BALANCE UNPOPULAR AT PRINCETON

Middle East studies has become blatantly politicized, with many professors abrogating their responsibility to even try for balance in the classroom. Schools that allow for genuine diversity in this area are, according to analysts, few and far between. And at one such school, Princeton — some would say the only such school — proponents of ideological conformity are itching to prevent a rising-star scholar with dissenting views from receiving a tenured post in his department.

Princeton's Middle East battle is quieter than Columbia's, but in a way it's no less important. At its center is Michael Doran, an assistant professor and protégé of Bernard Lewis who teaches the modern politics of the region in the university's Near Eastern Studies department. Last spring, Doran was up for tenure, but the university chose to defer his consideration because he was invited to serve as the chairman of a new program at Brandeis. (He declined the offer.)

Doran is well-credentialed. His students rave about his classes, and Middle East experts outside of the American academy — such as Kramer and the Shalem Center's Michael Oren, author of Six Days of War — speak highly of him. (Kramer and Oren, like Doran, studied at Princeton. Oren calls Doran "a gift to the field.") He's written widely noted articles in Foreign Affairs and other popular publications, and has served as a consultant to the U.S. government on matters Middle Eastern. He also happens to be politically to the right — and unapologetic about it. In a field dominated by anti-Western dogmatism, Doran stands out for his political inclinations, his unusual analyses (particularly for a Middle East scholar these days), and his popularity. It's hardly shocking that some professors, likely guided by both politics and jealousy, would hope to prevent his further rise.......

Doran also has plenty of support from students. Two recent graduates (one, Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky, a former intern at National Review) wrote letters to the editor defending Doran. They and several others praised him highly to NRO, calling him an excellent teacher and adviser, and adding that they found it difficult to discern his political leanings from his classes. "He's very good at presenting both sides," says recent graduate Shoshana Haberman. "And I don't always agree with him, but I've always had a huge amount of respect for the way he presents the history. He does a very good job of trying to get behind the point of view of whoever we're studying or writing about."......

Sam Spector, who wrote his senior thesis under Doran and also worked as a research assistant to him while an undergraduate at Princeton, explains that "the controversy really blew up because Doran's publications were seen as to some degree supportive of the Bush administration's policies, which are needless to say not popular with the majority of academics, particularly academics who specialize in the Middle East and who believe that the U.S is the single greatest force for bad and instability in the region."

Yet, while Doran's publications do challenge academic orthodoxies, they hardly reflect the work of a far-right ideologue, and he is generally well regarded among centrists. If anything, the overriding themes of his articles are a qualified defense of American power and a view that Arab politics, and Arab problems, are more about Arabs themselves than about Israel: As he argued in one essay, "Palestine" has become a generic symbol of resistance to the West. These may sound like fairly uncontroversial propositions to you, but in academic Middle East studies they're far from it. If, as Michael Young has suggested, the major dividing line in the field is where one stands on the "substance of Western power and its historical impact," Doran clearly takes a minority — and often-derided — position.

But there's another, and maybe deeper, reason for the hostility toward him, and that is that his presence serves as a symbol of Princeton's resistance to the post-modernization — and with it, the politicization — of its Middle East studies. The fact that he is not only a serious and right-leaning scholar but also a popular and influential one means that, if he sticks around, Princeton will be even less likely to succumb to trendy approaches in lieu of rigorous scholarship. As Martin Kramer puts it, "The attack on [Doran] comes from the very far-left 'popular front' that has squelched diversity in Middle Eastern studies for the last 20 years. They'd like every place to be a Columbia or NYU or Berkeley — they regard the existence of even one pocket of diversity as a mortal threat."

More here




Johns Hopkins Lacking in Political Diversity

A student writes

On campuses around the country there is a deep commitment to diversity of race, ethnicity, nationality, sex or religion. Yet, while we all share the goal of being educated in a diverse environment, we may have different ideas about what constitutes diversity. This is not to say that certain aspects of diversity are more important than others -- in no way should any facet be ignored, but invariably due to a lack of resources certain groups are skipped over or not given their fair share.

As a senior on my way out of Hopkins and off into the real world, and as someone who has consistently advocated for the cause of College Republicans on campus, I'd like to posit my theory about an area of diversity in which our community is lacking -- ideological diversity. My liberal friends often argue that Hopkins is a conservative campus. Certainly when compared to Berkley or Wesleyan, JHU may appear friendly to Republicans, but is it really? According to the last survey taken by the News-Letter only 16.5 percent of Hopkins identified themselves as right of center and 70 percent of the student body claimed they would be voting for a candidate other than George W. Bush. Of the faculty, the News-Letter reported that during the last election cycle not a single professor donated $200 or more to any conservative candidate or cause. Given the statistics, I'd argue that the claim that Hopkins is a conservative biased institution is a myth.

But how are Republicans treated? Is there anger or a manifestation of bias directed against conservatives at Hopkins? The evidence points to a problem. As an example, Justin Klatsky, President of the College Republicans, told me that fall semester over 80 percent of the College Republican posters promoting club meetings were torn down within 48 hours of being posted. When I led the club, I remember that posters promoting conservative guest lecturers on campus were torn and the words "Fascist' and "Nazi' were written on the ones that remained. The College Republicans must poster campus in waves, replacing the posters which are torn down and defaced on an almost daily basis. Worse yet, the administration response to such activity is to do nothing.

If other campus minorities were treated in such a way, would the administration sit in silence? As a parallel example, my freshman year when the Diverse Sexuality and Gender Alliance's (DSAGA) posters were defaced and torn down by faceless cowards, the administration response was swift. Almost immediately, a notice was sent out stating that those who perpetrated such acts would be caught and punished. News-Letter columns were written about the events on campus and tolerance days were funded. Yet, when the same thing happens to conservative groups on a regular basis, the response is to do nothing.

Why is freedom of academic opinion only protected for 50 percent of Americans? Furthermore, why is it that conservative professors feel the need to hide their ideology, often by registering to vote as independents or unenrolled? Why do only 16.5 percent of students feel comfortable labeling themselves as right of center? Is it because the word conservative is often synonymous with 'idiot' on college campuses?

Often I hear the argument that 90 percent of professors are liberal because conservatives are just hicks, or uninterested in the academic profession. If a college gave the excuse that they don't hire female professors because women are naturally deficient in academics or disinterested in life outside of the home, would that be considered a valid argument?

Hopkins has fallen victim to the same problem faced by many of our nation's colleges. We must foster a renewed effort on our campus to engage the subject of ideological diversity. Conservative faculty should be hired and academic tolerance should be promoted. As David Horowitz notes, "You can't get a good education, if they're only telling you half the story -- even if you're paying $30,000 a year."

Source





LEFTIST STUDENT UNIONS SCUPPERED IN AUSTRALIA

And the compulsion-loving Leftists are squealing

Universities could face multi-million-dollar fines if they attempt to circumvent a government ban on charging compulsory student union fees, under tough legislation to be unveiled by Education Minister Brendan Nelson. The Howard Government's plan to end compulsory student unionism in Australia will also force universities to cover any shortfall in the cost of student services, presently funded by the $160 million-a-year collected in union fees. The legislation contains heavy financial penalties for universities that try to bypass the ban by charging their own levy to subsidise campus services such as cafeterias, bars and sporting clubs.

Vice-chancellors last night condemned the Nelson plan as the "death of services" on campus, which could damage Australia's reputation overseas. However, Dr Nelson told parliament that struggling students should not be forced to pay union fees, quipping that the introduction of market forces into campus catering could reduce the price of a sausage roll.

Despite secret discussions among vice-chancellors last year to consider a peace plan that banned student unions from using fees to fund political campaigns but retained a compulsory fee for campus services, the new legislation has rejected any compromise. At present, students are charged upfront fees of up to $590 when they enrol at university, with the proceeds used to fund services including cafeterias, sporting clubs, student welfare services and political campaigns. Students cannot enrol to study unless they pay the compulsory union fee, despite complaints among part-time and external students that they rarely use campus services.

The Australian understands the new laws will allow universities just 28 days to offer refunds to students if they charge compulsory fees. Universities that fail to refund compulsory charges will face fines of $100 for every full-time student. For example, Monash University, which has 30,000 full-time undergraduates, could face fines of up to $3 million. Sydney University would face fines of up to $2.6 million, Melbourne University $2.5 million, Adelaide University $1 million and the Curtin University of Technology in Western Australia $2 million.

Dr Nelson refused to comment on the penalties plan last night but confirmed student fees were costing students $160 million a year. Earlier, Dr Nelson told parliament the Howard Government would push ahead with plans to introduce voluntary student unionism as soon as possible. "Every Australian, whether they be in a workplace or a university campus, should be free to not join a union," he said. "Why should a single parent, a mother of two who goes back to university to study nursing, subsidise the abseiling club? Why should she subsidise buses to Woomera or the purchase of axes to break down the vice-chancellors' offices? "Why is it that a student in the 21st century goes to Sydney University to pay $2 for a sausage roll when they can buy one for $1.70 off campus and be served by a person who actually smiles at them? "This Government will not be deterred from its course of action. This will be implemented in 2005."

More here

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

***************************