PATRIOTIC CORRECTNESS vs. THINKING

“It has come to my attention that several faculty members have been discussing the [Iraq] war within the context of their classrooms. We need to be sure that faculty do not explore this activity … unless it can be demonstrated, to the satisfaction of this office, that such discussions are directly related to the approved instructional requirements and materials associated with those classes.”

—IVC’s Vice President of Instruction, 3/27/03

ttention fans of free speech and academic freedom! You really should check out the Fall 2005 edition of the NEA’s higher education journal, “Thought & Action.” (Thought & Action)

It focuses on “Higher Education and the National Security State,” and it includes an interview of Noam Chomsky.

You’ll recall that, back in 2003, IVC’s VPI, Dennis White, banned talk of the Iraq war in the classroom. Evidently, some IVC instructors dared to question the war--imagine that!--which upset some students. So Dennis took action. It wasn’t that he was trying to sanction unquestioning patriotism. It was more that he was trying to keep our customers satisfied. Bleccch.

Normally, anybody would see the folly of this kind of censorship. In this case, however, Dennis seemed to be on the side of, as Trustee Tom likes to say, “our fighting men and women,” and that’s good, isn’t it? To do otherwise is bad, right?

So, without qualms, Dennis issued his ban. No doubt, he also issued a sigh of satisfaction.

His satisfaction didn’t last long. The ban produced yet another in a long series of embarrassing and wacky media storms, though most of the criticism in this case seemed to come from academics.

To make a long story short, the administration’s bumbling and contradictory efforts at damage control eventually produced an equivocal recanting of the ban, whereupon some members of the IVC Academic Senate asked for clarification of the administration’s policy on war talk. Senators were then warned to leave the matter as it was, which they did. (The tale is told in our Archives, War Talk Ban at IVC.)

The larger issue—of threats to academic freedom and free speech arising from fear—is very real and very disturbing, as you know. I recommend that you peruse the Fall 2005 edition of “Thought & Action.”

Read especially the article by John K. Wilson. It is entitled “Academic Freedom in America after 9/11.” (Academic Freedom. Warning: it's a pdf file.)

In the article, Wilson writes:

College Campuses around the country reacted to the September 11, 2001, terrorist acts with rallies, vigils, discussions, and a wide range of debates about the causes and cures for terrorism. Yet the story told about academia in the media was often quite different.

According to Wilson, the news media portrayed academia as a place that suppressed, in particular, support of our nation’s endeavor to respond to the terrorist threat. But is the portrayal accurate? Wilson writes:

There is no factual basis for the claim that supporters of war faced more suppression [than critics faced] on college campuses. To the contrary, opponents of the war on terror reported many more threats to academic freedom.

Back in 2003, when Dennis issued his ban, many of us at IVC were very aware that college classrooms are among the very few places in our society that permit and even embrace a genuinely open and free discussion of our government’s military adventures and anti-terrorist policies. Wilson notes:

Far from being the center of repression, college campuses were often the only places in America where the U.S. response to terrorism was seriously analyzed and debated. Indeed, conservatives attacked academia because, at a time of flag-waving and national unity, colleges were the one place in America[n] society where a debate about public policy occurred and dissent from the Bush Administration’s foreign policy was permitted.

Think of it in this way: if our nation were a group of, say, ten people, then Mr. Academy would be the guy (or gal) in the corner who thinks before he acts. That’s an important guy to have around.

Or, more accurately: the other nine people should be, but aren’t, like that guy.

Isn’t it clear by now that the problem with our invasion of Iraq was that too few of us were like that guy? Inside the academy, there was plenty of thought and open discussion and skeptical questioning. It was flyin' all over the place.

But it didn’t seem to matter very much, since, outside of academia, almost nobody really asked whether this thing made sense.

It sure didn't happen in the White House. It didn’t happen in Congress. It didn’t happen in the news media. Again, if our nation were that group of ten people, then Congress, the President, and the media are the three dolts in the middle--the one's with their heads up their asses.

Does Unflag-wavery exist as a kind of political correctness in academia? Sure. But if you’re looking for where the rubber meets the road, oppression-wise, then you need to consider the plight of Unflag-wavers, not Flag-wavers.

Or so says Wilson:

[M]y extensive survey of academic freedom and civil liberties at American universities found…[that] left-wing critics of the Bush Administration suffered by far the most numerous and most serious violations of their civil liberties. Censorship of conservatives was rare, and almost always overturned in the few cases where it occurred. Patriotic correctness—not political correctness—reigned supreme after 9/11.

I won’t review Wilson’s impressive litany of incidents, which includes Dennis’ ban (see page 127). And I sure don’t want to pick on Dennis, who is a nice guy and who, otherwise, really tries to do the right thing.

Unlike some persons I know.

But I do want to say that criticism and discussion are very valuable things, and, at real colleges, they occur without apology.

Happy New Year.

P.S.:

Here's an old memo from the President of Irvine Valley College to "all faculty":

I understand that some students have asked instructors to allow them to speak in their classes about campus political matters. In light of professional sense and matter [sic] of good practice, I would like to caution and advise all faculty to maintain the integrity of the classroom instruction [sic] by adhering to approved curriculum and course outlines of record for their day-to-day activities. It is not a good practice for faculty to allow campus politics to interfere with the educational interests of the students in the classroom. Discussion of political matters, for example, in political science classes is certainly appropriate. Students are welcome to use other forums and avenues to exercise their freedom of speech without interfering with educational interests of other students.

I appreciate very much your professional consideration of this matter. Thank you.

The date?:

April 2, 1998.

The author?:

RAGHU P. MATHUR


P.P.S.:

From Bob Park's newsletter (What's New?), yesterday:

DESIGNED LIES: THE DOVER SCHOOL BOARD DID IT "TIME AND AGAIN."

"It is ironic that these individuals, who so proudly touted their religious convictions in public would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy." --From the Jones opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover school Board.

--I'm not sure how ironic it is. I'd say it's predictable. --CW