Comments on: How Not to Fix Higher Education

By: Daniel McCarthy

Daniel McCarthy — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:30:46 +0000

Ben, my post made the point that there are considerations other than political bias that might skew what books are assigned in classes. Political bias is real enough, but this doesn’t seem like a particularly sensible way to measure it. On the contrary, this seems like an experiment whose results have been determined in advance. We’ll see, though. Peter Wood is an honest scholar and a good man, and he’s not a neoconservative, so perhaps NAS will do better than I expect. But if we want to take scholarship seriously and not just be political hacks, we need to take account of more than just the nefarious biases of the Left — they’re real but they’re not the whole story.

By: ben wetmore

ben wetmore — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 04:43:04 +0000

And Kent, the 15 undergraduates you reach are likely not reflective of the 15 million others out there.

Giving NAS, neocons or not, the ability to compile book lists and compare the findings is valuable information. TAC has become the refuge of fuddy-duddy conservatism that snubs its nose, now, at anything conservative. Let’s remember who our opponents are, and it’s not those who are seeking to push more conservative thoughts. Soros couldn’t buy better dissent than what you five have already voiced.

Let’s take the easiest example, as MIT has recently, bravely, decided to post their curriculum online:

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/courses/courses/index.htm#History

The link is to the history offerings. Obviously, MIT is not known for history, but it’s the easiest example. Look at their courses, look at the unique offerings. Are they giving students a well-rounded picture? Even within the specific courses, are they assigning texts that match the coursework?

Leftist professors have operated in an information vacuum for decades, they have indoctrinated without opposition.

You may find that your college or field of interest has no deficiencies, and is taught perfectly. More likely, though, I think one will be shocked at the results.

We shouldn’t pooh-pooh NAS before they make their lists, before they compare the booklists, and we should keep perspective of who the real political opposition is, and isn’t.

By: Kent

Kent — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:46:35 +0000

As someone who teaches political theory at a small liberal arts college in the northeast, I am naturally interested in this discussion. Frankly, I rarely recognize my field or colleagues in most conservative accounts of higher ed. Take my own courses. My department head asked me to teach an intro section of International Relations this semester. The main reading assignment will be Joseph Nye’s IR textbook. Does that make me a Harvard liberal? It’s a student-friendly text that covers the basics – but, yes, I could have assigned a more conservative text. For shame! I’m also teaching a course on Conservative Political Thought. The assigned authors include Burke, Oakeshott, Hayek, Friedman, and a bit of Smith and Hume. Shouldn’t a self-described conservative be teaching this course?! NAS staffers could easily find something to complain about in almost any program.

By: Daniel McCarthy

Daniel McCarthy — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:34:56 +0000

No disrespect intended! I have a somewhat Patriarcha inspired piece in the new issue of the print mag, in fact.

By: Filmer

Filmer — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:17:36 +0000

“Are philosophy departments also exhibiting liberal bias by assigning John Locke but not Robert Filmer?”

RESPECT FILMER! My ghost is still writing at Conservative Times ya’ know.

I agree with Thomas that NAS tends to be neoconish. Much more so than ISI which plays a delicate balancing act.

By: Thomas O. Meehan

Thomas O. Meehan — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:04:08 +0000

The NAS has been existed since the late 80′s and has accomplish remarkably little. They are neoconservative and timid at the same time. In my experience, they exist so that they may continue to exist and that is all. A weak reed indeed.

By: ben w.

ben w. — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:48:18 +0000

You discuss the project on its merits, but I think it’s a bit much to say that this is just identity politics reversed for conservatives. Taking a survey of assigned ‘liberal’ texts is not mandating an equal conservative voice, at least not how I read the request by NAS.

The central problem is that students are intellectually corralled into a singular way of looking at critical events in history. Major debates and discussions are ignored, so much so that in the students I run into, even many otherwise well versed in the particulars of history, have no idea that there were counter-Enlightenment thinkers, that there were anti-Federalists.

Which isn’t to take away from your expert analysis of the value of many of these authors, but it is to say that the wrong that NAS is trying to correct is a very real one, and the documenting of assigned books is a good first step to addressing major problems in the academy. Most conservatives aren’t focused on the battles in the classroom, opting instead for trite displays of dime-store patriotism, ‘mass market author’ speakers on sunday, and ‘panels’ that discuss slightly controversial ideas while still genuflecting to the altars of ‘tolerance’ ‘diversity’ and all that other junk.

So, turn off the TAC conservative movement critical theory for a moment and appreciate that the small step that this is, can ultimately promote a real good: encouraging center-right ideas, principles, philosophy and history where they are so often purged.