LEAVE IT to the Virginia General Assembly to make George Orwell turn over in his grave.
This session, Delegate Steven Landes (R. -- Augusta) introduced a bill designed to promote "intellectual diversity and the free exchange of ideas" on college campuses. House Bill 1643 would require universities to report yearly on their efforts to ensure ideological diversity, such as hiring professors from "underrepresented" political persuasions. At first glance, this policy seems benign. Some liken it to affirmative action for professors with unpopular views. In reality, Landes is trying to create some sort of quota system for conservative professors. This bill stifles academic freedom rather than preserve it.
This thinly disguised attack on the liberal "ivory tower" comes from a fringe group of conservatives who would rather forego the real issues facing the Commonwealth and instead focus on radically reforming state colleges and universities. They surely must have forgotten that the Old Dominion is home to some of the best colleges in the country. The University is the number two public university in the nation, and the College of William and Mary is ranked 31st. Before assailing this legislation on principle, the best case against the bill is clearly, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
In 2003 the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, a conservative activist group led by David Horowitz, conducted a political ideology survey of professors in the humanities and social sciences at 32 top universities. The study concluded that at all of the universities surveyed, Democrats outnumbered Republicans. Obviously, it doesn't take much conservative propaganda to convince people that university professors tend to lean to the left.
Is there a correlation between erudition and a more liberal worldview? Perhaps. Regardless, hindsight judges harshly governments that unilaterally decide to impose ideological litmus tests on academics. Landes needs to be reminded that he lives in the commonwealth whose motto is "sic simper tyrannis." Scholars should be awarded full professorships or tenure based on scholarship, not quotas.
The comparison to affirmative action is illogical. Conservatives argue that just as the state ensures minority and women students have adequate and fair representation on college campuses, so should professors with underrepresented political views have a presence at universities. First, the supposed liberal hegemony at universities seems more of a cliché than empirical observation. There are few Marxist theorists in the University's economics department, for example. Most of the professors in that department seem enamored with the market and its invisible hand.
More importantly, affirmative action was instituted to ameliorate centuries of oppression and the inability of minorities such as African-Americans to have access to education and employment opportunities. As opposed to the deaf ear turned to freed men and women wishing to go to college, universities do their best not to discriminate based on political ideology. The American Association of University Professors notes that most universities have guidelines to safeguard against any sort of discrimination, including political. This organization looks into a number of accusations of bias every year. Thus, conservative under-representation at universities is not comparable to institutional oppression and racism. Perhaps fewer conservatives desire to teach at universities. Or maybe fewer aspiring professors with conservative leanings possess the intellectual rigor to teach at top universities. Regardless, the comparison is weak and, in fact, disrespectful.
There are quite a few logistical problems with this bill as well. What criteria will Landes use to categorize professors as liberal or conservative? Is he suggesting ideological parity or a quota system for conservatives? Liberal compared to whom?
This bill's clause to encourage a "balanced variety of campus-wide panels and speakers" is one of the few sections of the bill that would promote intellectual diversity at colleges and universities fairly. Universities always should recruit a wide variety of speakers to give students access to the breadth of scholarship in academia. Only these speakers don't have to be on the payroll.
Landes's bill is needless at best and vaguely fascist at worst. Universities ought to be bastions of scholarship and free thought. When the state starts regulating the minds of those commissioned to teach, the minds of students will pay the price.
Marta Cook is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. She can be reached at mcook@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | 5 hours agoTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 5 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
