Editorial Board:
Editor:
George H. Conklin,
 North Carolina
 Central University

Board:
Bob Davis
 North Carolina
 Agricultural and
 Technical State
 University

Richard Dixon,
 UNC-Wilmington

Ken Land,
 Duke University

Miles Simpson,
 North Carolina
 Central University

Ron Wimberley,
 N.C. State University

Robert Wortham,
 North Carolina
 Central University

® 
Volume 4, Number 1
Spring 2006
 

The Conservative Debate and Its Impact On Sociology

by

Thomas W. Brignall III
Tennessee Tech University
and
Thomas L. Van Valey
Western Michigan University

    There is a recent movement in the United States where some conservatives are claiming that certain "biased" professors are violating students' right to classes free from what they are calling "indoctrination (Pope, 2004:1)."  Horowitz’s (2005) "Academic Bill of Rights" is supposedly an attempt to protect students from such liberal propaganda at colleges and universities.  According to Horowitz, "the use of academic incentives and disincentives to advance a particular or sectarian view creates an environment of indoctrination which is unprofessional and contrary to the educational mission."  He continues to say, 

That corrosive trend has caused some academics to focus merely on their own partisan agendas and to abandon their responsibilities as professional educators with obligations to students of all political persuasions. Such professors have lost sight of the vital distinction between education and indoctrination… The politicized culture of the university is the heart of the problem (Horowitz, 2004).

    For example, in one article Horowitz has problems with professor Brett Mock’s assessment that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.  Furthermore, Horowitz claims that Mock’s "…class was a recruitment and training course in leftwing politics and anti-American attitudes  (Horowitz, 2004b: 1)."  Yet, Mock was simply pointing out what Breisach (1983) and others have said about history - those in power create the current history.  The people who are considered terrorists are usually those who oppose the current regime in power.  Thus, the difference is one of historical perspective.  If the terrorists win, the history books will call them freedom fighters.  If they lose, they will continue to be viewed as terrorists.  There are of course, subversive political messages that could be taken from Mock’s position.  However, in order to accurately assess the situation in our increasingly complex world today, an educated person must be aware of and be able to understand (and that does not mean accept) alternative viewpoints. 

    Horowitz is not alone.  Other educational leaders agree that it is not the job of a teacher to inundate students with personal political, religious, and social philosophies (Langbert, 2005; Fish, 2003).  We also agree with this fundamental position.  However, Horowitz also argues that teachers should be careful not to “introduce controversial matter which has no relation to their subject” (2004: 3).  Again, the logic of such a statement is difficult to refute.  It appears to be based on the claim that there is not enough diversity on college campuses with respect to the social, religious, and political perspectives of college-level faculty.  The suggestion is that students are offered unbalanced (i.e., only liberal) views of social and cultural issues.  For example, in a recent forum he stated, “I knew the audience would be composed of left-wing activists whom I have reason to know are intolerant, obnoxious and nasty when gathered in a public setting – and can be violent, as well  (Horowitz, 2005b)."

    While there is little doubt that there are more liberals (and maybe moderates) than conservatives in higher education (Hentoff, 2005), Horowitz claims that this is the root cause of the situation that effectively results in the liberal indoctrination of students.

The absurd under representation of conservative viewpoints on university faculties obviously does not happen by random process. It is the result of a systematic repression (and/or discouragement) of conservative thought and scholarship at so-called "liberal" institutions of higher learning.  The feudal hierarchies of the university made it relatively easy to create the closed system that is evident today.  Now it is virtually impossible for a vocal conservative to be hired for a tenure-track position on a faculty anywhere, or to receive tenure if so hired (Horowitz, 2003).

    We believe that the debate about faculty bias and student academic freedom represents a direct challenge to those of us who teach in the social sciences, particularly Sociology.  Sociologists teach about an incredible array of subjects.  We tackle everything from the mundane of family life and everyday behavior to the perceived extremities of crime and deviance.  We do it because it reflects the complexity of contemporary social life, and that is what we study and hope to understand better.  Teaching about how individuals are part of complex social systems is not propaganda, nor is the need for diversity, of all kinds.  Moreover, teaching students that the success and failure of various groups in society is heavily influenced by their social environment is not intended to be subversive.  Teaching about other cultures, lifestyles, or norms does not mean a professor agrees or disagrees with them, or wishes the students to adopt them.  It simply means that the professor wants the students to understand them, in their social context.

     It is true that topics such as gender equality, stratification, race and ethnic relations, and globalization are inherently liberal - in the sense that understanding them requires one to be exposed to a multiplicity of perspectives.  However, sociologists believe that learning about and understanding a broad range of ideas, values, and social rituals is critical in our increasingly global world. 

    In the recent report of a task force on the undergraduate major in Sociology carried out by the American Sociological Association, several recommendations were made to assess and improve the undergraduate major.  One of these recommendations was that departments should foster the creation of a "sociological perspective" among their students (McKinney, et al, 2005).  Almost a half century ago, Mills (1959) wrote that a sociological imagination requires students to engage in the study of the individual within the wider context of the history and tradition of the society in which the individual lives – in short, the social context.  Students must learn to ask what impacts socialization and social structures have on the formation of the individual and on individual behavior.  The report states boldly, "Sociology contributes to liberal education by unfettering the mind (McKinney, et al, 2005:1)."  The report also recommends that departments should structure their curricula to underscore the centrality of race, class, and gender in society, and to increase students’ exposure to multicultural, cross-cultural, and cross-national content.

    Thus, a sociological perspective argues that an all-too-common misperception of society is that individuals perceive themselves and their current circumstances largely as a result of their own decisions and accomplishments.  Far too often, individuals fail to recognize how intertwined their lives are with those of others in the society. Thus, an unemployed person is frequently viewed as a victim of his or her own private troubles.  While it is clearly a private trouble from one perspective, for sociologists, the situation of that same unemployed person is inextricably connected with wider social forces (e.g., the economy, the community, his/her family background, and more).  Thus, a sociological perspective enables an individual to understand the context of a given situation.  Moreover, individuals who use a sociological perspective can often better understand how easily people can be oblivious to their social positions.

    For many students, perhaps most, the fundamental goal of a higher education is to get a degree (Collins, 1979).  A college degree is thought to be the key to a job or career, and thus a prosperous future.  Having to tackle controversial topics (especially where there are no clear "right" or "wrong" answers), in classroom discussions seems like a waste of time to many students.  "How is talking about sensitive topics going to help me get a job?"  Moreover, for some students, the prospect of having to talk about issues, especially issues about which they feel uncomfortable, is truly daunting, perhaps even threatening.  "Why should we study race (or homosexuality or deviance or…?  Talking about it just makes the situation worse."

    In their now classic work, Goldsmid and Wilson (1980:84) view the sociology instructor as a “benign disrupter."   In their view, the sociologist forces the students to look at their own and/or others’ attitudes and behaviors, with the goal of understanding the social forces that have shaped them in the past and continue to shape them.  While they would undoubtedly agree that courses should be about information that students can learn and perhaps use, Goldsmid and Wilson also declare that courses should consist of problems, some without clear or even known answers.  Therefore, one might describe a topic in a course as a search for possible solutions, however tentative, over a portion of a semester.  This kind of approach requires students to learn how to think for themselves, investigate multiple perspectives, apply complex concepts to problems, rationalize, critique, and defend philosophical positions.  We believe that these skills are at the core of a liberal education.

    We would go a step beyond Goldsmid and Wilson, however, to add that one of the Sociology instructor’s goals is to help students challenge all belief systems and world views, including their own.  The sociological perspective does not take anything for granted.  Thus, we contend that one of the goals of a liberal education in Sociology is to be the grit in the oyster that creates the pearl.  It is to provide students with challenges to their own and others' systems of beliefs, and makes them think and respond in ways they had not previously considered.  We believe that the classroom experience should have students encounter new and different perspectives. 

    For Goldsmid and Wilson, -  "a prime trait of good teachers is their ability to help students confront ideas and data that differ from those of their familiar and necessarily restricted world...  It is only when the smooth, ongoing tenor of our lives is interrupted that thought and emotion emerge.  Along with thought and emotion, values emerge (1980: 84-85)." 

    In short, sociologists need to challenge their students and perhaps make them uncomfortable, at least temporarily.  Shocking students simply to upset them is not the point.  Having them tackle tough issues to help them understand how the issues are part of their social world is critical.  However, in taking such a position, the instructor needs to clearly explain that many issues and questions simply do not have a "right" or "wrong" answer (or, sometimes, any answer), and that the perspectives presented are not necessarily his/her own positions on a given topic.

    Having students deal with topics foreign to them is one clear path to critical thinking.  When students actively investigate, read diverse positions, and then are asked to participate in discussion, they appear to learn more (Rohall, Moran, Brown, Caffrey, 2004; Hamer, 2000; Garrison, 1997).  Indeed, this suggests first that class discussions should be driven by data or the work of others, not just any individual’s own personal experience, opinions, or beliefs.  Being able to provide evidence that supports any position (even one that you personally do not believe) is central to critical thinking.  Indeed, it is the core of debate.  Instead of answers, students must be asked to locate or develop ideas, possibilities, alternatives, or compromises to a particular issue or problem.  Using their sociological imaginations and the information available on the particular topic at hand, therefore, students can learn to think critically about why a situation exists, how it came into being, and perhaps even begin to understand how it might be addressed.

    To this end, we believe that sociologists should use a problem-posing educational style in their teaching, so students can develop their ability to perceive critically the way they exist in the world in which they find themselves.  Dealing with controversial topics is not propaganda, nor does it brainwash students.  To the contrary, it helps them think about the issues and discover the nature of their complexity.

    In our view, the goal of a liberal education is to edge students towards fostering and embracing principles and behaviors that are intellectually liberating. (Andersen and Collins 2001; Hunter and Nettles 1999; Hooks 1994; Friere 1997).  Purpel and Shaprio (1995) speak of the need for a pedagogical style that will turn away from political correctness or encouraging students (and faculty) to point fingers at others.  Instead, it should embrace the virtues of tolerance, diversity, openness, compassion, and care.  Horowitz (2004) claims that many higher education institutions are liberally biased.  Perhaps he is right, if a liberal education means first and foremost that teachers need to present multiple perspectives in class.

    We believe that for students to truly be liberated, they must have the right, as individuals, to be conservative or liberal, religious or atheist, gay or straight, vegetarian or carnivore, Democrat, Republican or Independent.  Yet, these are what Horowitz refers to as "contestable issues (Horowitz, 2005:1)," and would have faculty avoid.  We argue that all faculty, but especially sociologists, need to actively resist this kind of excessive, restrictive thinking.  Teaching people to be more tolerant and understanding does not belong to any one political, religious, or social agenda.  Political correctness has no place in academia, and neither do racism, sexism, or other forms of witch hunts.  The claims of political bias in education are often an attack on viewpoints that stress inclusiveness, egalitarianism, and social responsibility.

    Horowitz and many other conservative critics correctly assert, we believe, that multiple perspectives are needed in education.  However, they often do not provide multiple perspectives themselves.  Instead, they tend to assume the worst, making outlandish allegations (e.g., teachers are promoting an anti-American agenda).  Furthermore, Horowitz makes a fundamental error of logic by using anecdotal information about individual professors and claiming that they represent higher education at large.  Saying that a few bad apples represent the entire orchard is not only bad science, it is simply foolish.

Andersen, Margaret, L. and Patricia Hill Collins. 2001. Race, Class, and Gender: An Anthology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Breisach, Ernst. 1983. Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern.  Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Collins, Randall. 1979. The Credential Society:  An Historical Sociology of Education and Stratification.  NY:  Academic Press

Fish, Stanley.  January 23, 2003. "A University is not a Political Part." The Chronicle of Higher Education.  Retrieved 1/10/2005.  (http://www.chronicle.com). 

Freire, Paolo. (1997). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Rev. ed.) (M.B. Ramos, Trans.). New York: Continuum.

Garrison, Randy, D. 1997. "Self-Directed Learning: Toward a Comprehensive Model." Adult Education Quarterly 48:18-34.

Goldsmid, Charles A. and Everett K. Wilson. 1980. Passing on Sociology: The Teaching of a Discipline.   Washington D.C.: American Sociological Association Teaching Resources.

Hamer, Lawrence O. 2000. "The Additive Effects of Semi-Structured Classroom Activities on Student Learning: An Examination of Classroom-Based Experimental Learning Techniques." Journal of Marketing Education 22:25-34

Hooks, Bell. 1994. Teaching To Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.

Horowitz, David. 2005. "Academic Bill of Rights." Students for Academic Freedom . Retrieved 1/2/2005. (http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org). 

Horowitz, David. 2005b. “Indoctrination in High School” Front PageMagazine. Retrieved, 1/21/2006David Horowitz

Horowitz, David. February, 13, 2004. "In Defense of Intellectual Diversity." The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 12/10/2004.
(http://chronicle.com/).

Horowitz, David. 2004b. "One Man's Terrorist Is Another Man's Freedom Fighter."
Front Page Magazine. Retrieved 12/12/2004 (http://www.frontpagemag.com/). 

Horowitz, David. 2003. "The Campus Blacklist." Front Page Magazine. Retrieved 1/15/2005 (http://www.frontpagemag.com/). 

Hunter, Margaret, L. and Kimberly D. Nettles. 1999. "What About the White Women?:  Racial Politics in a Women¹s Studies Classroom." Teaching Sociology 27: 385-97.

Jacobson, Jennifer. September 24, 2004. "Conservatives in a Liberal Landscape: On left-Leaning Campuses Around the Country, Professors on the Right Feel Disenfranchised."  The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 9/25/2004. (http://chronicle.com/).

Langbert, Mitchell. 2005. "Response from Prof. Mitchell Langbert." Students for Academic Freedom. Retrieved 11/5/2005. (http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org).

McKinney, Kathleen, Carla B. Howery, Kerry J. Strand, Edward L. Kain, and Catherine White Berheide.  2005.  "Liberal Learning and the Sociology Major Updated:  Meeting the Challenge of Teaching Sociology in the Twenty-First Century." Washington, D. C., American Sociological Association. 

Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

Pope, Justin. December 25, 2004. "Conservative Students Target Liberal Professors." Associated Press.  Retrieved 12/25/2004. (http://www.ap.org/).

Rohall, David, E., Catherine L. Moran, Cliff Brown, and Elizabeth Caffrey. 2004. "Introducing Methods of Sociological Inquiry Using Living-Data Exercises." Teaching Sociology 32:401-407.

Shapiro, H. and D. Purpel, eds. (1998). Critical Social Issues in American Education: Transformation in a Postmodern World.  Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
 
 

©2006 by the North Carolina Sociological Association