The Fein Rule

Universities are liberal places. My college, Kennesaw State University, is no exception. Its classrooms and politics are as dominated by left-wing sensibilities as almost any other institution of higher education in the United States. Just how far this tendency has gone was illustrated by what happened to me when I served as a member of our Faculty Senate.
Let me begin at the beginning. I had myself appointed to the senate after several of its senior members persuaded me that I had something special to offer. They were liberals, and perfectly aware I was not, but they knew me and believed that my perspective might be beneficial—as a minority voice.
At first all went well. But after many months, a quintessential liberal issue rose to prominence. Several gay professors came before the senate to ask its support for a policy they preferred. They wanted university endorsement of gay marriage, and the benefits this implied.
When I argued that this was not something with which an academic body representing the entire faculty should be involved, I got a polite hearing. Note, however, that at no time did I contend that gay marriage was wrong or that gays did not deserve health benefits. I merely suggested that if faculty members favored these policies, they should do so as individuals.
At first, this tack made no visible waves. Nevertheless, when I repeated its essence after the advocates of gay marriage intensified their campaign, the annoyance of many of my fellow senators became palpable. Their disapproval was written on their faces and the way they peremptorily dismissed my arguments. They were especially exasperated when I was at my most articulate.
And then the shoe dropped. Out of nowhere a new policy was proposed for the senate. This was a rule that had never before been operative and one that I subsequently learned was directed expressly at me. But let me digress. I am not merely articulate. I am very assertive. When I have something to say, I am never shy about seeking the floor. Nor am I easily intimidated. When I am told I am wrong, I do not timidly fold my tent, but seek to demonstrate why I might be right. While I realize I am sometimes mistaken, and can be persuaded of this, I do not back down simply because others disagree.
To return to the matter at hand, this new speaking policy was simple. From now on no senator would be allowed to talk for more than two minutes and for no more than twice on any given subject. Statements would be timed and monitored, and violators no longer recognized irrespective of what was at stake.
For my own part, I did not mind the two-minute limitation on particular assertions. I am fairly succinct. While I can be dramatic, I rarely require much time to make my points. No, it was the limitation of two statements on any subject that struck a nerve.
Consider what this meant. If I offered a minority opinion—and bear in mind that as a non-liberal I was often apt to be in the minority—and then someone rose to differ with me, I could present a rebuttal. But then if another senator presented a second counter-argument, I was obliged to remain silent. The other side, of course, if it had many subscribers, could continue to bombard the forum with its beliefs.
The upshot of this Fein Rule was that genuine dialogues were forbidden. No longer could the senate operate as a deliberative body. It now became the captive of any well-organized majority. Minority rights and unpopular perspectives became a relic of the past. If it happened that the majority was wrong, the odds were that this would not be discovered until the policy failed.
Liberals are fond of describing themselves as democratic. Indeed, they did so when I objected to this procedure. Their rebuttal was that it allowed more people to speak before the body. When I responded that it was up to the chair to recognize speakers; that I could not just rise as the spirit moved me, this argument was cut off. I had my two bites of the apple and was declared out of order.
Liberals believe in democracy—for liberals. We saw this in the U.S. House of Representatives when Nancy Pelosi repeatedly refused to allow Republicans to offer competing legislation. Her attitude was, “We won the election. We’ll do as we want.” Of course, when the Democrats lost control of the House, they suddenly became advocates of bipartisanship.
Democracy, if it is to exist, must be defended. This is true even on college campuses. But do not expect liberals to join in this campaign if they perceive it to be detrimental to even a momentary desire of their own. It is up to the rest of us to be on the alert.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University