as long as they encourage open debate in response. One of the
most invaluable offerings of a college education is the ability to think
critically and determine your stance on the important issues of our
time. Sure, we could churn out student after student who is armed with
specialized job skills and conservative pragmatism, but what about the
rest of what constitutes becoming a part of the greater society?
I could teach my
students the rhetorical strategies but never give them an example of
these rhetorical strategies at work in a political argument, or I could
teach them about how to present a convincing argument but not encourage
them to actually have opinions to argue. I refuse to do so. This
generation’s students are going to be in the position to make this world
a better place, and thus the last thing they need is more political
apathy.
When I was a
freshman in college, the war in Iraq was just beginning, and my roommate
(a Muslim) and I had watched the first bombs light up the sky on our
tiny little dorm television. I thought myself adamantly anti-war, yet
when one of my professors played for us an audio clip of an
Iraqi-American woman praising America for helping her native country
escape a tyrannical dictator, I wasn’t angry and I didn’t cry
“indoctrination!” Instead, I listened, as my college education had
taught me to.
Indoctrination does
happen, and I am certainly not encouraging that here. However, fear of
being called an indoctrinator should not limit a professor in their
teachings, and certainly should not limit their activities outside of
the classroom.
This past June, the
American Association of University Professors published a piece titled
“Freedom in the Classroom”, which discusses the difference between
education and indoctrination. They got it right when they separated the
two in this way: “Indoctrination occurs only when instructors
dogmatically insist on the truth of such propositions by refusing to
accord their students the opportunity to contest them . . . The essence
of higher education does not lie in the passive transmission of
knowledge but in the inculcation of a mature independence of mind.”
In other words,
instructors should be open to criticism themselves as they teach their
students how to be open to it. If a student makes a valid point that
contradicts the professors, they should congratulate them, not kick them
out of the classroom. In my own instruction, I plan to offer various
facets to every argument I present in class. And while I may tell them
which side of the debate I happen to be on, I would expect those who
disagree with me to come forward. If students in my classroom feel
unable to do so, then I am doing something wrong.
If political
discussion becomes taboo in a college classroom, or if suddenly all
politically active instructors, conservative or liberal, were kicked off
college campuses, college education would suffer immensely. Not only
would it be a despicable affront to free speech, but the students would
be missing a key part of their education.
Let’s hope the
situation at UC-Irvine is not repeated elsewhere.
© 2007 North Star Writers
Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and
editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.
To e-mail feedback about this column,
click here. If you enjoy this writer's
work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry
it.
This is Column # JV022.
Request permission to publish here.
|