Documentary Clumsily Uncovers the Truth
by
Suzanne Hadley
on Oct 17, 2007 at 4:15 PM
After this weekend, I know what it feels like to hold the minority opinion. I participated in an acting workshop where it was clear marriage, faithfulness and sexual propriety -- let alone virginity -- were not virtues. Discussing and/or including immorality was presented as the norm -- and even required -- for the acting community. I found myself wondering how all these opinions, many of which I do not hold, became "the norm."
In this New York Times Blog opinion piece, Stanley Fish considers the offering of documentary filmmaker Evan Coyne Maloney: Indoctrinate U.
"Indoctrinate U"'s thesis is contained in its title. You may think that universities are places where ideas are explored and evaluated in a spirit of objective inquiry. But in fact, Maloney tells us, they are places of indoctrination where a left-leaning faculty teaches every subject, including chemistry and horticulture, through the prism of race, class and gender; where minorities and women are taught that they are victims of oppression; where admissions policies are racially gerrymandered; where identity-based programs reproduce the patterns of segregation that the left supposedly abhors; where students and faculty who speak against the prevailing orthodoxy are ostracized, disciplined and subjected to sensitivity training; where conservative speakers like Ward Connerly are shouted down; where radical speakers like Ward Churchill are welcomed; where speech codes mandate speech that offends no one; where the faculty preaches diversity but is itself starkly homogeneous with respect to political affiliation; where professors regularly use the classroom as a platform for their political views; where students parrot back the views they know their instructors to hold; where course reading lists are heavy on radical texts and light on texts celebrating the Western tradition; where the American flag is held in suspicion; where military recruiting personnel are either treated rudely or barred from campus; where the default assumption is that anything the United States and Israel do is evil.
You can take a breath now. Fish goes on to point out some of red herrings and fake issues that Maloney creates -- for example, biased reading lists (such lists have always been based on instructor preference, not balance of opinions) -- and yet he admits that Maloney's point about professors using the classroom to tout their own political views is valid.
I haven't seen the documentary, but by this account it seems like Maloney may use some cheap tricks to make a true case. Most recognize that universities increasingly have a liberal slant. And in some cases, this influence is oppressive to those who don't share these views. (Remember this discussion about second-year ob-gyn residents at Yale being required to complete eight weeks of rotations at Planned Parenthood clinics?).
It seems though "Indoctrinate U" may be a case of sloppy journalism, its point is certainly not moot. Any environment that fosters one voice while silencing others is oppressive to those with a minority opinion. This should not be the case in a public learning institution.
HT: The Point
1. Jethro had the following to say on Oct 17 at 5:05 PM:
And Christian colleges do all of these things but leaning to the right, not left. I'm sure the exact same argument could be made with regard to Regent University (to use an example).
2. Jess had the following to say on Oct 17 at 5:08 PM:
I'm from Australia and in my first year at uni, and I would say that even that is true here.
Often I feel like my views are considered backward, stupid and completely unacceptable because I am a Christian.
Lecturers frequently make ridicule God, the Bible and (their favourite) Hillsong church. Lectures are littered with derogatory comments aimed at Christians, but not big enough to object to.
Christians are always portrayed as narrow-minded, conservative, arrogant and pushy.
When I actually talk to students, I'm astounded to discover that many of them don't even know the basic elements of the Christian faith. They don't even know the name of Jesus. Yet they are content to ridicule Christians by laughing along with the lecturers.
It is also a heavily political environment. The Prime Minister's name is only ever mentioned with hatred and annoyance.
So yes, universities are breeding grounds for graduates who know little about reality, but have a hatred for a lot.
Jess xx
3. Leah had the following to say on Oct 17 at 6:53 PM:
I'm wondering how anyone ever got through uni and *didn't* realise that's what university did!!
4. Chris had the following to say on Oct 17 at 9:36 PM:
I think I mya have read a different column. Mr. Fish hardly writes a glowing review. He agrees on a few points, but he seems to question quite a bit of the documentary's claims (or at least thinks them not as bad as the director would have us believe).
He does agree with the point about political views in the classroom, but considers the problem much less prevalent. This is like you and me agreeing murder is wrong, but you claiming the murder rate is 10 times what I think it is and you being proportionately outraged more than me.
5. Jethro had the following to say on Oct 18 at 5:10 AM:
Jess,
Maybe people have a reason to be annoyed at and hate the Prime Minister. From what I hear his industrial relations policy is positively draconian.
6. Jacob MT had the following to say on Oct 18 at 8:10 AM:
Jethro: At least Christian colleges admit to being biased. If someone did not want a Christian education, they do not have to go to a Christian college. The problem is that secular colleges claim to be neutral, but are actually biased.
7. Robert J Espe had the following to say on Oct 18 at 8:39 AM:
Patrick Henry College, sure they are Christian, but they are very heavy on debate and hammering out viewpoints through argument.
8. Suzanne had the following to say on Oct 18 at 9:07 AM:
Jethro,
Yes, I'm referring specifically to public schools, although my sister attended a Christian University and was still subjected to many of these left viewpoints.
Chris,
I never said Fish gave this a glowing review. He simply concedes that though Maloney overstates many issues, he has a point. He concludes:
"In 1915, the American Association of University Professors warned that if we didn’t clean up our own shop, external constituencies, with motives more political than educational, would step in and do it for us. Now they’re doing it in the movies and it’s our own fault."
9. Dawn had the following to say on Oct 18 at 9:09 AM:
I haven't seen "Indoctrinate U" but I have seen its precursor, "Brainwashing 101."
We would be smart to remember that a liberal newspaper is not going to be sympathetic to most of the issues that Maloney brings up.
The early version of the film, while only about 30 minutes long, was disturbing. I do not identify with extreme conservatives or liberals personally, but no student (or person!) should have to endure the atrocities captured in this film.
You can go to Maloney's website www.indoctrinateu.com to sign up for a screening of the film in your area.
10. Michele had the following to say on Oct 18 at 12:02 PM:
Having directly experienced some of the same issues covered in Maloney's film, I take some umbrage at the idea that he used "cheap tricks" to get his point across.
Reading lists are increasingly biased - to include "minority" or women writers to offset traditionally "white male" lists. One English professor I had, for British Literature before 1650, was quite incensed because she was required, by the university, to cut back on the Shakespeare, Spenser, Milton, Wyatt, etc. in favor of little-known (and in many cases, rightly so) women authors. It became a class about feminism instead of just about literature.
I could go on, but my lunch is getting cold.
Book suggestions: Illiberal Education by Dinesh D'Souza, Indoctrination U by David Horowitz, God and Man at Yale by William F. Buckley, Jr.
11. Michele had the following to say on Oct 18 at 12:05 PM:
Also, Walter Williams (an economist) reviews Maloney's film here:
http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/academic-cesspools.html
12. Jethro had the following to say on Oct 18 at 4:50 PM:
"Subjected to many of these left viewpoints"
Just throwing this out there, but simply because something is left doesn't mean it's wrong or bad. One is no more 'subjected' to left viewpoints than 'subjected' to right view points. People are meant to take the information they're given and make their own decisions.
13. Leah had the following to say on Oct 18 at 8:05 PM:
Jethro: re "Maybe people have a reason to be annoyed at and hate the Prime Minister. From what I hear his industrial relations policy is positively draconian."
Do not start. Do some decent research on Howard's policies, then start criticising him. Seriously. At least having him run the country is better than a bunch of trade union officials.
Re: the OP
I love my class at uni. (ie, the third year journalism students). A lot of them are by no means right-wing, but it's not like they major lefties either. They mightn't like what the prime minister does on same decisions, but they certain don't make the mistake of running in the opposite direction like lefties do. One of my non-journalism classes, however, is quite different. It is a compulsory subject for the journalism students, but there's a whole bunch of non-journo students in it too, and the lecturer is further left than my left pinky. It's not like she criticises the right and says what would be better, she simply assumes everything the Left stands for is a given, and what on earth could have brainwashed the poor souls who believe otherwise? It ticks me off something chronic. Bet you anything I get a low mark for class participation, but I have to keep my mouth closed. Otherwise I'd get a much worse mark.
14. jpe had the following to say on Oct 18 at 9:04 PM:
Fish, like most Christianists these days, is a post-structuralist, and doesn't believe in the notion of objective truth. For both right Christians and the academic left, the concept of neutrality is a farce, a political tactic.
At any rate, I made it through a prestigious university without noting a discernible political influence; unlike so many people that write about this (it's a self-selecting pool, you see), I wasn't a whiny nancy-boy that cried everytime someone made an off color joke.
15. Alessa had the following to say on Oct 18 at 9:39 PM:
I've attended 2 universities and have been subjected a TON of criticism for having a Christian perspective on a lot of classroom topics.
Whether something is "left" or "right" doesnt matter, but the fact that professors continue to make Christians (convervative or not) out to be dull, stubborn and uneducated is absolutely uncalled for.
I've had more than one professor directly insult and make jokes about God and the Bible, as well as abuse their authorative teaching power to sprinkle in some 'facts' about how there scientifically and historically can be no God.
Its manipulative and insulting and i'm glad to hear that more people outside of the campus are beginning to pick up on this abuse of power, as well.
16. John had the following to say on Oct 18 at 10:53 PM:
Yeah, sometimes facts have a distinct liberal bias.
17. Fred had the following to say on Oct 18 at 10:59 PM:
Jethro, the IR laws are not draconian (in the actual sense of the word) and Jess is right, there is no reason for the strength of the hatred for the PM.
18. Liz had the following to say on Oct 19 at 9:39 AM:
The real issue is the suppression of freedom of speech on campuses through overly broad speech codes that can be and often are selectively enforced. While it does seem to me that the more flagrant violations are those enforced by the left-leaning academic majority against perceived violations of "political correctness", FIRE (thefire.org, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which is non-partisan) has plenty of examples of violations against both ends of the political spectrum.
19. Alessa had the following to say on Oct 20 at 9:49 AM:
John-
I use the term 'facts' very loosely/sarcastically...implying that what most of the ego-tripping liberal teachers deemed as facts tyically turned out to be grossly exaggerated, having a completely unreliable source or made up entirely.
As I said before, its manipulitave.
20. Karen had the following to say on Oct 21 at 2:39 PM:
I'm no Howard hater and I think a lot of the policies he's released are sensible. But from a regulatory economist's perspective, the industrial relations legislation can be reasonably described as draconian because it legislates and mandates a whole lot of things that really don't need to be mandated - especially if your purported objective is to deregulate the labour market.
And of course if you regulate things that don't require regulating and are best left to be sorted out between employer and employee, you can end up with ridiculous consequences. Case in point - an employer is now required by law to dock workers half a day's pay if they stop work, regardless of how long they stop work for. Last year some construction workers stopped work for 20 minutes to pass around a hat for the widow of one of their co-workers who'd been killed in an industrial accident a few days earlier. Their employer faced large fines if they did not dock these workers four hours pay.
21. Fred had the following to say on Oct 22 at 2:50 AM:
Karen,
Draco is supposed to have said that he would have some variety in penalties if he could find a punishment worse than death. Draconian laws are supposed to be extremely severe or cruel and so you can't really consider Howard's laws draconian.