by Ben Shapiro
Michigan State University holds separate graduation ceremonies for black students. The University of Michigan has ceremonies for black, Latino, American Indian, and Jewish students, with each ceremony focusing on the “customs” of that group. “[I]f the Polish students came to us and said they want to do something to celebrate their culture, or the Hungarian students came to us, we would do the same thing for them,” said John Matlock, a University of Michigan vice provost. “This is a reflection of our multicultural campus, and I think it’s very healthy.”60
UCLA is the center for separate graduation ceremonies. The university holds a graduation for homosexual students, which they call the Lavender Graduation. At that commencement, students wear rainbow tassels. There is also a graduation for Latinos, a graduation for blacks, a graduation for Filipinos, a graduation for Asian Pacific Islanders, a graduation for Iranians, and a graduation for American Indians.61 About the only ones who don’t have their own graduation are straight white males. But they will before long—if only by process of elimination.
SO MUCH FOR THE MELTING POT
It shouldn’t be this way. Student groups should be places where people of similar backgrounds can go to share similar perspectives on current issues. The groups should exist for the support of the students, and to forward their opinions without becoming militant. Then the students should go back to the campus as young Americans, not anti-American ethnic minorities.
But in reality, student groups are radical factions fighting with each other for dollars and for the moderate students on campus. They use radical rhetoric, fight for radical goals, and in the end, tear the campus apart by polarizing the students. It becomes taboo for members of the ASU to talk to members of the JSU. There is no dialogue between active members of MEChA and anyone else, unless they’re working together to form a more broad-based radical coalition.
Is college a place of open minds and open discussion? Not after the student groups are done with them.
13
SOLUTIONS
The brainwashing of students by the university system is one of the most severe problems plaguing America’s youth. Under higher education’s facade of objectivity lies a grave and overpowering bias, a bias that deeply affects the student body. To find viable solutions to this crisis, we must now answer three crucial underlying questions. Why are the universities so biased? Why do the students take their professors at face value? And what can we do to stop it?
WHY THE BIAS?
The bias of the universities has deep historical roots. As early as the 1930s, conservatives were warning of the increasing radicalism of the college professors.
“There are few colleges or universities where parents may send their sons and daughters without their being contaminated with some phase of the vilest of Communistic and allied teaching,” cautioned Roscoe Dorsey of the National Republic magazine.1
Irving Kristol, now a conservative, remembers his socialist days at City College of New York: “If there were any Republicans at City—and there must have been some—I never met them, or even heard of their existence.” At the time, CCNY had approximately twenty thousand students.2
The roots go even deeper. From its very inception, the goal of higher education has been to challenge the authority structure under the banner of open-minded inquiry.
Socrates was perhaps the first professor—a roving teacher enlightening the masses. His entire life was dedicated to challenging conventional thought, an exercise that eventually led to his demise when he was charged with “corruption of the young.” The development of the university system broke from its generally rebellious nature during the Middle Ages, when colleges were required to receive licenses to teach from the pope, emperor, or king. Later, colleges became religious institutions, where students were taught their studies within the boundaries of godly morality. This vision of a religiously based educational system carried over to the time of America’s founding. But with the increased separation of church and state came an end to religious control of the schools, and with that, a return to the Socratic philosophy of challenging authority.
Sometimes, when the authority structure has promoted vice, immorality, or totalitarianism, the professors have been invaluable in their refusal to accept, as in the former Soviet Union. At other times, when the authority structure is democratic, non-totalitarian, and classically liberal, as in the United States, professors have challenged this structure by preaching radical leftist doctrine.
It is this latter case which has arisen in the modern-day universities. Where the society preaches morality, the universities rebel against morality. Where the society embraces capitalism, the universities challenge capitalism. Where the society supports America, the universities disparage it.
Professors themselves readily admit their own rebellious (and hence leftist) tendencies. “[P]oll numbers show that Republicans are a small minority of the professoriate,” declares Professor Lawrence Evans of Duke University. “True, and rightly so. In seeking faculty, universities look for people who can analyze and discuss matters of some complexity, who are unafraid to challenge the wisdom of simple solutions. . . . People like that usually vote for the Democrats. So what?”3
UCLA Professor Robert Watson agrees. “American universities have thrived, like the society as a whole, because we have a system for resisting the natural tendency of the authorities to want to dictate beliefs,” he states.4 Professors are “people who will question the self-worship and money-worship of American culture.”5
WHY THE ACCEPTANCE?
Professors consistently champion the liberal line, but why do students buy it? Why don’t they resist the indoctrination efforts of the university faculty?
The obvious answer is youthful naïveté. The innocence of college students blinds them to the motives of their professors. Students take everything at face value, instead of examining the professorial bias. Students also lack the tools, skills, and knowledge to challenge their professors. Acceptance is the easiest road, and the road most often taken. If the professor says that the sky is green, the sky must be green.
The infallibility of professors in the eyes of students is heightened by societal respect for the university system. The media seek out professors to comment on current events; parents spend their hard-earned dollars sending their children to liberal colleges. Therefore, students assume, there must be some inherent merit in the views of the professors who teach there.
Professors capitalize on the profound respect students feel for them. By telling students “think for yourselves” and “don’t buy what your parents tell you,” the professors set themselves up as the final authority on morality, politics, and society by discarding parents as moral arbiters. And students buy into it because they are always rebelling against their parents—and in college, this is a sanctioned and blessed activity.
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
The problem has many parts, so any solution must also be multi-pronged. Here are a few partial long-term solutions; a synthesis of these solutions should provide a long-term plan to combat indoctrination in the universities.
Pulling funds. An oft-proposed tactic is for conservatives to pull their money from major universities and demand even-handed teaching before reinstating their funds. This seems like a decent idea on the surface, but by itself, pulling funding does little to change university policy. Why? Because leftist and foreign funders will simply pick up the slack, entrenching liberalism more deeply into the university atmosphere.
For example, Saudi Arabia buys up American universities like they’re going out of style. At the University of California, the Saudi government has created the King Abdulaziz Chair for Islamic Studies. At Harvard University College of Law, they funded the King Fahd Islamic Shariah Studies.6 The King Faisal Foundation also gives major scholarships to up-and-coming Muslims students for “outstanding international researchers in science, medicine, Arabic literature, Islamic studies, and service to Islam.”7
Theoretically, if
conservatives were to pull money from universities, Saudi Arabia could become a main source of funding for universities, thereby dictating policy. As part of a comprehensive plan, however, pulling funds is a useful step, as I will explain shortly.
Start-up universities. Nothing is shocking the news world into moderation like the success of Fox News Channel. When CNN dominated the cable news airwaves, only one side of the story was being heard. Then, when Fox News opened its doors, its ratings shot through the roof. Where there’s a market, there’s a way.
Conservatives should begin a mass movement to start politically moderate universities. This means hiring from both sides of the political aisle. Using Fox News as a model, right-wing founded universities should strive to tell both sides of the story. Only one perspective should be banned: extreme anti-Americanism of the kind that blames America for September 11.
These universities should also shun tax money, following the lead of Hillsdale College. If these conservative-founded universities take tax money, they immediately become accountable to foolish restrictions leveled by the federal government.
This is where pulling funding from mainstream universities comes in. If funding is pulled as an end unto itself, it does little to change the situation. But if that money is simply shifted from mainstream liberal universities into the new, balanced universities, mainstreamers get the message. Just as cable channels like MSNBC moved slightly to the right once they realized that Fox News was taking their audience, mainstream universities will realize that they must move to the center or fall behind.
College rankings and job hiring. But funding in and of itself will not sustain the start-up universities. All universities need students, and the start-ups are no exception. The real problem becomes how to attract students from well-respected mainstream universities to the new, experimental universities.
There is only one reason that students go to a mainstream university, aside from the usual pap about “broadening the mind”: to get a diploma in order to boost job prospects.
The system of “diploma ergo high-paying job” involves a serious problem for conservative start-up colleges. Hiring businesses recognize a university as legitimate and feel that graduates of that university will be good employees based on conventional rankings put out by publications like US News and World Report. If US News says that Harvard is a better school than UC Berkeley, for example, businesses will likewise seek graduates from Harvard over equal-ranking graduates from Berkeley. Students will follow the prospective jobs, and will desire admission to Harvard over admission to Berkeley.
This involves a major problem for start-up conservative universities: Many college ranking systems are slanted toward the left. UC Berkeley will always rank above Hillsdale College in the US News and World Report college rankings, no matter whom Hillsdale hires to teach.
The reason for that slant is very simple: the US News methodology will automatically yield higher results for liberal universities. The methodology takes into account “peer review,” where biased college administrators rank other colleges. It takes into account financial resources, assuming that more money spent per student means a better education—by that token, public high schools should be mini-Oxfords. The methodology is self-perpetuating, since it takes into account retention of students by universities and quality of incoming classes—if the university ranks high, high-quality students would seek entrance, and no one would leave.8
Therefore, the only solution is for well-respected conservative publications to begin issuing college rankings. If the Wall Street Journal issued a report honestly ranking conservative schools alongside liberal schools, businesses would sit up and take notice. One criterion, noticeably absent from the US News methodology, should be average financial status after ten years for graduates or graduates’ job satisfaction after a decade. The US News methodology of ranking according to what professors think, how much money is expended, and how many alumni give cash is pure nonsense.
Of course, no ranking system would gain legitimacy overnight. This is where conservative business owners must put their money where their mouth is. If they truly feel that indoctrination is not education, they must consider and hire excellent students from conservative schools for the same jobs where they now place excellent students from UCLA, Harvard, or any other liberal institution. Once conservative-owned businesses begin to legitimize right-wing rankings by hiring conservative graduates with the same frequency as Columbia graduates, students will begin flocking to the startup conservative universities.
THE PLAN
In sum, I suggest a three-step course of action.
First, conservatives should redirect their funds from liberal colleges to conservative start-up colleges with equal distribution of professors across the ideological spectrum.
Second, new ranking systems should be installed and published by conservative news outlets in order to counter the anti-conservative bias of other ranking systems and provide a better resource for hiring businesses.
Third, conservative businesses must use the new rankings as a guide, in order to legitimize the systems and provide incentive for top-notch students to enter the start-up universities.
The policy I recommend is a long-term policy. Conservative-funded colleges with no tax money will not be easy to establish. Ranking systems will not flourish overnight. So, the short-term solution must be parenting. Bottom line: if parents do a good job teaching their children right from wrong, as I learned from my parents, when those children reach college age, they will be prepared to fight the liberal onslaught of the professors.
AND TO MY FELLOW COLLEGE STUDENTS . . .
Please, think for yourselves. When I say this, I really mean it. I do not mean that you must become a staunch conservative (although I believe reason tends toward it). All I ask is this: Question the motives of your professors. Pay attention to how they twist the facts, or editorialize during lecture. Ask them questions. Make them defend themselves. Make other students think before they buy into the professorial mindset.
The real mark of education is learning how to think. Swallowing whole what your professors say doesn’t teach you to think—it teaches you to think what they want you to think. And that is indoctrination, pure and simple.
NOTES
INTRODUCTION
1 . Robert M. Behrdahl, “Letter to the Editor: Berkeley: ‘A Failure of Oversight’ On Palestinian Poetics Course,” Wall Street Journal, 17 May 2002.
2 . Robert Stacy McCain, “Poll Confirms Ivy League Liberal Tilt,” Washington Times, 15 January 2002.
3 . Eleanor Yang, “Some see widespread liberal bias at colleges,” San Diego Union-Tribune, 21 January 2003.
4 . “The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 2001,” Higher Education Research Institute, January 2002.
5 . Barbara Ortutay and Bimal Rajkomar, “UCLA students favor Al Gore,” UCLA Daily Bruin, 8 November 2000.
6 . David H. Gellis, “Harvard Law School Professors Kick Off Liberal Legal Group,”Harvard Crimson, 3 August 2001.
7 . UCLA administrator, e-mail message to author, 3 April 2001.
CHAPTER 1
1 . UCLA Professor Joshua Muldavin, Geography 5, Lecture, 16 January 2001.
2 . NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, 30 September 1998. Emphasis added.
3 . Stanley Fish, “Condemnation Without Absolutes,” New York Times, 15 October 2001.
4 . “NAS/Zogby Poll Reveals American Colleges Are Teaching Dubious Ethical Lessons,” NAS Press Release, 2 July 2002, http://www.nas.org/print/pressrele ases/hqnas/ releas_02jul02.htm.
5 . John Leo, “At Postmodern U., professors who see no evil,” Jewish World Review, 16 July 2002.
6 . Sylvia Nasar, “Princeton’s New Philosopher Draws a Stir,” New York Times, 10 April 1999.
7 . Paul Ehrlich, Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect (New York: Penguin USA, 2002), 2.
8 . Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (New York: Sierra Club-Ballantine, 1968), Prologue
>
9 . As quoted by Michelle Malkin in her article, “Cop Haters Dearly Loved in Hollywood,” Capitalism Magazine, 8 January 2001.
10 . “Popular Music Under Siege,” ACLU Briefer, http://www.aclu.org/library/pbr3.html.
11 . Professor Lynn Vavreck, Political Science 40, Lecture, 24 January 2002.
12 . Steve Lopez, “One Problem in Abu-Jamal’s Crusade: He’s Guilty,” Los Angeles Times, 24 December 2001.
13 . Benjamin Shapiro, “Effects of campus liberalism far-reaching,” UCLA Daily Bruin, 20 November 2001.
14 . “Judge may reject Olson guilty plea,” Los Angeles Times, 2 November 2001.
15 . According to the Sara Olson Defense Fund Committee.
16 . Sharon Cohen, “Anti-war radical tells his story,” Associated Press, 26 September 2001.
17 . Don Babwin, “Northwestern Alumni Withhold Money,” Associated Press, 1 November 2001.
CHAPTER 2
1 . Robert Stacy McCain, “Poll Confirms Ivy League Liberal Tilt,” Washington Times, 15 January 2002.
2 . Phyllis Schafly, “Diversity Dishonesty on College Campuses,” The Phyllis Schafly Report, April 2002.
3 . Bruce Bartlett, “Conservative students versus their faculty,” Townhall.com, 11 September 2003.
4 . Jon Dougherty, “Campus commencements lean to left,” WorldNetDaily.com, 3 September 2003.
5 . Paul Kengor, “Reagan Among the Professors,” Policy Review Magazine, December 1999.
6 . Larry Elder, “Leftist bias in college—the denial continues,” WorldNetDaily.com, 30 January 2003.
7 . Robert Maranto, “For true diversity, include conservatives,” Baltimore Sun, 31 July 2003.
8 . Barbara Ortutay and Bimal Rajkomar, “UCLA students favor Al Gore,” UCLA Daily Bruin, 8 November 2000.
9 . Veronica Aguilar, “Poll: students liberal, campus politics dull,” Tufts Daily, Spring 2002.
10 . Knight Stivender, “Student poll reveals disparity in party support,” Daily Beacon, 5 November 1996.