Although I Probably Shouldn't Criticize the Ivory Tower. . .

. . .I decided to write this post anyway. Because, well, I'm kind of sick of the same old assumptions--namely, that everyone in academe (indeed! every intelligent person!) feels the same way about political and social issues. And darn it, I've already shown how judgmental I am by saying that parents should be able to have their children around with them if their job is flexible enough to allow it, and that I think that breastfeeding is the preferable choice for infants and mothers. And since everyone already knows what kind of fascist I am--I even think I'm better than the people in front of me in the grocery store when they're putting six-packs of store-brand sodas, no-name frozen dinners or tubs of hydrogenated lard on the conveyor while I painstakingly pore over ingredients lists (Intense Chocolate Ice Cream notwithstanding)--I'll just go ahead and say my peace and invite the increased scorn of the non-judgmental types out there.

I think it all started (the post, that is), when I was working in the computer lab in my department before my class and looked up to see posted a list of proposed bumper sticker slogans--most of them mocking the intelligence of the president with such mature witticisms as "Bad President! No banana!" Not able to help myself, I wrote on the page (yes, it was me), "Show me a viable candidate, and I'll show you another country." My utter disgust with the two-party system is increasing daily as I watch the candidate pool fester. Later this evening, I received an email about an upcoming lecture sponsored by our department featuring the author of a book about how wacky conservatives are anti-education for criticizing an imagined liberal "bias" in education (the quotes are in the title, implying the ridiculousness of the term) and also conflating the use of "liberal" as in "liberal politics" and "Liberal Arts," implying that the two are equal, or at least necessary compliments to one another. DISCLAIMER: So far, much of my information on this book has been gleaned from reviews, albeit favorable reviews. Doing a little further research, I was able to read the review of the book posted by none other than Amanda Marcotte on her blog, where she issues the disclaimer (of sorts) that she had, indeed, guess-hosted the blog of our illustrious guest-lecturer. Of course, those are credentials enough, no?

But in spite of any hostility you might detect, the point of this post is not to attack the politics of my peers or my department. For one thing, I generally don't assume that I know who votes for whom or with which party my colleagues cast their allegiances--that's judgmental for you! Nor do I conflate methodology with ideology--I recognize that just because someone favors marxist criticism, that person does not necessarily subscribe to Marxism, just as having worked with ecocriticsm doesn't mean I contribute to GreenPeace, and the fact that I've written about motherhood doesn't make me a mother. . . Oh, wait. . . That is, the fact that I've written about transvestism doesn't make me a. . . well. . . (just kidding!) On the other hand, I don't tend to use methodologies that represent ideologies to which I object on moral grounds. Sometimes I incorporate them in order to question them, but I digress. . .

At this moment of angst, realizing that I, like all in academia, have been pre-judged (oh wait, I'm the judgmental one!) as liberal (in the non-classical sense)--not by wacky conservatives (no offense), but by fellow-academics, I was pleased to see that someone much more tenured than I (and in my own discipline, too!) has addressed this issue. Today on a site called Minding the Campus, Mark Bauerlein, Professor of English at Emory and former Director of Research and Analysis for the NEA, published an article titled, "I'm O.K., You're Not O.K." He responds in part to an essay in this month's Academe written by one Julie Kilmer and titled, "Reclaim Your Rights as a Liberal Educator." Kilmer's article, according to Bauerlein, seeks to combat the power plays by conservative student groups such as Students for Academic Freedom (sounds menacing, no?) from the weak and vulnerable position of tenured faculty (pause for audible snicker). Here is one notable passage:

With such vast disparities between the threat professors envision and the actual security they enjoy, one would think that more people would recognize the problem of ideological bias on campus. But they don't, and the reason lies in a campus advent that has nothing to do with psychology. Instead, it's a sweeping sleight-of-hand that liberal professors have executed in their discipline. We see it operating in this very essay in Academe, and in the sentences I just quoted. Did you spot it? Professor Kilmer worries that a student who "is resistant to feminist theories and ideas" may sit in her class as a "plant," someone to incriminate her and send her upstairs for punishment. That's how she interprets uncongenial students, and it's an astounding conversion. In her class, any student who contests feminist notions falls under a cloud of suspicion. The ordinary run of skeptics, obstructionists, gadflies, wiseacres, and sulkers that show up in almost every undergraduate classroom is recast as an ideological cadre. If a student in a marketing class were to dispute the morality of the whole endeavor, no doubt liberal professors would salute him as a noble dissenter. But when he criticizes feminism, he violates a trust. He doesn't just pose intellectual disagreement. He transgresses classroom protocol.


I was the kind of undergraduate Dr. Kilmer would have hated. Not only did I work in opposition to feminism--even while taking courses that focused on, say, women in art history (the professor's feminism was weak at best, but she did try)--I even went so far as to point out the incompetence and blatant racism of an African-American professor, and won my appeal to retroactively drop the class. Don't ask me why I'm writing a dissertation. Just sick, I guess. Because here, in the same article, is reference to one of the obstacles I fear on the job market:

An ideology has become a measure of responsibility. A partisan belief is professional etiquette. A controversial outlook is an academic norm. Political bias suffuses the principles of scattered disciplines. Advocacy stands as normal and proper pedagogy. That's the sleight-of-hand, and it activates in far too many decisions in curriculum, grading, hiring, and promotion. I remember a committee meeting to discuss hiring a 19th-century literature specialist when one person announced, "We can only consider people who do race." For her, "doing race" wasn't a political or ideological preference. It was a disciplinary prerequisite.

I don't "do race." I don't "do feminism." I don't even "do Marxism." I can do Post-Colonialism, but I don't make a habit out of it. One of the authors I work on is homosexual, but I don't think it's all that important in the grand scheme of his work, and I've got a woman in my dissertation, but I didn't want her there in the first place. Face it, I'm screwed.

And here's why:

In the subsequent essay in Academe, "Impassioned Teaching," women's studies professor Pamela L. Caughie of Loyola University (Chicago) asserts, "In teaching students its [feminism's] history, its forms, and its impact, I am teaching them to think and write as feminists." So much for the vaunted critical thinking professors prize, and the injunction that they question orthodoxy and convention. Caughie aims to produce versions of herself. And it's more than an ego trip - it's a professional duty: "I feel I am doing my job well when students become practitioners of feminist analysis and committed to feminist politics" (emphasis added).

I don't want my students to think like me. Really. I like it when I can teach them to communicate to me why it is that they think the way they do and move towards convincing me. I admit that I was elated when I taught a student to be open-minded about the homosexuality in Plato's Symposium. But that was for Plato's sake, and for the student's enlightenment--that he was able to access one of the world's great philosophical tracts without letting his personal prejudices interfere, not because he would go out and vote for gay marriage.

Remember when you were told as an undergraduate (or as early as high school) that as long as you agreed with the professor, you'd pass? Don't look now--from what I'm hearing, it might be true:

We end up with indoctrination passing as proper teaching. When Kilmer states, "What happens to the feminist classroom when students challenge feminist principle?" we might respond, "An energetic discussion follows." But for Kilmer, it means disruption and intimidation. By her own admission, she can no longer distinguish honest disagreement from insubordinate conduct. That's what happens when disciplines admit ideology into their grounds. Accept the ideology and you're sure to advance. You're okay. Decline it, and you're not okay. You're not only wrong - you're illegitimate.

I would likely be less cynical had I experiences to the contrary, and to be fair, not all of my colleagues do this. But I have heard enough about the students' conservatism at the university where I teach, and witnessed enough attempts to sway the students' beliefs--including their fairly strong Christian faith (which, admittedly, could do with some challenges--but to strengthen not destroy). I realized after the summer semester that I was having a hard time teaching Gilman's Herland--the students didn't buy the feminist arguments and I couldn't either, and I didn't care. I couldn't make them see the "good side" of the utopia. They won. I'm teaching William Morris's News from Nowhere as my utopia this semester. I wonder, will socialism fare any better? I look at it this way, it's pastoral. Next time I'll just "do" dystopia.