< PREVIOUS ]   [ 2003 Index ]   [ Ed Quillen HOME ]   [ SEARCH ]   [ NEXT >


The protection racket?

Published 18 November 2003 in The Denver Post.
Copyright ©2003 by Ed Quillen. All rights reserved.

For many years, we have been told that conservatism was all about individual strength and courage, whereas it was those wimpy liberals who whined for protection from the government.

But now it appears that this perception was wrong, since a powerful state senator is stepping forward to protect the huddled and beleaguered conservatives on Colorado's college campuses.

That's not quite how state Sen. John Andrews, a Republican from Centennial, puts it. Last week, he sent a letter to the presidents of all 29 public institutions of higher education in Colorado, inquiring as to how well they're protecting academic freedom.

He said students and faculty have told him that they fear for their grades or their careers if they don't keep a lid on their patriotism or their faith, and there have been reports -- unsubstantiated, of course -- about a student getting some kind of criticism from a professor because the student, who was enrolled in ROTC, wore a military uniform to class.

For a moment, let us assume that this is true. Now consider what military officers do, especially at the company level. They lead soldiers under hostile fire in combat.

Now, would you want to be commanded by some poltroon who couldn't handle a few words from a professor, let alone an enemy machine gun? Do you think our country could be well defended by such officers? Wouldn't we be better off if such light-weights were removed from the officers' training program long before they ever got near combat?

To put this another way, that's not anybody I'd ever want to share a trench with. Andrews ought to thank whatever hostile environment there is for improving the quality of our officer corps.

Similarly, you have to wonder about the commitment and faith of anyone who can't handle a skeptical environment. There were the early Christians, who faced lions in the coliseum of Rome rather than betray their faith. And then there are the mousy modern believers in Colorado, who need protection?

Andrews seems to be confused about how colleges operate. One of his four questions asks What formal policies exist at your institution to guarantee that no student, faculty member or employee is subjected to discrimination, harassment or a hostile academic environment on account of his or her political or religious beliefs?

That sounds noble, but now imagine there a student who believes that the earth came into being at 9 a.m. on Oct. 23, 4004 B.C., as calculated by Archbishop James Ussher in the 17th century.

Now put that student in a college class -- say, Petroleum Geology 201. And every time the professor starts to explain why crude oil might pool in 250 million-year-old Permian structures, this student objects. The professor tells him that they're not there to discuss his religious beliefs, but to learn how to find oil deposits, and the student should shut up and learn the material.

Obviously, this student has been subjected to a hostile academic environment on account of his religious beliefs. But what are the other students going to get out of the class if it turns into a discussion of creationism rather than an explanation of geology? And where are we going to find competent geologists in the future if our colleges are busy protecting the feelings of students, rather than educating them?

Another item in the Andrews inquisition asks What is your institution's process for handling complaints and determining remedies in the event someone experiences a violation of academic freedom?

I wish Andrews would define academic freedom. If it means freedom to pursue truth, or freedom to interpret events in a way different from the Bush Administration's line, then I'm all for it.

However, I recall only one encounter with it during my student days. I enrolled in a course whose title was 20th Century American Literature.

On the first day, the instructor informed us that we were really going to study Modern American Protest Poetry because it was so much more relevant than Sinclair Lewis and H.L. Mencken. Since the regular campus classroom was so sterile, we would meet at her apartment, which was on the other side of town and a major inconvenience to my schedule. And because she didn't like any bookstores in Greeley, the texts were available only at a little bookstore in Boulder, which just happened to be owned by a friend of hers.

This struck me as breach of contract, but my only recourse was to drop the course, which I promptly did. In the process, I ran into the department chairman, explained why I was there, and asked if there was anything he could do about this.

Not really, he said, since it could be a matter of academic freedom.

Oh well. It's sort of fun to speculate about how Andrews will defend that sort of thing.


< PREVIOUS ]   [ 2003 Index ]   [ Ed Quillen HOME ]   [ SEARCH ]   [ NEXT >