But I think that homogenous student culture is a much bigger issue, and possibly a more appropriate area for a change. For instance, in 2004 I watched one of the Bush/Kerry debates in a Swarthmore dormitory with about fifty students who cheered every time the President said “um,” and I watched another one in a dorm at the University of Maryland, where the students in attendance included both Bush and Kerry supporters and also students who seemed genuinely interested in the debate as a forum for political ideas rather than a sort of circus (whether or not it was is debatable, of course). After the debate a political science professor led us in a discussion. You can imagine which debate screening was more useful for me to attend. I don’t mean to fault Swarthmore, and I certainly was often off campus and might have missed great thought provoking events, etc, but I do think that open, serious controversy (about substantive events, mind you – not just student council elections) is something that Swarthmore needs more of.

I suspect that you agree with me here – I remember a series (maybe there were two?) of panels run by Why War? in the fall of 2002 where you argued from a pro-war position so that it would be represented. But I do have the feeling that not only were almost all of my classmates at Swarthmore liberals, they were fairly inarticulate liberals as well. Which is a shame, and a real waste.

In some ways, the damage to students from a faculty that are non-thoughtfully political (e.g., who assume rather than argue a politics) is often to students who agree with their assumptions rather than students who disagree. It’s why a certain kind of liberal student who takes many courses in the humanities at many universities is in for a fairly bruising encounter with the larger social and political realities around them when they graduate, while a conservative student may have had their powers of political reasoning sharpened by having to push against views they disagree with. This is another really odd thing about some of the drift of the complaints about “politicization”: in some cases, they read to me just like the complaints of various identity groups for teaching that gives them an institutional “safety net”, that builds up their identities, that protects them from the world. In some cases, this feels to me like conservatives are asking for the same thing: teaching that affirms and soothes them.

Which isn’t an accusation of systemic bias or a left-wing conspiracy or anything, just a matter of simple human nature. People hold the opinions they do because those opinions seem to them to make more sense than other opinions. An argument that fits what they believe resonates more than an argument that goes against everything they believe. It’s easier to see the connections between facts that uphold your worldview than ones that don’t.

Good academics and good thinkers in general cultivate the ability to think with enough detachment that they’re not chained by this, but even then, it’s easier to tell the difference between a very good argument against your beliefs and a rather weak one for your beliefs than a quite good argument against your beliefs and a sort of good one for your beliefs. Some profs are more openly and stridently in favor of absolute fair play and being especially self-monitoring in cases where students are arguing from a completely different place than theirs — Tim is one of the best profs I’ve had in terms of commitment to that perspective — but I’ve had other profs, whom I’ve learned just as much from, who have been quite open about the fact that if you hold certain ideas you’re going to have to work damn hard to defend them in class compared to holding ideas the prof already agrees with.

A lot of discussions I’ve had in my years at Swarthmore have had to do with the fact that, after all, absolute objectivity is a myth and that good teaching with a political agenda is better than bad teaching without — just as good journalism with a political agenda is better than bad journalism without, or good literature with a political agenda is better than bad literature without. I personally suffer from an allergy to overt political agendas in the classroom — my own reactive nature betraying me more than anything else — but I do think campus conservatives are out of line when they claim such atmospheres make it impossible for themto learn.

My observation as an undergrad was that #4 was common, as was #4; #2 was common in certain disciplines, which tended to be the most politicized. The problem was that points of view generally considered conservative (the British Empire was generally better than its successors, the American South was justified in secession, literature should be studied for its beauty, religion is preferable to non-religion) were not represented among the #2 and #3 classes, and were thinly represented elsewhere. #1 and #7 are definite problems, but are rare; I think the problem with academia is too many #3’s who all agree.

Or, to put it differently: it is possible to get a good understanding of economics reading only John Kenneth Galbraith and Milton Friedman; it is much harder to get a good understanding reading only Adam Smith, Samuelson, James Buchanan, and Friedman.

One thing that is sometimes missing from these discussions is that students (especially earlier in their studies) don’t always know what (we) believe, even when (we) think we do. I am speaking for myself when I was an undergraduate. Students come from all kinds of households, where they have been exposed to various levels of engagement with “the political” (an amorphous concept that need fleshing out). The classroom is surely a space for exploration. Professors with points of views may better aid a student in his/her exploration than a blank slate.

I support your suggestion. I’m open to the idea that more monitoring is necessary, but I support this practically. Consensus!

“Do I take it correctly that you accept 1) that academia, in principle, does and should incorporate mutual monitoring as an aspect of its professional ethics; 2) that academia could, in principle, extend this monitoring to include aspects of classroom pedagogy including encouragement of free inquiry by their students (no agit-prop) and intellectual openness (no partisan narrowness)? If you are willing to accept these two principles, then I would encourage you, as said before, *to develop yourself* an institutional system of monitoring that takes into account your worries about mutual respect and proportionality …. Let us grant there is no current standard of pedagogical malpractice; let us grant it will be difficult to develop one; do you believe it is impossible? Do you believe the profession shouldn’t even try?”

Not to beat a dead horse, but you are still writing on the same subject, and I do think your answers to these questions are relevant.