Re: #289bis: Pipes in LAT debates two anti-US profs

Submitted by Helen Selzer (United States), Dec 28, 2002 at 17:28

Hello:

The issue as presented by both Mr. Pipes and Professors Foner and Gilmore seems to miss the point. It is not a question of whether or not dissent is "patriotic"; it is rather that more often than not, universities and the academics whom they hire profess only one, decidedly "left-wing" opinion. Especially since the war in Viet Nam, it is popular --almost mandatory -- for university faculty to express only anti-war, anti-US sentiments; dissent from that is not allowed.

I am not impressed that schools like Yale and Columbia -- or any school with a large endowment -- would not allow " outsiders" to suggest anything to their faculties, as their boards and directors are the very ones who hire such faculty in the first place. Only a strike at a university's "pocket" (witnessed recently with regard to allowing ROTC recruiters on campus) can effect any change.

We have no reason to take the pressure off institutions of "higher" learning. When universities begin to hire a faculty of more diverse opinion; when students learn and are encouraged to understand and argue the case for numbers of opposing ideas; when students once again are taught to THINK rather than to accept [or be intimidated into accepting] popular, so-called "liberal" philosophies; only then should the universities' self-monitoring be respected.

But universities are frightened by diversity of opinion, afraid they might, perhaps, discover that today's conservatives are the "true" liberals, and that universities and their faculties are frozen in the [now] conservative philosophies of the 1960's -- philosophies which are not applicable for today.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".