To the Editor:
I am astonished at the administrative, political, and intellectual naïveté that David Horowitz displays (“In Defense of Intellectual Diversity,” The Review, February 13). ...
If they adopted his proposal, universities would have to thoroughly investigate every complaint by a student that a professor’s “political bias” caused her or him to disagree with the student’s point of view, insert that bias into classroom discussion, or give the student a low grade. The professor would then have to prove an absence of bias. This promises to be an administrative nightmare. ...
Horowitz claims that most of the “contemporary academy” holds that “knowledge is uncertain and, at times, relative,” but the “hard sciences ... do not share such relativistic assumptions.” While many scientists fear being labeled “relativistic,” all scientists must be ready to change their minds on the basis of new evidence, which is the core of relativism. Those who insist that some knowledge is certain rely on faith and reject all new evidence that contradicts their faith. ...
Frederick Thayer Professor Emeritus of Public and International Affairs University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh
***
To the Editor:
I read with dismay David Horowitz’s proposed Academic Bill of Rights. Then I decided to read some of his affiliated Web sites. FrontPage Magazine (http://www.frontpagemag.com) as well as Students for Academic Freedom (http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org) seem to be oddly fixated on professors’ party affiliations. In an article on Duke University in FrontPage, the author assumes that because more professors are registered Dem-ocrats than registered Republicans, there must be bias in the classroom and the Duke community. On the SAF Web site, there’s a section titled “How to Research Faculty Bias.” The instructions are simple: Just find out which professors are registered with which political party. ...
Horowitz and his followers are imitating McCarthy, and the Academic Bill of Rights will only reinforce the current notion that professors need to be monitored by Big Brother.
Roger Geertz Gonzalez Assistant Professor of Education Barry University Miami Shores, Fla.
***
To the Editor:
If we move from the terms of debate set by David Horowitz and look instead at the real world, we see that conservatives in the United States currently control the Supreme Court, both houses of Congress, and the presidency. Just how disadvantaged can they possibly be? Do they really need even more power to dominate the institutions of American life?
Academic freedom is far too precious to submit to conservatives’ partisan review, however persecuted they may manage to feel.
Kathleen C. Martin Ph.D. Candidate in History Brandeis University Waltham, Mass.
***
To the Editor:
Thank you for the coverage of the intellectual-diversity issue. It seems incomplete, however, to limit the commentary to two individuals who agree on the proposition that advocacy has no place in the university -- David Horowitz and Stanley Fish (“‘Intellectual Diversity': the Trojan Horse of a Dark Design,” The Review, February 13).
Why not hear from those of us who profoundly disagree with that position -- i.e., those at whom the intellectual-diversity broadside is aimed?
Pace Fish, citizen building is a major part of the work of a university. The notion of a “pursuit of the truth,” which he trumpets, does not explain why every teacher, lawyer, and doctor, and most bureaucrats, should be required to have a college degree, often with courses taken outside their specialty. Part of what we do as faculty members is train citizens, and part of that training needs to be in a critical engagement with political issues.
As a professor, I see my role as not only seeking and imparting truth, but also modeling what it means to be an educated person in our society. This does not require that I hold myself above the political frays in which I am already implicated. Rather, I need to show that I have an opinion, and that it is a well-reasoned one. To help students develop their political acumen does not require that they read every conceivable opinion, but that they are confronted with a well-argued viewpoint and encouraged to engage it critically.
The issue here is not diversity of ideas in the classroom, but respect in the manner of their presentation. The approach should not be to conceal political views or manufacture equal time, but rather to encourage open, thoughtful discussion and rigorous critique.
Ben Chappell Assistant Professor of Sociology Bridgewater College Bridgewater, Va.
***
To the Editor:
Stanley Fish is at it again. Now the man who told us there’s no such thing as free speech is claiming that “intellectual diversity is not a stand-alone academic value.”
According to Fish, the concept of intellectual diversity is “the Trojan horse of a dark design,” a disingenuous effort to hide a political agenda under the guise of academic freedom. As evidence, he cites recent Senate testimony by my organization, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, which called on college and university trustees to encourage broad-based survey courses, the presentation of balanced viewpoints, and faculty hiring that is free of political discrimination.
Fish claims that intellectual diversity is “a bad idea ... a nonstarter ... a disaster.” But he fails to give any concrete examples or describe any negative consequences that result from it. In fact, he ignores the reason intellectual diversity is an academic value to be encouraged -- the student’s right to learn and to hear both sides of controversial issues of the day.
The concept of academic freedom does not mean that -- for faculty members -- anything goes. Indeed, the seminal statement of academic freedom, the American Association of University Professors’ 1915 Declaration of Principles, could not be more clear that intellectual diversity is at the very heart of academic freedom: “The university teacher, in giving instruction upon controversial matters, while he is under no obligation to hide his own opinion under a mountain of equivocal verbiage, should ... remember that his business is not to provide his students with ready-made conclusions, but to train them to think for themselves, and to provide them access to those materials which they need if they are to think intelligently.”
The reality, of course, is that this concept of academic freedom is out of favor with contemporary academics. ... The concept of the disinterested search for the truth has been supplanted by a conception that views every issue in terms of power and politics. That is why, in today’s politicized academy, intellectual diversity is more important than ever.
Anne D. Neal President American Council of Trustees and Alumni Washington
***
To the Editor:
In his attack on intellectual diversity, Stanley Fish uses the phrase “pursuit of truth” repeatedly and even calls it the “central purpose of the university.” ... But the pursuit of truth implies a realist’s understanding of truth and reality that is alien to “postmodern studies and poststructuralist theory,” both of which Fish praises. All the postmodernists and poststructuralists I know or have read claim that truth is constructed; for them, it is definitely not something to be sought after and discovered. The contradiction at the heart of Fish’s argument undercuts it. ...
With reference to his question about hotbeds of radicalism, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language gives as one definition of hotbed: “A glass-covered bed of soil heated with fermenting manure or by electricity, used for the germination of seeds or for protecting tender plants.”
Jeremiah Reedy Professor of Classics Macalester College St. Paul
http://chronicle.com Section: The Chronicle Review Volume 50, Issue 28, Page B4