Politics and the Liberal Arts

[Deleted]

H showed me this column yesterday and said he kind of agreed.   As a liberal hippie academic, I vehemently argued until he backed down. Haha. 

Here is the PDF of the report that Klingenstein commissioned. What Does Bowdoin Teach? It's 360 pages long, so I don't expect y'all to read it (I've only skimmed) but I'm curious what you think about the premise of it. To me, it seems petty and vindictive.

From the WSJ column: 

The school's ideological pillars would likely be familiar to anyone who has paid attention to American higher education lately. There's the obsession with race, class, gender and sexuality as the essential forces of history and markers of political identity. There's the dedication to "sustainability," or saving the planet from its imminent destruction by the forces of capitalism. And there are the paeans to "global citizenship," or loving all countries except one's own.

WDYT about this? I am passionate about the liberal arts, so this report and the related column are really getting me fired up.

[winnied]

I find it odd. I went to a very politically conservative/libertarian liberal arts college. We preached the good word of a liberal arts education until the cows came home. I am still very pro-liberal arts education and I wish more people supported it and understood its value.

[Deleted]

Oh, and the title "National Association of Scholars" sounds so nice and, well, scholarly. But their Wikipedia page (I know, I know, haha) says "The National Association of Scholars (NAS) is a non-profit organization in the United States that opposes multiculturalism and affirmative action and seeks to counter what it considers a "liberal bias" in academia." 

I know that most professors are politically liberal, but I've rarely found that to be an issue in my schooling. 

[smock]

The report is all kinds of inaccurate. For instance, the report claims that Bowdoin doesn't offer a single class on the American Revolution or American diplomatic/political/military history, which is just untrue. And the idea that the concept of "global citizenship" means "hate your own country" is laughable.

This blog does a great job of summing up the ridiculousness of the report: academeblog.org/2013/04/04/a-failed-attack-on-bowdoin-by-the-nas/

[Deleted]

I don't hear many people say that these subjects (referring to classes like the seminars on "Affirmative Action and U.S. Society," "Fictions of Freedom," "Racism," "Queer Gardens," "Sexual Life of Colonialism" and "Modern Western Prostitutes") shouldn't be studied because they push a "liberal agenda." I do hear people saying that they shouldn't be studied because they're pretty much worthless in terms of teaching content and skills that are needed on the job market. I don't agree but I know it's a popular stance. This is tangential to the subject of the column but I do think that schools don't do a very good job in helping students make the connections between the skills that these courses do teach or reinforce and skills commonly needed on the job market.

Also, it sounds like Klingenstein thinks the only valuable classes are those taught on the doings and theories of rich white men  ^o)

[Deleted]

Apr 8, 2013 8:50:09 GMT -5 @lcap said:

 I do hear people saying that they shouldn't be studied because they're pretty much worthless in terms of teaching content and skills that are needed on the job market. 

 What most employers want are good communication skills (writing, speaking, and reading critically), problem-solving skills, and critical thinking skills. Of course, some jobs will require specific curricula (I would have a hard time being a chemistry professor if I had majored in English). But that's not to the exclusion of a well-rounded liberal arts education.

(Lcap, this is not directed at you but rather at those with the viewpoint you describe here.)

[Deleted]

I am LOL at some of the comments on the NAS website.

And if Bowdoin—a school currently ranked #6 on the “U.S. News and World Report” list of liberal arts colleges—isn’t your bag, I hear that Oral Roberts University might have some open spaces…

[Deleted]

Apr 8, 2013 8:52:45 GMT -5 @redbellpeppers said:

Apr 8, 2013 8:50:09 GMT -5 @lcap said:

 I do hear people saying that they shouldn't be studied because they're pretty much worthless in terms of teaching content and skills that are needed on the job market. 

 What most employers want are good communication skills (writing, speaking, and reading critically), problem-solving skills, and critical thinking skills. Of course, some jobs will require specific curricula (I would have a hard time being a chemistry professor if I had majored in English). But that's not to the exclusion of a well-rounded liberal arts education.

(Lcap, this is not directed at you but rather at those with the viewpoint you describe here.)

I know, I completely agree. I know from my own experience that the school I went to and some schools that friends went to (including a few top liberal arts schools) didn't do a very good job in teaching kids how to market their degrees. But that was almost ten years ago so I hope that things have changed since then, although it sounds like it hasn't really from articles appearing in the media on this subject.

[gt7301b]

I have trouble believing in the credibility of any report that can't be written in fewer than 360 pages.

[Deleted]

Apr 8, 2013 8:56:45 GMT -5 @lcap said:

Apr 8, 2013 8:52:45 GMT -5 @redbellpeppers said:

 What most employers want are good communication skills (writing, speaking, and reading critically), problem-solving skills, and critical thinking skills. Of course, some jobs will require specific curricula (I would have a hard time being a chemistry professor if I had majored in English). But that's not to the exclusion of a well-rounded liberal arts education.

(Lcap, this is not directed at you but rather at those with the viewpoint you describe here.)

I know, I completely agree. I know from my own experience that the school I went to and some schools that friends went to (including a few top liberal arts schools) didn't do a very good job in teaching kids how to market their degrees. But that was almost ten years ago so I hope that things have changed since then, although it sounds like it hasn't really from articles appearing in the media on this subject.

I think that networking is key here. 

[smock]

I also find it downright offensive to say that you can learn anything about American history without talking about race, gender, class, etc. And I can pretty much guarantee that classes on race in American history are also talking about politics, diplomacy, and military history.

It seems to me that part of the fight here is over how historians talk about the past, and at this point the kinds of historians who are excellent enough in their fields to get hired at Bowdoin aren't doing straight-up diplomatic or military history. History as a field has moved away from that focus to one that uses more diverse methodological approaches and brings in more people than the old white dudes in power. It gets my goat that somehow multiculturalism is a dirty word in history.

[awkwardpenguin]

I would like to suggest that the easiest solution to this alleged problem is for more conservatives to go into academia.

[winnied]

Apr 8, 2013 9:31:31 GMT -5 awkwardpenguin said:

I would like to suggest that the easiest solution to this alleged problem is for more conservatives to go into academia.

Perhaps. Consider this, though, if academia is heavy on liberal/progressive politics, do you think a conservative would do well in that setting? Their work is harshly criticized and there is little encouragement or support. They are discriminated against for their work. Now, it's within the rights of the hiring committees at colleges and universities to not want to hire someone based on their research (and therefore, opinions) but that's what happens.

[LoveTrains]

I read a great response yesterday that was something like 12-13 pages long and pointed out factual inaccuracies in the NAS report but I can't find it. But it is absolutely inaccurate that the college doesn't have courses on intellectual or military history.

[kadams767]

Apr 8, 2013 8:52:45 GMT -5 @redbellpeppers said:

Apr 8, 2013 8:50:09 GMT -5 @lcap said:

 I do hear people saying that they shouldn't be studied because they're pretty much worthless in terms of teaching content and skills that are needed on the job market. 

 What most employers want are good communication skills (writing, speaking, and reading critically), problem-solving skills, and critical thinking skills. Of course, some jobs will require specific curricula (I would have a hard time being a chemistry professor if I had majored in English). But that's not to the exclusion of a well-rounded liberal arts education.

(Lcap, this is not directed at you but rather at those with the viewpoint you describe here.)

I think that those with the viewpoint that you mentioned @lcap could stand to take a look some of the problems with degrees/people that focus only on concrete skills and avoid liberal arts like the plague. It's wonderful tohave hard skills and a tangible career path, but I think it does a disservice to students for them not to study other subjects.  It's great that someone is a computer wizard and can fix any tech problem, but if you are lacking any sort of communication and social skills, you are only going to get so far.     

I know it's a hot button issue given the excessive college costs right now, but I am all in favor of extensive general education requirements.

[smock]

Apr 8, 2013 9:44:32 GMT -5 winnied said:

Apr 8, 2013 9:31:31 GMT -5 awkwardpenguin said:

I would like to suggest that the easiest solution to this alleged problem is for more conservatives to go into academia.

Perhaps. Consider this, though, if academia is heavy on liberal/progressive politics, do you think a conservative would do well in that setting? Their work is harshly criticized and there is little encouragement or support. They are discriminated against for their work. Now, it's within the rights of the hiring committees at colleges and universities to not want to hire someone based on their research (and therefore, opinions) but that's what happens.

I think there's a fundamental disconnect here: yes, many academics are liberal. But that doesn't mean that their research or teaching is liberal. For example, I'm not sure there's such a thing as a "liberal" version of physics. I teach non-U.S., non-modern history, and my teaching and research barely touches anything that could be labeled political (I mean, I mention gay people, but I don't advocate for political positions in my classes).

[winnied]

smock, I think politics comes more into play with humanities. I'm glad you don't bring politics into the classroom, but that doesn't mean others don't. How frequently does that happen? I'm not sure and but I assume many conservatives exaggerate. I know in my middle and high school classes, for example, politics were frequently brought in. It was obvious like, Democrats are better than Republicans because x, y, and z but it was certainly there and it was certainly inappropriate. 

[smock]

What bothers me about the report is that the NAS is not cataloguing instances of professors telling students to be liberal, or giving conservative students bad grades. Much of their argument is based on course titles. As if merely taking a course on Sexuality in America is an attack on conservative politics. If the NAS really cared about education, they wouldn't worry that exposure to multiculturalism would indoctrinate students.

[jerseyjaybird]

Apr 8, 2013 9:53:35 GMT -5 smock said:

Apr 8, 2013 9:44:32 GMT -5 winnied said:

Perhaps. Consider this, though, if academia is heavy on liberal/progressive politics, do you think a conservative would do well in that setting? Their work is harshly criticized and there is little encouragement or support. They are discriminated against for their work. Now, it's within the rights of the hiring committees at colleges and universities to not want to hire someone based on their research (and therefore, opinions) but that's what happens.

I think there's a fundamental disconnect here: yes, many academics are liberal. But that doesn't mean that their research or teaching is liberal. For example, I'm not sure there's such a thing as a "liberal" version of physics. I teach non-U.S., non-modern history, and my teaching and research barely touches anything that could be labeled political (I mean, I mention gay people, but I don't advocate for political positions in my classes).

I don't doubt that the NAS could find a way to brand your research/teaching as liberal, though.  

I attended a very liberal, liberal arts, women's college, and many of the professors in the sciences managed to bring some sense of minority participation in their fields to light, even in small ways (i.e., mentioning the contributions of female mathematicians when reviewing the history of a mathematical idea). I'm sure that this kind of corrective (as I see it) would drive the NAS nuts. I'd almost love to hear what they'd make of my alma mater's major in Religion and Social Justice . . .

My college stressed writing and speaking skills and was forever coaching us in marketing the analytic skills that we developed---I agree that much more of this is needed.



  

[Deleted]

Apr 8, 2013 8:57:53 GMT -5 @redbellpeppers said:

Apr 8, 2013 8:56:45 GMT -5 @lcap said:

I know, I completely agree. I know from my own experience that the school I went to and some schools that friends went to (including a few top liberal arts schools) didn't do a very good job in teaching kids how to market their degrees. But that was almost ten years ago so I hope that things have changed since then, although it sounds like it hasn't really from articles appearing in the media on this subject.

I think that networking is key here. 

Yeah that's how I ended up getting my first job.

[liveintheville]

Apr 8, 2013 9:53:35 GMT -5 smock said:

Apr 8, 2013 9:44:32 GMT -5 winnied said:

Perhaps. Consider this, though, if academia is heavy on liberal/progressive politics, do you think a conservative would do well in that setting? Their work is harshly criticized and there is little encouragement or support. They are discriminated against for their work. Now, it's within the rights of the hiring committees at colleges and universities to not want to hire someone based on their research (and therefore, opinions) but that's what happens.

I think there's a fundamental disconnect here: yes, many academics are liberal. But that doesn't mean that their research or teaching is liberal. For example, I'm not sure there's such a thing as a "liberal" version of physics. I teach non-U.S., non-modern history, and my teaching and research barely touches anything that could be labeled political (I mean, I mention gay people, but I don't advocate for political positions in my classes).

There are many conservatives who deny evolution. Some schools insist creationism be taught in biology class. Science isn't exempt from conservative spin. 
And physics most definitely has philosophical roots which are still debated and taught.

[smock]

Apr 8, 2013 12:14:44 GMT -5 liveintheville said:

Apr 8, 2013 9:53:35 GMT -5 smock said:

I think there's a fundamental disconnect here: yes, many academics are liberal. But that doesn't mean that their research or teaching is liberal. For example, I'm not sure there's such a thing as a "liberal" version of physics. I teach non-U.S., non-modern history, and my teaching and research barely touches anything that could be labeled political (I mean, I mention gay people, but I don't advocate for political positions in my classes).

There are many conservatives who deny evolution. Some schools insist creationism be taught in biology class. Science isn't exempt from conservative spin. 
And physics most definitely has philosophical roots which are still debated and taught.

You're right that science isn't necessarily except from these political debates, but there's a pretty good reason you won't find any tenured biologists who deny evolution, and it has nothing to do with a bias against conservatives.

[liveintheville]

Apr 8, 2013 12:45:36 GMT -5 smock said:

Apr 8, 2013 12:14:44 GMT -5 liveintheville said:

There are many conservatives who deny evolution. Some schools insist creationism be taught in biology class. Science isn't exempt from conservative spin. 
And physics most definitely has philosophical roots which are still debated and taught.

You're right that science isn't necessarily except from these political debates, but there's a pretty good reason you won't find any tenured biologists who deny evolution, and it has nothing to do with a bias against conservatives.

Ha! Very true. I did have a whacked out physics professor sub once, who was trying to prove a magnetic monopole exists  He was tenured and I think they tried to keep him hidden away and only pulled him out of storage in an emergency.