Academic Arrogance

The recent flap over the appointment of a new provost at Kennesaw State University has brought numerous members of the KSU community to the barricades. They fear that the investigative reporting of the Marietta Daily Journal that ultimately resulted in Dr. Timothy Chandler removing his name from consideration was an attack on academic freedom.

The argument presented is that a university must make its own personnel decisions; that when external forces determine these, the very freedom of thought that enables universities to be beacons of independent knowledge is endangered. It is therefore necessary for academics to speak up and to educate the public about what is involved.

Let me begin by acknowledging that academic freedom is of vital importance. We have seen what happens in places like the Soviet Union where the government dictated what professors could teach. There, genetics and honest political science were ruled out of bounds. Meanwhile, here in the United States some religious groups have sought to dictate how evolution should be taught.

This said, politics and the whims of public opinion are not the best sources academic decision making. They can be biased, ignorant, and heavy-handed. In other words, they not the most fertile ground for clear-headed, objective or responsible curricula choices.

Nor, however, are the whims of academic opinion much better. These too can be grounded in ideological enthusiasms and crowd mentalities. An example of this phenomenon is occurring right now on the campus of Kennesaw State. As this is written, a band of academic activists is seeking to foist an unnecessary and illegitimate program on the university.

What is currently being proposed, and indeed fast-tracked toward implementation, is a grab-bag department of political correctness. Variously designated the Department of Cultural and Regional Studies or the Department of Social and Cultural Studies, it is the brainchild of left-wing activists who are seeking a home base in which to ground their hopes for indoctrinating students in their pet projects.

Included in this capacious tent are women’s studies, peace studies, environmental studies, and a number or ethnic and racial programs. What these have in common is that there is little student demand for any of them. Most students realize that majoring in these is a ticket to unemployment.

But that is not a consideration for the activists. Despite the fact that few have degrees in the subjects they intend to teach, they are sure that their moral—as opposed to academic—credentials qualify them to decide what students should know. Readers will not be surprised that this is largely hodge-podge of neo-Marxist ideas.

As if this were not irresponsible enough, this coup is being perpetrated during a period of financial constraints. While the university as a whole is required to engage in belt-tightening because of the state’s current budgetary crisis, scare resources are being diverted to this ill-begotten endeavor.

And where are these monies coming from? Well, other established departments (such as mine of sociology) are being cannibalized. We are losing faculty lines at the same time that the demand for our courses continues to rise. The upshot is that the university will be offering classes students don’t want at the same time that it is denying them classes they do.

So where does this fit into the larger picture? First, universities do have a right to make decisions about their own curricula. But second, this needs to be done responsibly and honestly. Consequently, third, the public does have an interest is overseeing how this is achieved. Since it is the sons and daughters of Mary and John Q. Public that we are educating, ordinary people have a right to know what is going on and to express their opinions about it.

What is, therefore, necessary is to balance academic freedom with the over-all public interest. Neither should be absolute; but nor should either be arrogant.

Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Academic Contrarians

Recently Dr. Thomas Keene sought to explain to MDJ readers why academics sometimes resort to Marxist rhetoric when trying to exert influence. His goal was to defuse the controversy that arose when it was discovered Dr. Timothy Chandler, the soon-to-be provost of Kennesaw State University, had coauthored an article with Marxist overtones.
Professor Keene’s point was that academics are by nature “contrartians.” They regularly oppose the conventional wisdom and in the process advance social knowledge to the benefit of all. This, in essence, was all Dr. Chandler was doing.
Dr. Keene began by observing that he himself has been a contrarian ever since he was a small child and that this stance produces a valuable independence of thought. Indeed, when imported into the marketplace of ideas sponsored by our universities, it creates an intellectual tension that sorts the good ideas from the bad.
Sadly, this is not necessarily true. Tom Keene is himself an outstanding example of what he preaches. A committed scholar, a fair-minded human being, and an intellectually honest commentator on the social scene, he has been invaluable in maintaining the high academic standards of KSU. And yet, he is an exception, rather than the rule.
As almost everyone knows—but few academics admit—universities are hotbeds of left-wing activism. Neo-Marxism is virtually a religion in the humanities and social sciences, with almost no faculty members openly willing to express conservative views lest their careers be irreparably damaged.
Thus, as I have previously noted, in my own discipline of sociology the ratio of liberals to conservatives is thirty-to-one. This means that liberals have no need to defend their views. Their opinions represent the conventional wisdom and therefore seem self-evident.
Put another way, on campuses nation-wide, neo-Marxists have no need to be contrary. They can—and do—conform to the standards set by their peers. Far from exercising an independence of thought, most merely parrot what they were taught by their own professors and what they hear from their colleagues.
Within the university setting, it is neo-conservatives such as myself who must be the contrarians. It is we who need the courage to tell our colleagues they are wrong, even though we are greatly outnumbered. They, on the other hand, can complacently sit back and assume that we are deluded fools who may one day come to our senses. In other words, they do not have to take our contributions seriously—hence few do.
To illustrate, I have on countless occasions offered to debate my colleagues on a host of issues. To date, however, I have never been taken up on a single challenge. Frequently dismissed as hopelessly old-fashioned, it is understood that there is no penalty for refusing to take me on.
Returning to Dr. Chandler article, I must first admit to not having read it in its entirety, consequently I am not sure its tenor was fundamentally Marxist. Nor have I met Dr. Chandler personally, hence I cannot vouch for his underlying beliefs. Here I can only comment on the reception his writings were apt to receive from the academic community.
One thing is certain, they would not have been perceived as contrarian. Nor would they have provoked innovative thought. Quite the reverse, they were likely interpreted as just another restatement of what the vast majority of academics believe. If they made hardly a ripple, it was because they were dropped into waters already roiling with neo-Marxist proposals.
This said, I am not sure what sort of provost Dr. Chandler will make. Even if he is the sort of ideologue many MDJ readers fear, it is unlikely that he will push the university farther to the left. The neo-Marxist hegemony is currently set in stone. Its foundations are so strong and broad that for the time being they are unshakable.
But there is some good news. There are genuine contrarians among us, and as Dr. Keene suggests, they are capable of improving social conditions. He is simply wrong as to where they can be found. —I submit this column as a case in point.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Save the Children: Discipline the Teachers

When Georgia was initially hit with our recent financial crisis, it was time for belt-tightening. Everyone knew it, including then Governor Sonny Perdue. And so the word went out that there would be budget cuts. Furthermore these would be across the board so that the pain would be shared.
Only they weren’t across the board. Everyone was cut by four, then six, and then eight percent—except the penal institutions and k-12 schools. This presumably made sense. We couldn’t very well let prisoners out of their cells or deny small children a good education. After all, we had to “save the children.”
Higher education was sacrificed; roads were sacrificed, but these innocents could not be sacrificed. Or was it the children that would have suffered? Somehow, the teachers made out like bandits. They, who, strange to say, had been among Perdue’s most vociferous supporters, managed to keep their own nest eggs intact.
Now we witness the spectacle of teachers besieging the Wisconsin State House. They too are claiming to fight on behalf of their students, even as they put in for so much phony sick leave that the schools must close. Nevertheless, they are altruists, whereas their enemy, the governor, is trying to destroy the future of the young.
Before this sideshow, we had heard of teachers unions demanding more pay and benefits than workers in the private sector. We had also heard stories of their defending incompetent teachers. But most people were reluctant to believe these tales. They wanted to help the children and so were willing to assist their helpers.
But now, in Wisconsin, the teachers are prepared to see their state go into default rather than make significant concessions. How is this supposed to help the children? What good will it do the young if there are no jobs waiting for them when they graduate?
Rather than answer this question, let me first share some secrets. To begin with, teachers, despite many significant exceptions, are among the least well educated of our professionals. Anyone who teaches in college (as I do) knows that the worst students congregate in the education department. There they find the least demanding courses, yet obtain the best grades.
Moreover, most of what prospective teachers learn concerns the tenets of progressive education. These essentially dictate that teachers be nice to students. That’s it; just be nice. As to the content we might expect teachers to impart, it is a tiny part of the curriculum. Perhaps the fear is that education majors cannot absorb anything too intellectually challenging.
In any event, the time has come to hold teachers to a higher standard. If they are to receive the remuneration to which they feel entitled, they need to work a little harder to accumulate genuine knowledge worthy of being passed along to the younger generation.
The second secret is that the amount of money spent on education is not correlated with educational achievement. More dollars do not necessarily improve learning. In fact, they do not. They barely make a difference. Most people refuse to believe this, but the sociologist James Coleman definitively demonstrated this truth almost a half century ago.
For those who suspect I am mistaken, I offer evidence open to everyone. We have doubled and tripled the amount spent on education over the last several decades, but have the scores on achievement tests gone up commensurately? Of course not. They have barely budged.
Or consider class size. It has been presented as the Holy Grail of education. Smaller classes, we were told, would allow teachers to provide more individualized attention. Well, class sizes have almost been cut in half, but parochial schools with much larger classes are doing better. So did the larger classes I once attended.
As Coleman long ago discovered, the most important factor in generating student success is parental attitudes. Parents who care about education have children who care about it. This is the real secret of the Asian Tiger Mothers. This is why their children are doing so well in school—not because they are more intelligent.
And so the way to get better education is to raise the standards. Raise them for teachers. Raise them for parents. Raise them for children. If we care about education, we must not be fooled into supporting what is essentially in the teachers’ interests. We must keep our eyes on the ball. Bankrupting our states to pay for something that does not help us, or our children, makes no sense.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University