At the annual convention of the Modern Language Association last month,
David Horowitz once more shared a panel with AAUP President Cary Nelson,
who has previously replied to Horowitz’s exaggerated claims of bias in
the classroom. As Chronicle Review editor Liz McMillen’s coverage
pointed out, there wasn’t much actual debate in this over-hyped
appearance, which featured almost as many security guards as audience
members.
The real draw was the more timely panel featuring Stanley Fish debating
critics of his notion that faculty should shut up and “do their jobs.”
(Staging a meeting between Horowitz and an articulate critic has been
done before.)
As many others have pointed out, where students have been given the
chance to protest grades based on faculty political bias, they rarely do
so. The few complaints made are even more rarely upheld, and are just as
likely to be claims of right-wing bias.
In my view, Horowitz is manufacturing a problem in order to push a real
agenda: ie, by making exaggerated and often simply ridiculous claims
about left-wing bias in classroom instruction and the “danger” that
faculty political beliefs represent to student learning, he wishes to
sweepingly institute affirmative action for right-wing scholars in
hiring, and employ “intellectual diversity” as a wedge to force
conservative ideas onto curricula.
full: http://howtheuniversityworks.com/wordpress/archives/184
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
