This is an interesting topic because it says a lot about "right" wing attitudes altogether.

Those on the "right" generally like to pretend that they do not have any ideological bias's and that they see "realiy" as it is.
It also implies that the "right" way is the only way of seeing things.
And that ALL other ways are both relativistic and have some ideologically power seeking or social engineering agenda(s)---but not us "right" thinking true believers who see "reality" true or as it "really" is.

Such attitudes are both a conceipt and a delusion.

It is also interesting to note that those on the right set up various "WATCH" organizations such as Culture Watch and Campus Watch.
The purpose of such outfits being to closely monitor those who not see "reality" true---those who are un or anti American/Christian/Western/Australian.

When (not if) fascism finally comes to the USA all the relevant baddies will be thus well and truly known in advance---they WILL BE the first to go. Remember too that those on the "right" in the USA have all of the guns, and are more than willing to use them. The angry militias and the Aryan "nation" paranoids for example.

There is at least one similar outfit here with the title Culture Watch run by Bill the mule who sometimes features on this forum.

It is interesting to note that Bill and his USA friends make much of books with titles such as "Above All Earthly Powers" and "Total Truth" and "Wedge of 'Truth'" etc etc.

Bill was/is fullsome in his advocacy/praise of Above All Earthly Powers---Bill knows and even possesses the "truth". Dont you worry about that.

The political & cultural import of such books being that Bill and his fellow (WATCH) true believers are "above" worldly politics and are only doing "christs" work on this planet and have "god's" mandate for doing so.

Perhaps the student who complained doesnt share all of these (Above All Earthly Powers) power seeking agendas, but in my opinion she has plugged in to their agenda(s).

I take no issue with academics who hold strong or unconventional political views, but to be taught by an ideologue of any political persuasion, left or right, is a pain in the butt. By an ideologue I mean someone who can only see the world through the lens of their own ideology, who systematically misrepresents or demonises those they disagree with, and who refuses to accept the validity of, or give credit for, arguments that contradict their own views.

At various times in my youth I had teachers like that from a variety of ideological and religious persuasions. Most were poor teachers, more interested in proselytising than educating.

Equally, I had many great teachers, again some from both the far left and the right, who loved to debate an issue, encouraged their students to disagree with and criticise them, and gave credit for well-constructed and substantiated arguments even if they vehemently disagreed with them. These were a joy to be taught by, and more than made up for the other mob.

Because none of us is able to achieve complete neutrality and objectivity, especially on issues we are passionate about, educational institutions should encourage a diversity of opinions and perspectives amongst their teachers. But to my mind the key issue is not so much what an academic believes, but how that influences the way that they teach, and especially how they deal with contrary opinions

Many lecturers are leftish. But the coercion is far stronger between peers in the student body, IMHO.

More importantly being leftist does not preclude depth and intellectual fair-mindedness. That critical value is what distinguishes a university-calibre teacher, not the absence of political opinions.

There are many leftists, however, who are tribal or religious in their use of arguments. It doesn't matter if its TRUE or FALSE, what matters is if its what 'my side' are saying. Hence so many trivial slogans against bushhowardhitler.

And starting apbout the 1970's we exhalted the value of OPEN-MINDEDNESS above truth, and built the system of identity politics on it. There are people who advance by the party line rather than other criteria, and they act like enforcers. I met one such lecturer, who became a government minister, and his speaking style was a series of unsupported slogans followed by the mantra 'Are we together?'. His country? Zimbabwe.

A little bit more academic rigour required here Jay thompson. Everybody is political to a degree and like Jay Thompson fight for their political positions. Irrespective of downplaying, denial or being so called "apolitical" which is usually a "cover".
Your thrust Jay is to attack the miriad form of left liberals from the right: So you are not devoid of politics. You also quote (and side with) a very right wing political party.
Jay says "a new initiative by the Young Liberals entitled "Education, Not Indoctrination”, which aims to “stamp out bias in education”. Behind this right wing line is an advancement for a further march to the national right. There is no mention of the support for turning education into a large profiteering enterprise which undermines education which the reactionary Young Liberals supported

Are there academics who brazenly force students to agree with their political views?
Yes !
On a personal note in 1983 I have witnessed with eyes & ears where a Nth Qld school principal told a class of 10 year olds; quote "tell your parents they must vote Labor" unquote.
By socialising with them one will find that 95% of school teachers are very Labor orientated.
I found that most public servants are Labor orientated but when things go haywire they blame, yes you got it, the conservatives.
I in no way wish to imply that the conservative side is better but it is an indisputable fact that in general they are better managers.

'I in no way wish to imply that the conservative side is better but it is an indisputable fact that in general they are better managers.'

I don't think it is not in dispute at all. It strikes me that kind of demonstrates the author's point as to how the argument is frames from the right that they are mere expressing the 'mainstream' or 'rational' position that is not political.

I hate to chose such an easy target but to claim for example the Bush administration are better managers than.. well you get my point.

I hate to chose such an easy target but to claim for example the Bush administration are better managers than.. well you get my point.
Mickey K.
better managers than... Whitlam's administration ? Actually, I was thinking of the australian left vs right scene & yes I get your point.

I have taught in universities for years now and it’s been my experience that students expect me to put forward a view that is political. Indeed if I did not they would soon complain or probe me incessantly until I did.

And this should be applauded! I loath a quietly submissive classroom.

Students want to learn by testing ideas, debating, revising and thinking deeply and develop their critical thinking skills. Faciliating this is hard work. If it were simply a matter of preaching then therewould be no need for lectures at all.

Why not just give them a reading list and an exam to test their memmories? Because this is not not teaching, this is what many have called "banking education".

Students are not empty vessels waiting to be filled with ideology, they arrive at university with a clear understanding of what they believe or do not believe and universities should be a place where they can understand the rigors of how these beliefs came about as knowledge that can be challenged.

Those on the Right who complain about Leftist teachers and academics are those who have never taught for any length of time or really understood what it means to truly teach.

Many of my students leave my courses with the same conservative views they arrived with. And that’s fine. However I like believe I would have taught them why they have so called conservative views (we all have some conservative views) - and why there are alternative views. This is knowledge I often discover they did not have before they came to my class. However, I do not believe this to be a precondition of all students as the Right wingers like to believe.

Right wingers who want to indoctrinate without any reflexivity at all about their teaching practice or their ideological straight jacketing are the most destructive. Hitler showed us this.

The greatest treasure a teacher can bestow his students is the ability to see, not the ability to blindfold what they do not want to see.

However, i reserve to right to not to put up with ludites here on OLO.
Their intellectual retardation is their choice alone.

And what makes you think that you are all right! "Yes I know". but no-one will take offence. Again, its all about small minded people, isn't it. How your soap box makes you the underdeveloped, and out of touch, up themselves morons that you have made ourselves into, and you wonder why your students are leaving you. Your not as smart as you think you are.

You can be in touch with one thing( PHD overlords) or you can be in touch with many things. True, you have the right to your opinion, but don't profile, what you haven't encountered yet!

I think all of you on this thread can be so, well! you know how you are, and i will spell it out.

To experiment with two feet on the ground, takes a lot of balls, I guess your trash-cans may need a good over-hall, and there is profanity I will not stoop too.

And how we like to discredit people whom don't follow your point of view.

I do this out of my own time.

But lets just pretend, that this whole conversation, was based on the thoughts of the hypothetical.

If Iam totally wrong, please disregard.

Not a bad article. Yep, the social sciences are full of lefties. It's the only place where they could get a job! Ha.

Even so, many business schools will also teach Freidman, Hayek, etc and marry the economic rationales with the political philosophy of each push.

It's somewhat paradoxical that it's the older left wing staff on campus (and I know this doesn't make any sense outside of a university) who are against change, thereby forcing the Federal Government to drive their instutions to diversify.

Lefty conservatives - or rather - NIMBY comservatives. Anachronisms.

Hmmm. Another proactively defensive rant from a socially minded and inclusive individual.

individual,

The statistics do not agree with your claim that 95 percent of teachers are Labor orientated. Opinion pollsters do not normally report on the voting preferences of occupational groups, probably because the sample size is too small, but the Herald Sun of 30/10/1995 reported on a survey of 1000 randomly chosen teachers. In 1992, 32% voted Liberal and 29% voted Labor, while 29% preferred not to answer. For the 1996 election, 22% intended to vote Liberal and 31% Labor, while 38% preferred not to answer. We can only speculate on the exact percentages for particular third parties and on why many did not answer, but if you work out the percentages of those who did for the major parties, they show for 1992, 52% Liberal and 48% Labor; and for 1996, 42% Liberal and 58% Labor. The same poll showed that 61% thought that the cuts of the previous five years (two years under Labor and three years under the Liberals) had reduced the quality of education, while 28% did not

But if, in those tightly controlled idea factories called 'lecture halls'.. if you mention any 'un'orthodox ideas, you would be branded all kinds of things.

If you offered a Christian perspective, you can add an extra 'on turbo' aspect to the vehemence of the criticism and abuse toward you.

..but of course, the first thing you will be told by the leftoid mind controllers is.. "what right do you have to IMPOSE your ideas on others' :)

I'm not sure which is stronger..the desire to laugh or puke.

Boazy: "But if, in those tightly controlled idea factories called 'lecture halls'.. if you mention any 'un'orthodox ideas, you would be branded all kinds of things."

Er, how would you know, Boazy? I recall many occasions from my undergraduate days when "unorthodox" ideas were presented by the lecturer. That's what universities do, and encourage - or at least what they used to do.

I agree that the presentation of a "Christian" perspective in most lectures would be rare, unless of course it was relevant to the subject of the lecture. Mind you, I can recall many tutorials where the 'Students for Christ' types would attempt to frame their answers to questions in theological terms, with predictable results for straying from the topic.

Every Western university I've ever been in has a strong Christian presence, ranging from the abovementioned "Students for Christ' types, to designated chapels and the mandatory colleges representing different Christian denominations. For a couple of semesters as an academic, together with the university chaplain (a Catholic nun, habit and all) I co-chaired an ecumenical discussion group that comprised staff and students from divergent religious affiliations. I was asked to participate as an atheist, as that was seen as a neutral position for the chair.

Strangely enough, devout people of various faiths were able to discuss any number of controversial issues without denigrating each other or their religious beliefs. It is possible, you know.

Rainier,

"I have taught in universities for years now and it’s been my experience that students expect me to put forward a view that is political. Indeed if I did not they would soon complain or probe me incessantly until I did."

If this is true then it's a shame. Perhaps students expect you to put forward a view so they know what view to take in your classroom? Perhaps they're worried that if they propose an opposing view they will be marked down? How could they not worry once they know what you think?

I think a big problem with education today is that its fallen too much into advocacy. Educationalists shouldn't be putting forward a view at all. They should be directing students to look at the evidence and decide for themselves what they think. In fact, academics should be playing the devil's advocate role: whatever view a student has the academic should be pointing the student to counter evidence and asking the student to explain why they don't accept that evidence. For example, if a student comes to you and says global warming is a major issues then you should be pointing him or her to sceptics and asking the student to refute the views of the sceptics.

Students are usually young and impressionable people. They respect their teachers as some of the most important people in their lives. If their teachers take a view, unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they will tend to accept that view too. Afterall, the teacher is the teacher because he or she knows more than the students. This is especially the case with school aged children. Hence, when teachers tell students their views it can easily be seen as indoctrination rather than education.

My experience of university is that they (or at least the one I attended, admittedly only for residential schools) are hotbeds of leftist/green politics and "political correctness". The course notes were particular about students using "racist or sexist" language, banning words such as "chairman". I was tempted to use "woperson" instead of "woman" but, like many others I suppose, was afraid of poor marks for not toeing the political line (or rather, mocking the political line). While external students come from a wide cross-section of the community, the internals were almost invariably left-wing in their politics, some rabidly so. I guess that comes from the former having to work for a living while the latter got by on government handouts? Many lecturers (especially in Arts/Social Sciences) seemed to live in lah-lah land, perhaps because, as has been alluded to in other posts, they have never held down a "real" job. Lecturers in the Sciences seemed a lot more "down to earth", although there was still an element of "perennial student" amongst them too- those who lived only to do research and write papers.

It is almost impossible to be apolitical and teach politics at uni. The key is to teach in such a way to allow students to think, research and form their own conclusions AND to be able to support their views with reason and rational arguments. Even if the lecturer's underpants are showing so to speak, this might open up avenues of debate and interesting discussions.

For those who wrongly believe that universities are hotbeds of Communists and mad lefties overstate the situation. The influence is there but the effects cannot be too extreme if one is to look at how politics has swung to the Right over the last 30 years. Our current mob of pollies on both sides are products of a 70/80s 'leftist' tertiary education which would suggest the doomsayers fears are unfounded.

There are many more factors at play than influences at uni and the principles of economic rationalism, for one, were certainly not taught in any university I am aware of.

Jay is totally correct. I support and defend an academics right to have a point of view and his freedom to express that point of view regardless. In the words of Samuel Johnson, "Everyman has the right to say what he believes to be the truth and it is every man's right to knock him down for it." I do not wish academics to hide behind a cloak of secrecy as to their political viewpoint. You do not have to be blind Freddy to work out the political persuasion of others. It's obvious and can't be hidden! Let's have the debate. Who is afraid of free speech?

What we learn at school and university is insignificant to the learning we do later. Institutions are there to instill in us the processes of learning, not to comprehensively indoctrinate us with all the skill and knowledge we need to acquire for life and certainly not to indoctrinate us with the particular views which any particular educator might hold.

"Education" should equip us to be able to distinguish the truth from the lie, between right and wrong and to give us the confidence to challenge the less than truthful, be it a David Irvine or a Global Warming Zealot or on a more difficult level, ones own view on say abortion.

Rainier “Right wingers who want to indoctrinate without any reflexivity at all about their teaching practice or their ideological straight jacketing are the most destructive. Hitler showed us this.”

I have little concern for the right wing, the extremes like Hitler do not rate in any broad sense.

Personally, I hold more concern for the left-wingers, bearing in mind the massively greater genocide committed by the socialist (who’s goal is communism, according to Lenin) and who are far more insidious and likely to pollute the minds of impressionable children with lies about how capitalism is unfair to the some and how socialism treats all equally, meaning equal poverty and equal repression.

Regarding “However, i reserve to right to not to put up with ludites here on OLO.
Their intellectual retardation is their choice alone.”

Actually the ludites were of the left (smashing the machines owned by the naughty capitalists).

I guess your own "intellectual prowess" might be suffering a little but last time I looked, “retardation” is non-discretionary attribute.

I am reminded of the old saying by Georges Clemenceau

"Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head."

KOLLONTAI “Who is afraid of free speech”
I agree, always remember

“Freedom of Speech distinguishes between the Sage and the Fool based on the merit of their words.
Censorship treats their words the same.”

When I tutored WWII history at university - quite some years ago - the head of the department carpetted me for my approach to my tutorial groups.

The first statement I made to the tute groups was that they, the students, had to question everything they were told - in lectures, by me, the media, even their parents - they must research for facts.

They were also told that if they presented a paper at variance with what they were taught, and it was well researched, well argued and referenced, they would be marked accordingly.

The tutorials were extremely noisy and productive; quite unlike some others where students, often too intimidated to speak, sat like silent shaggs on a rock. Importantly, they were given permission to think for themselves.

I marked the first two term's papers. None failed.

At the end of the year, when the papers were marked by others, none of my students received less than a credit; they also had more distinctions than any other groups.

Given permission to think for themselves, the tools to use, and room for healthy debate, university students are competent to arrive at informed answers.

No academic should impose their beliefs upon their students; certainly not try to indoctrinate them.

Let me move from a personal discussion to eventually make a point about universities and capitalism.

When I taught at University my approach was "Doubt all, doubt all" and that included whatever I said or did. This was seemingly difficult in the context of tax law for example, but the discussion of policy and law helped students debate a range of issues from left to right.

Couple that with a soft Socratic approach, and I consistently rated very very well from students. But ten per cent just couldn't abide the classes. I think they may have been the group in society who want dogmatic answers and have dogmatic views.

But I decided in the end this group would never enjoy what I taught and the way I taught but only did the course on sufferance - to be future tax lawyers, tax accountants and so on or because they understood at least that tax imposed itself on every business and work activity.

But it was the rest of the class whom I really engaged and inspired - not just about the particular tax law in question and its relationship to other tax areas but also to think and question why the law was the way it was, where taxes came from and developed, the results the tax system produces.

The point for me was to inspire students to question and think for themselves, to develop if they could original solutions (whether within the box or outside it was not that important) and to doubt, doubt and doubt.

Although a very large number of students loved me, the same could not be said of some of my peers who treated those who had different ideas (or even, shock, horror tried to organise the staff) with complete disdain.

I would go further than the author. Capitalism needs its thinking technocrats and so produces a mixed bunch - from some who are thought automatons, to some who do indeed doubt all, including capitalism itself. That is the nature of a University under capitalism. I'd be, like France in May 1968, for democratising universities.