Every now and then I discuss
the state of the ideological skew at colleges and universities with one of the
administrators at Kennesaw State University.
He too is aware of how dominant the liberal perspective has become, but
is more sanguine than I about the long-term implications.
He points to the fact that
as people grow older their opinions tend to migrate from the left toward the
right. In the end, he argues, it does
not much matter that a biased view of the world is inculcated at school because
this will eventually be corrected once graduates must deal with reality for themselves.
Recently the conservative
economist Thomas Sowell made some useful suggestions about the sorts of books alumnae
can be provided counteract the propaganda that flooded their minds in
university classes. Indeed, I just
finished reading a biography of Calvin Coolidge that helped dispel myths I
learned in high school.
But my question is: why
should students need to do this unlearning.
Why are we so complacent about the misconceptions they are force-fed in
the name of education? If what they are
being taught is so one-sided that it distorts the truth, what is the point of
exposing them to this in the first place?
Colleges remain good places
to obtain technical skills. If the goal
is to become a mechanical engineer or a registered nurse, there are few better
venues to acquire the relevant skills.
Yet what of learning about life or how to be a social leader? Shouldn’t a higher education be helpful here
too?
For the last several
decades, undergraduates have been voting with their feet regarding these issues. Fewer and fewer decide to be English or
history majors. The liberal arts, which
were once considered the core of what every educated person should know, have
fallen on hard times.
So have social sciences such
as sociology and political science. As
interesting as these subjects can be, they are avoided by first class minds
because what they teach is already known by those familiar with the tenets of
political correctness.
Long ago, upon graduating
from college as a philosophy major, I faced the problem endemic to philosophy
majors, namely what sort of employment could I obtain. Consequently, as an accomplished test-taker I
decided to sit for the City of New York’s welfare caseworker exam.
And indeed I did well. Without ever taking a single course in social
work, I came in third among the hundreds of applicants testing along side
me. The way I did this was by answering
the questions how I thought social workers would want them answered. In other words, I pretended to be a
goody-two-shoes.
A parallel strategy applies
to contemporary colleges. Their bias is
so predictable that an intelligent person can figure out what is expected without
having to crack open a book. What then
is their purpose? Why not skip the
entire exercise and head straight for the job market?
It seems that I am not alone
in this reasoning. College enrollments
have begun to decline. Michael Barone
has gone so far as to write that the college bubble has burst. If he is correct, perhaps the public has
begun to figure out there is little “there, there” on campus.
Liberal faculty members
would thus be wise to note these trends.
For their own professional survival, they might consider moderating
their biases. At the very least, it is
in their interest to hire, and promote, colleagues who present the other side
of the ideological picture.
Nonetheless, I am not
holding my breath. In the hermetically
sealed environment of the contemporary college campus, the atmosphere has
become so stagnant that most of the oxygen has already been sucked out. Thus, my guess is that there will be few
meaningful reforms until people begin to expire of intellectual asphycsiation.
Still we must try. There is too much as stake.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment