Lee Bollinger, Unbalanced

Lee Bollinger, architect and advocate of “diversity”-based racial preferences when he was president of the University of Michigan and now president of Columbia University, rejects ideological diversity as an academic goal.

We should not accept the argument that we as teachers can do what we want because students are of sufficient good sense to know bias and indoctrination when they see it. That ignores the enormous differential in power between the professor and the student in a classroom setting.

We should not accept the idea that the remedy for lapses is to add more professors with different political points of view, as some would have us do. The notion of a “balanced curriculum,” in which students can, in effect, select and compensate for bias, sacrifices the essential norm of what we are supposed to be about in a university. It also risks polarization, with “liberal” students taking courses from “liberal” professors and “conservatives” taking classes from “conservative” professors.

Bollinger, like Stanley Fish, does not explain why striving for ideological balance promotes “polarization” but striving for racial balance does not.

Say What? (11)

  1. actus April 4, 2005 at 11:50 am | | Reply

    Its also unclear what political balance means. Does a holocaust class have to be balanced by a holocaust denier? Is there a red to every blue?

  2. Hube April 4, 2005 at 1:14 pm | | Reply

    Yeesh. Nice attempt to “tie in” Holocaust denial with conservative ideology on campus, actus!

    A lame analogy, to be sure. The factual basis for Holocaust denial is so minimal as to be non-existent. Teaching such would be considered malpractice.

    Contrast that, OTOH, with profs lecturing on the benefits of marxism and the ills of capitalism just (vs. the vice versa) to name one instance. Which sounds more like academic “malpractice” here?

  3. actus April 4, 2005 at 2:20 pm | | Reply

    “Yeesh. Nice attempt to “tie in” Holocaust denial with conservative ideology on campus, actus!”

    Actually, my point requires that conservatism be different than holocaust denial. If conservatism was equated with holocaust denial, the answer would clearly be yes, holocaust classes are to be balanced by holocaust deniers.

  4. DrLiz April 4, 2005 at 5:53 pm | | Reply

    Actually, he makes more sense than many I’ve heard talk about bias in the academy. (Such as those who say, in effect, “Of course there are more liberals than conservatives, because the liberals are naturally smarter.”)

    I agree that “simply” hiring more conservatively biased (vs. liberally biased) professors won’t solve the key problem. Professors need to improve their skills in facilitating questioning and critical thought. The best professors (wish I were one) use the Socratic method in such a way that you are never quite sure what side they are on — because they will act as the “devil’s advocate” to all viewpoints.

    And yes, there are still “fringe” ideas that do not need to be given equal time in the classroom. However, I’d argue that it’s good for college students to learn that there are people who believe things like that the Holocaust never happened.

    After all, free speech is the best disinfectant to bad ideas (or something like that), as they keep saying over at http://www.thefire.org!

    Of course, any attempt to regulate the politics in classroom from outside the university is troublesome. Although it is easy to recognize the “horrible” examples of bad behavior that show up in the news, who makes the ulimate judgment “at the margin”? What happens when a student advances a weak argument for a point of view that is not consistent with the professor’s point of view?

  5. DrLiz April 4, 2005 at 8:08 pm | | Reply

    Here’s the correct quote: “Sunlight is the best disinfectant

  6. Cicero April 4, 2005 at 10:24 pm | | Reply

    To explore the genesis of the type of affirmative action preferred by Mr. Bollinger, read the infamous Xerox Memo at

    http://ithroughe.blogspot.com/

    Recruit the unqualified in the name of “diversity.”

  7. Chetly Zarko April 5, 2005 at 6:27 am | | Reply

    John,

    I understand you are pointing out the contradiction between Bollinger’s views on intellectual and racial diversity, and that he has a quirky idea of academic freedom – – but my interpretation is that he has moved a bit to the middle on the question of student academic freedom (“We should not accept the argument that we as teachers can do what we want because students are of sufficient good sense to know bias and indoctrination when they see it. That ignores the enormous differential in power between the professor and the student in a classroom setting.”), which I find to be a remarkable deviation from the far left that professors have absolute power over grades, class content, etc. (only those on the left though).

    Of course, Bollinger may just be speaking out of both sides of his mouth to placate political constituencies, something he has done before (although I’ve considered him relatively honest in the past.

  8. mj April 5, 2005 at 2:22 pm | | Reply

    “It also risks polarization, with “liberal” students taking courses from “liberal” professors and “conservatives” taking classes from “conservative” professors.”

    This is an implicit acknowledgement that the professors move the students politically. So, we must save indoctrination to prevent polarization. Interesting values for an Academian.

  9. Tim Gannon April 5, 2005 at 3:41 pm | | Reply

    If we just had teachers, there would be no discussion. We should not be talking about a political balance, we should be talking about an intellectual balance. I think I read somewhere where University of Michigan had no history professors who specialized in European History !!

    How can you get a complete view of history without including Europe?

    On the other hand, to find a decent book on the history of Vietnam, before the French took over?

  10. actus April 5, 2005 at 5:23 pm | | Reply

    “This is an implicit acknowledgement that the professors move the students politically”

    Or that students take classes on things they agree with. Might explain why there aren’t many creationist biologists.

  11. Richard Nieporent April 5, 2005 at 11:00 pm | | Reply

    I find it quite interesting that once again the Left is protecting us from an imaginary problem. The Scopes trial took place 80 years ago. I think we can safely say that the theory of evolution will not be outlawed. However, if one were truly concerned about attacks on science they would be concerned about the outlawing of GMO crops. That is real and it is taking place today. Crops that will help feed the hungry have been banned because they are in the words of the Left

Say What?