Over the past week, I have been at the receiving end of attacks by many people -attacks on my thoughts and beliefs, glaring looks and pointed fingers; I have even had entire tables turn around to see if I was really that ignorant neocon who writes a column for The Post. Needless to say, it has been a fun week witnessing the response when confronted with reason in the confines of a university. Just for clarity, though, I could care less if anyone respects me as a person. What I do care about is that my opinions are given fair consideration when presented.
I started writing for The Post in order to represent the other half of this campus, as the title of the column implies. The Other Half
of course, represents the conservative side of OU. As a result, I have become the enemy of free speech and coherent arguments; at least that's what the left-leaning responses indicate to me. That last sentence was sarcastic, for those of you who have a hard time figuring that out. So let's try this state Senate Bill 24 discussion one last time.
Many people want to say that what makes having a university education so great is the ability to be challenged in one's own viewpoint, or rather, being presented with contrary ideas. Great, I agree. But when that opposite viewpoint is overwhelmingly one-sided, where is the diversity? It is not the discussion of ideas that Senate Bill 24 wants to get rid of, but rather, it is the lack of diversity on campuses and the protection of students from harassment by extremist professors that the bill seeks to address.
Because everyone loves to quote surveys, here is one that I have found. A survey conducted in 2003 concerning the political affiliation of professors found that 80 to 90 percent of them identify themselves as Democrats (http://swopec.hhs.se/ratioi/abs/ratioi0053.htm). With these demographics, it is hard to take university-forwarded diversity seriously when all they seem to be concerned with is the diversity of skin color instead of the diversity of ideas.
The proposed SB 24 was not written in order to suppress freedom of speech, and I am guessing those who proposed it understand the guarantee of free speech as outlined in the First Amendment. The bill seeks to help those students who are judged and harassed by professors according to their beliefs. For example, David Horowitz mentions in an article (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=16301) that a teacher in a Colorado university gave a mid-term exam with the question ,Explain why George Bush is a war criminal. He also mentions a professor at the University of Colorado who told his class that the 'R' in Republicans stands for 'racist.' Professors who choose to use their class as a soap box, regardless of class topic, and to preach their personal political views have no business being in the classroom.
The reason this bill is necessary is not because conservatives seek to suppress opposite viewpoints, but because certain professors have not learned how to respect differing opinions. Not until all opinions on campus (when relevant to class topic) are accepted and given equal treatment will universities truly have diversity.
SB 24 does not seek to limit professors from teaching their point of view in class; it just says that they need to also present scholarly viewpoints other than their own. Section F of the proposed bill states: Faculty and instructors shall be free to pursue and discuss their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views but they shall make their students aware of serious scholarly viewpoints other than their own. No matter how radical -and in the case of University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, no matter how ignorant and anti-American -teachers should be allowed to teach their slant on things, but they also must look at the other side of the argument in order to present an adequate picture for students.
The great thing about this bill is its neutral value. It will apply to liberals as well as conservatives. So in case you have that one-out-of-10 conservative professor, you will be spared vast right-wing conspiracy indoctrination.
So before everyone sets out to bash me again, I ask that you really read what I write. Learn what sarcasm is and how to distinguish between what is actually said and what you wish would have been said. Don't put words into a writer's mouth or draw false parallels from his or her arguments. Learn to recognize mere examples and differentiate between them and the crux of an argument. And finally, if you have a problem with me, go ahead and glare and point fingers, but why not try actually talking to me? You might find out that I am not such a crazy right-wing nut job.
-Timothy Boggs is a junior specialized studies major. Send him an e-mail at timothy.boggs@ohiou.edu.
17
Archives
The Post Editorial Board
