I'm a pretty liberal guy who goes to a very liberal college. I have to admit that sometimes it bothers me when my professors are so openly left-leaning (or toppling over, in most cases). Yesterday, my History of Sport professor - very nice guy - told us that it's his "job to be liberal" since the purpose of college is to "offer a different perspective than you would get in the real world" and "the real world is largely conservative." This was interesting to me, and makes sense on a certain level, but somehow I doubt conservatives would accept it as a legitimate reason for academians to be openly liberal. But maybe I'm wrong. Thoughts?
A) How old is he? B) If this college is in America, then his original assertion-not his conclusion based thereupon-is absolutely correct. Even by American standards, the US is becoming increasingly dominated by conservative ideals, and the US standard itself is far to the right of the rest of the globe. C) His rational depends partly upon his definition of 'liberal' and 'conservative' If, rather than the political definitions of same, he means the socilogica/philosophical meanings of liberal and conservative, he may have a point. By those definitions he could simply be saying that it is not his job to teach you what you already know, or will soon know simply by exposure. If he meant it from a political perspective, I'd say it's pretty biased.
conservative con·ser·va·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-sûrv-tv) adj. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. Since most colleges state that their goal is to open up people minds. Being conservative would be counter productive.
I would put him somewhere in his late 40s or so. It is in America. I believe he meant "liberal" in terms of the ideas he wants to present to us - he used the word "radical" more than once and talked about cognitive dissonance and stuff. He said he wanted to make us uncomfortable with ideas we've had for a long time and such. His two examples of this kind of thing during the class were talking about how Babe Ruth might have been a black man (and what that does to one's ideas about American race relations) and about how Helen Keller was gay and a socialist. So perhaps he didn't mean it in its political sense.
No love for RimBob and B-Baud? As long as his leanings (or bias or whatever you want to call it) doesn't affect grades, as long as he can respect a properly reasoned & presented argument, then it shouldn't be a huge deal.
Given that rationale, he could also choose to go the fascist neo-nazi route, which is also currently unpopular. In fact, that would show you something different from general society and the rest of academia. If you're just going for different, I think that's the way he should be going. Sure, it's a little retro, but pretty new to the current generation of college kids. It just seems a bit dishonest to me. Why not try to teach what's true instead of teaching what's progressive? (Speaking of, there is a great essay written by CS Lewis, who was himself a professor in the post-war era, about the phenomenon of espousing something simply because it was 'progressive.') I'm a bit cynical now. It seems like a popular attitude which is underpinned by an assumption that we as a species are somehow growing into a more and more sophisticated and enlightened state, which is (as it happens) increasingly liberal. If you believed that to be the case, than I could see a good argument for leaning that way (especially if you're supposed to be a vanguard, like academia likes to think of itself as). But, I don't really buy that, so I don't have much patience for the conclusions derived from that.
I just assumed that people who were interested in the world of academia were more likely to be liberal.
Ummm...care to identify absolute truth for me? Beware that, when so doing, you are inherently communicating a bias. Without challenging the accepted 'truths' ( past examples, the world is flat, slavery is righteous and holy, etc,) there is no education, merely regurgutation of the status quo. Education therefore HAS to err on the side of challenging accepted truths to qualify as more than information distribution. You can get that from the internet.
I think you've misunderstood me; or, more likely, I expressed myself poorly. I didn't mean teaching what was True, but teaching what you sincerely felt was true. My complaint is that to say that your job is to be liberal implies that you're more interested in being liberal than being correct. As a result, your study is no longer about finding Truth but just about pushing society to the left. If you genuinely feel that Truth lies in that direction then fine; but to pursue that end regardless of Truth is insincere, dishonest and a disservice. I'll allow, before you mention it, that I am reading a lot into this second-hand, out-of-context account of the man's statement. I'm probably reacting more to people I know myself than the subject of this thread -- which just looks like it falls in the same trap.
I think it is a fairly common assumption that liberals tend to be more intellectual free- thinkers with an understanding of nuance and an acknowledgemnet of the grey areas between the absolutes. Wheras conservatives are generally thought to be cretins.
I agree with JV. To teach liberal value simply because the society is conservative seems to be pretty absurd. I am all for challenging traditional thoughts. I constantly do that to my students. But teaching critical thinking is not the same as teaching liberal beliefs (although liberal people like to think that critical thinking skills are their monopoly). Have you guys read Allan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind"?
He's not teaching values, He's trying to teach you to think. If all you are ever presented is one point of view how can you determine what is reasonable. That's why the test questions in schools of higher learning are "compare and contrast" rather than memorization and recitation.
Just reread the original post. Here's what it says: Notice the words "a different perspective" is singular. Assuming Zac D is quoting his professor correctly, the guy is teaching one point of view, which is the liberal point of view. That is hardly the way to teach how to think critically. I resent the notion that liberals are more open-minded than conservatives. That is a myth perpetrated by liberal academicians. There are narrow-minded and open-minded people on both sides of the fence.
a) I think you are being a tad pedantic in your interpretation of " a different perspective" b) "the guy is teaching one point of view, which is the liberal point of view." THE liberal point of view? Singular?What is THE liberal point of view, pray? C) I agree that it can't be an absolute that applies to everyone...but in general, by definition liberals are more 'open-minded', just as conservatives are, by definition more cautious.
What it sounds like you are saying is that you question whether this professor actually believes what he is teaching. Couldn't he fully believe in liberal ideas and see that as his duty to teach what he believes? OTOH even if he doesn't believe it what is wrong with teaching what you think is counter to popular opinion? There is a long standing tradition of playing Devil's Advoacate in academia and in many subjects (most sciences and humanities) it is absolutely necessary to consider views counter to your own.
Sounds like a bit of a straw-man. Are you saying that presenting a different point of view is automatically liberal? Or that being liberal automatically means your point of view is different for others? In my experience, universities are replete with liberal drones who regurgitate all the same liberal ideals they themselves have already been indoctrinated with in their liberal educations. In my own experience (again), there isn't anything at all new, interesting, thought-provoking or educational to hear yet another professor repeat what my last professor said an hour ago. What has been educational for me in that way, actually, is church. Though I'm not a Christian, I have been attending church (a very conservative one) for years now and maintain a sort of same-but-different status among them. It has actually been quite an education for me to learn a new (Christian) system of thinking about things. It has affected many of the ways I've thought of things -- just not in the way they'd have hoped. I'm sure this is the sort of thing the Sports History Prof would like to effect -- presenting a genuinely new way of seeing things to students who have grown up in some other track. I can appreciate that effort. The problem I see is thinking that liberal is somehow 'new.' Maybe it is different from the assertions of the country outside of the ivory tower, but I don't think it is from lack of familiarity as I had experienced with Christianity. We (or at least I) see it all the time, everywhere.
1. It's possible (and I'd say more than likely) that he does believe in these liberal ideas and he does happen to teach what he believes. I object to the way he says his job is to be liberal, putting the primary focus on this external evaluation instead of on his own convictions. They may be one and the same in general, but what happens where they diverge? Does he stick with what he thinks is true, or does he remain loyal to the party line? 2. Playing devil's advocate is fine (God knows I do enough of that myself). Is he doing that though? When he's confronted with a good liberal young man, does he make a conservative argument to bait him or is he satisfied with how liberal the boy has gotten?
