“Studies” Departments Suffer a Loss
Perhaps I’m reading too much into this, but I think something remarkable occurred at UCLA last week. By a vote of 56%-44%—almost double the margin of Scott Walker’s recent recall-election victory—the UCLA faculty rejected a proposed “Community and Conflict in the Modern World” general-education requirement.
The proposal would have required each UCLA student to take a class that examines “community and conflict.” Although the proposal did not precisely define “community and conflict,” it listed a set of sample courses that would satisfy the requirement. Approximately half of those courses were taught by one of the “studies” departments—e.g. African American Studies, Chicano Studies, Asian American Studies, Labor and Workplace Studies, American Indian Studies, etc. Almost all of the remaining half would naturally fit in one of the “studies” departments.
I was shocked by the vote. I’d estimate that out of approximately 4,000 faculty members at UCLA, only about 40 have right-of-center political views. And of those 40, approximately three-quarters aren’t true conservatives—instead they’re libertarians or right-leaning moderates. I know of only five UCLA professors who at least occasionally call themselves conservative, consistently vote for Republicans, and are willing to admit that publicly.
Given the above facts and the 56-44 vote, it necessarily follows that a large fraction of liberal professors voted against the “community and conflict” requirement.
The same attitudes were true of UCLA students. Based on some informal polls I’ve conducted, approximately 80% of UCLA students preferred Obama over McCain in the last presidential election. Despite the overwhelmingly liberal ideology among UCLA students, only 45% said that they were disappointed that the proposal failed. (Another 6% said that UCLA needs a diversity-related requirement but opposed the current proposal. This poll is ongoing – I am using numbers that the web site listed at approximately 8:00am on June 10.)
Although I was shocked by the results, one of my liberal friends lectured me why I shouldn’t have been so surprised. “I know you think UCLA is just a bunch of knee-jerk leftists,” he explained. “But a lot of those leftists are actually academic conservatives.” By the latter phrase he meant people who value high standards and rigor in teaching and research.
While few people will say it, nearly everyone on college campuses understands that the “studies” classes are not very rigorous; nor do they have high intellectual standards.
If, however, you say something like that on a university campus, within seconds you’ll usually hear a reply such as, “No, no academic discipline is any more rigorous than any other. It’s just that different disciplines require different talents.”
Notwithstanding how often you hear such statements, no one in the history of mankind has ever said, “Darn, I made a D in Chicano studies. I guess now I’ll have to major in chemistry.” In contrast, lots of people have said the opposite. Academic conservatives—even those who are leftwing politically—understand that fact.
My liberal friend made another claim: The same academic conservatives, although they do not think very highly of the “studies” departments, do not want to admit that fact publicly. They understand the mob-like responses they will have to face, including being called a racist, if they do that. Indeed my liberal friend speculated that if the “community and conflict” proposal had been decided by an open ballot instead of a secret one, then the proposal would have passed almost unanimously.
Thus, the current situation on college campuses is similar to the last several years of the Soviet Union. Nearly everyone can see that the system is faulty. But no one will dare to say that publicly.
Last week UCLA revealed a crack in the wall of campus political correctness. Maybe someday the academic equivalent of a Ronald Reagan will demand that we tear down the entire wall.
- Comment (27)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: “Studies” Departments Suffer a Loss
Tim Groseclose:
Although I was shocked by the results, one of my liberal friends lectured me why I shouldn’t have been so surprised. “I know you think UCLA is just a bunch of knee-jerk leftists,” he explained. “But a lot of those leftists are actually academic conservatives.” By the latter phrase he meant people who value high standards and rigor in teaching and research.
Oh, man. Why is there never a postmodern deconstructionist around when you really need one?
May '10
Re: “Studies” Departments Suffer a Loss
Rachel Lu
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Because abusive notation is so goldurn convenient ;-) · 40 minutes ago
I get that. But it does concern me, because I actually think thatsomeof these departments are among the most "efficient" in terms of doing more valuable research and teaching with less money. And I fear they're going to be squeezed out when the higher ed crunch comes.
It costs practically nothing to maintain a handful of (say) Central Asian language specialists, in comparison to what we spend on (say) scientific research. And hey, now and then you might need someone who speaks Tajik. Enabling people to explore interesting-and-possibly-important-but-not-widespread interests is one of the upsides to a sprawling university system. But I can already hear the cry of "Science good! Studies departments useless!" which is going to drive those cool little departments to extinction. 4 hours ago
This kind of excessive classification is just about feeding academic narcissism about areas of expertise. Perish the thought that a Medievalist might have to organize with historians of others time periods! They deserve their own money, their own space, their own administration, an so on...
Edited on June 11, 2012 at 3:59amSep '10
Re: “Studies” Departments Suffer a Loss
Tim Groseclose:
While few people will say it, nearly everyone on college campuses understands that the “studies” classes are not very rigorous; nor do they have high intellectual standards.
I spent a semester teaching at a large state university, and I remember one (quite liberal) professor telling me and a few others how a left-wing initiative failed to be approved by the faculty senate because it wasn't radical enough for the "studies" people (that's how he referred to them). So the proposal died in committee.
Everyone, including reliably liberal Democrat faculty, knows these departments aren't intellectually rigorous--they're just left-wing political agitprop in academic robes. But they also annoy a lot of liberals by making ideological purity stand in the way of approving liberal initiatives. So the vote isn't a surprise for more than one reason.
Edited on June 11, 2012 at 5:43amMay '10
Re: “Studies” Departments Suffer a Loss
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Because abusive notation is so goldurn convenient ;-) · 17 hours ago
Yes, this is a dangerous convenience, and we should be careful about how we "rightly divide" (2 Timothy 2:15) our terminology. I am utterly skeptical of any hyphenated studies, particularly when "American" follows the hyphen, and of any non-geographic studies (race, gender, etc.).
But the word "studies" is a perfectly legitimate descriptor for integrated and comprehensive curriculum. When Tom Wolfe did his PhD in American Studies, he was looking at history, sociology, culture, and demography. Asian Studies (I have a conflict of interest) addresses history, widely varied ethnicity, culture, language, and geography in a huge, poorly understood in the US, but loomingly very important part of the world.
Toss the hyphens and genders, get with real learning.
Aug '10
Re: “Studies” Departments Suffer a Loss
Duane Oyen
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Because abusive notation is so goldurn convenient ;-)
Yes, this is a dangerous convenience, and we should be careful about how we "rightly divide" (2 Timothy 2:15) our terminology.
Duane, I'm totally with you and Rachel on the usefulness of some "studies" disciplines, like the ones that you and she mention.
Of course abusive notation is a dangerous convenience (I know firsthand it trips up mathematicians all the time). But it's also an inevitable convenience.
If we required all the words and symbols we use to be used non-abusively all the time, it's possible that a majority of communications would simply not happen.
Sep '11
Re: “Studies” Departments Suffer a Loss
I agree that academics tend to be conservative on their fields, esp about quality issues. However, this is not always the case. The fact that it was a secret ballot undoubtedly influenced the outcome of the vote.
Feb '12
Re: “Studies” Departments Suffer a Loss
Self-interest trumps ideology, at least for liberals. Marx put it well:
"The English Established Church, e.g., will more readily pardon an attack on 38 of its 39 articles than on 1/39 of its income. Now-a-days atheism is culpa levis, as compared with criticism of existing property relations."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p1.htm