elephdant-blog

[elephdant-blog]

Fair and Balanced

Yesterday, a story from somebody who is somehow a Facebook friend of mine appeared on my feed. Apparently he had testified before a senate committee lamenting the (supposedly) abysmal state of freedom of academic speech -- which is to say the open espousal of conservative arguments -- on college campuses. As a conservative, or at the furthest left, a moderate republican (my friends still debate which identification is more apt), I agree that the open and free exchange of academic ideas is central to the American university. So too do I believe that disagreement tends to sharpen argumentative skills and test the merits of arguments. Thus a diverse campus is a better campus, and I mean diversity in the largest possible sense of the word here. However I confess to be ill-at-ease with arguments such as these for the reason that these arguments mistake representation of argument for argumentative quality. In the current political climate, we have until recently been told that reporting and scholarship should be something called "fair and balanced." That is to say academics should do their best to present alternative arguments to their students as journalists should present the two sides of an argument. This is why CNN took claims of Obama being a Kenya by birth so seriously: it was an argument and to be "fair and balanced," they needed to present both sides of the argument. The problem is that in classrooms, unlike at CNN, it is the quality of argument not its political valence or origin that matters. To put it bluntly, and to paraphrase one of my favorite television shows, not every argument has two sides. Some have only one (the earth is round; Obama was born in America). Some have far more than one (consider arguments surrounding nuclear power -- some argue it is a clean, low-risk source of energy, some argue it is far too dangerous, some argue that it is too expensive and climate change necessitates more pragmatic because faster action like wind and solar panels, and some argue it is too costly and we ought continue using non-renewable energies). In classrooms, we do not analyze every argument; there simply is not enough time. Instead we select the most compelling arguments and weigh their merits. Naturally the person making the choice is an expert, a professor. But because this person is also, well, a person they bring their own perspective to the issue (I use perspective because I find it to be a more productive term than bias: bias carries negative connotations and suggest that with enough reflexivity, we can negate it, while perspective assumes the immutability of 'bias' and seeks to understand its impact rather than remove it). Surprise: professors have thought about the issues they teach, they have considered a variety of arguments, and have perspectives on the issue at hand. If they are convinced by one of the arguments, they tend to use persuasive skills at their disposal to make the case to their students. These persuasive skills include rhetorics which almost universally present the argument as "true." This is not a failure to include other perspectives. It is a recapitulation of the most convincing argument a professor has found. Of course, students should be willing (and often are willing) to question these arguments, to poke holes in their logic, and to challenge the assumptions inherent in them. But far too many mistake the view of the professor as the infallible word. It is not. It is a thesis in the original sense: a statement intended to rouse disagreement and dialogue, not settle a question definitively. This friend asserts that it is difficult and uncomfortable to challenge professors. And indeed it is. A short anecdote. In a small class in a professors house -- I had known the professor about a year and a half at this point and worked with her fairly closely -- I rather nonchalantly stated that I am a republican. This professor had been disparaging republicans before class for about three months in front of me that this point and began apologizing profusely for these comments. Like my friend claimed for his college papers, I felt that she started grading my papers differently. She was more willing to jump to critique. But so too did she read my papers more carefully. She considered my arguments at length more and spent relatively more time on my work than on my peers. Perhaps she graded me more harshly as a result (I am not convinced of this). But I am wholly convinced that even if she did, the criticisms she made of my work and the extra time she invested in me made me a better scholar and a better thinker. When disagreement arises, it is often temping to claim we are victims of an academic witch-hunt. The reality is often more complex. Our professors are people as well and they have their own ideologies. But when we stop thinking of college as a test -- getting the grade -- and more as a process of learning -- receiving challenging feedback -- we become stronger thinkers. So please, friend, disagree with your professors. But rather than complain about their harsher treatment of your papers, celebrate it! It signifies they take your ideas seriously and want you to improve. It means they have chosen to invest more time in you, not only because they wish to convince you of the argument they believe to be right, but also because they are deeply invested in your growth as a person. The real shame, to my mind, is that this paranoid reading of 'conservative' arguments is not afforded to those who espouse more 'liberal' ones. In joining the pack, simply put, they blend in. And my friend is right that the academy has real diversity problems, politically as well as in terms of race, gender, sexuality, nationality, ability, and socioeconomic status. But this will not change unless people rise to the challenge of their professors and recognize disagreement and paranoia as work professors perform to make their students better. And the response that does the best to build the conservative movement is not the one that claims victimhood, it is the one that gracefully considers critique and recognizes harsh criticism as a way to grow. It thanks paranoia rather than lamenting it. And in so doing, it advances ever stronger arguments in the favor of conservative ideas, returning the favor by becoming those professors who so challenged you. Ant