Sat 30 Sep 2006
Although this WSO thread has moved off topic, I liked this bit from Daniel Binder.
I agree that professors should be more or less objective in their teaching. Unfortunately, I have found that many fail to do that. In a number of classes I have taken, it has been clear that the professor was liberal. The best professors here avoid that. Before taking Leadership Studies 125 with Prof. McAllister, more than one person told me that he was one of the more conservative professors on campus. Once I took the class I really couldn’t understand what those people were talking about. He encouraged discussion on everything and never injected his own bias into the material. In fact, if a student made a point, he would take the opposite (liberal or conservative) simply to force the person to back up his or her views. I don’t want to turn this post into a fan letter, but my point is that McAllister seems to be one of the profs who really “gets” it and teaches fact, not opinion, but at the same time encourages students to form their own opinions.
1) It is certainly a true statement that McAllister is one of the “one of the more conservative professors on campus.” At Williams, if you’re a Scoop Jackson Democrat, you might as well be a charter member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
2) I am pleased to see McAllister, an EphBlog author, praised in this way. I have heard similar praise for Marc Lynch and Sam Crane. Perhaps blogging makes you open-minded. Or open-minded people are more likely to appreciate blogs. Or something.
3) It would be nice to hear more details about the “many” professors at Williams who “fail” to be objective in their teaching. True? I am not looking to start a Horowitzian witch-hunt, but I do like details. Perhaps Blinder or someone else could supply them. It isn’t even necessary to name the professors. Just tell us what professor X did or said that, in your view, was not “objective” teaching.
September 30th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Given the amount of effort devoted to identifying the main players in the Nigelian incident, I’m not sure such an exercise wouldn’t turn into a “Horowitzian witch hunt.”
September 30th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Binder
September 30th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
1) Well, as the main witch-hunter, if I promise there won’t be a witch hunt then there probably won’t be one.
2) How many times do I have to say this? I like it when liberal professors bring their liberal ideas into the classroom! I have no problem with a professor being honest about her beliefs and displaying her passion in them. I even defended the invitation to the cultists from WMLA to “lecture” to Williams students. If it turns out the Binder is correct and some professors act less than neutrally in the classroom, then I will be the first to defend their right to do so. (I may also mock them and criticize them, but that is what the free exchange of ideas is all about.)
3) My main concern, as always, is with the facts. What is said and what is not said in a Williams classroom? Curious alums want to know.
4) Spelling mistake fixed. Thanks!
September 30th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Ditto on the praise for Professor McAllister.
September 30th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
that post was praising the decision to let the cult in? do we read the same words?
witch-hunters always think it isn’t a witch-hunt (unless, of course, they’re actually hunting witches). If they thought it were a witch-hunt, they’d stop.
September 30th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
I’m not sure objectivity is the goal. Obviously professors should draw sophisticated thought out of all of their students and should encourage any student to challenge their assumptions regardless of what they are. But if a student asks Prof. Smith what he (gender-neutral) thinks about President John’s policy towards North Korea and Prof. Smith, an expert in the field, think it is a disaster, shouldn’t he say so, explain why, and encourage students to challenge him? Is that bias? Is that going to cause a massive conversion of students to Prof. Smith’s orthodoxy?
I’ve never cared if you have a bunch of thoughtful professors across a wide-spectrum who each are open about what they believe. In the IR context, I think it’s more useful to engage in conversation with a Marc Lynch and a James McAllister, understand how they view challenges and doctrines, question/challenge them, and then form your own views. You won’t be able to do that if they each constantly worry about making sure they keep their comments bland and balanced.
The problem is if all of the professors share the same approach to their field. That’s why the college should look for balance in the faculty with regards to meaningful qualities such as the ideological approach they bring to their field.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:53 am
Mike Needham, is that you? Since when the hell have you been reasonable? I thought you wanted to nuke China and stuff.