After much haggling, the baby has finally arrived. Kennesaw State University recently announced the birth of a new department of “Odds and Ends Radicalism.” Actually, the official tile is the “Interdisciplinary Studies Department.” In any event, this is a huge improvement over what was originally proposed.
As an active participant in the controversy that led to this development, I feel impelled to make some observations. Much time and effort went into making a decision intended to be wise, but that, in fact, did what King Solomon only threatened. At KSU, the authorities actually split the baby; they did not merely offer to do so.
Mind you, this was a step forward. Interim Provost Ken Harmon has been quoted as saying he gave my objections a “fair hearing”—and he did. But he did more. He also changed that name of the new department so that it does not directly jeopardize my home discipline of sociology and he reduced its intended funding. As importantly, he designated a genuine academic as the initial chair.
All this was a concession to my side of the debate. But the other side got something as well. Most notably, they were awarded the department they desired with all of the legitimacy this implies. They also—despite protestations to the contrary—received scarce institutional resources not otherwise available.
The idea was evidently to make everyone happy. My department’s existence was removed from the chopping block, while a large and vociferous professorial constituency had its central demand honored.
That should be the end of the matter, only it isn’t. It might seem the KSU administration only used common sense. After all, if a large number of faculty members believe materials worth teaching, why not let them. Moreover, if these are already being offered, why not draw them together under a single roof? Where’s the harm?
At first blush, the choice is between offering the courses in question—or not offering them. Nevertheless that is a false dichotomy. The real question is not whether to teach these subjects, but how to teach them. The central issue is maintaining academic integrity in the face of an ideological challenge.
The question that must be asked is this: What is the point of gathering such disparate subjects as women’s studies, peace studies, environmental studies, and African and African Diaspora studies, in the same department? What do they have in common that justifies the grouping?
The answer is stupefying obvious. Their most determined partisans are all committed to what they would characterize as a “social justice” agenda—as defined by a left wing perspective. They regard themselves as moral people who have a duty to enlighten students about what is right and wrong.
Given this attitude, the courses they provide will clearly be more moralistic than academic. And yet there is an alternative. If instead of subsuming these topics under a deliberatively value-oriented heading, they are allocated according to their subject matter, the incentives on how to construct them differ. As a result, they would be more neutral and academically valid.
For instance, if environmental studies were assigned to the geographers, in all probability they would teach it from a geographical perspective. Similarly, if African and African Diaspora studies were assigned to the anthropologists, they would emphasize the cultural aspects. In both cases the materials would be taught—albeit on a more academically sound footing.
As things stand, little has been gained by capitulating to the professorial activists. If asked, these academics would affirm their dedication to promoting “critical thinking.” Yet, the details of their ideological agenda confirm the opposite. Their fundamental goal is not learning, but social reform.
In the end, academic integrity and the needs of KSU students have been sacrificed for the sake of institutional peace. But as Winston Churchill said with regard to his colleagues who decided to appease Adolf Hitler, in the final analysis they lost both their integrity and the peace.
The bottom line: Splitting babies does not produce viable offspring. It surely does not promote academic honesty.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment