Thanks to Dan for letting me post a few in September. As I leave Prawfs behind, I’d like to leave a meditation on Susan Kuo’s question about dealing with sensitive issues in the class room. She is concerned about students who make remarks revealing, e.g., “assumptions about a particular racial group” or what I would assume groups that have been identified as historically disadvantaged. I agree that this is an important issue. I have written here in the past on what I perceive to be the obligation on the part of a professor to make students feel welcome. Because of a number of things that I do outside of the classroom, my political views are well known to our students. A number of the courses in my package raise controversial issues and I am very intentional about making clear that one gains nothing by agreeing with me and losing nothing by disagreeing, citing the number of times I’ve given the CALI Award for papers taking position with which I disagreed. As someone who has opposed same sex marriage on secular and Burkean grounds, I have been very intentional about clarifying my views in a way that make clear that they don’t involve moral or other judgments about gays and lesbians that would make them less than full participants in the academy community. But I wonder if we all do that as much as we should. It continues to trouble me that – in both academic and public discourse – we have a tendency to not simply disagree with, but to impute bad faith to our opponents. Thus, at yesterday’s One America rally, Ed Schultz referred to conservatives as forces of evil. Recently, Rep. Alan Grayson equated differences on health care policy with the notion that Republicans want sick people to “die quickly.” Differences on immigration policy are labeled as racist and opponents of same sex marriage are dismissed, not as wrong, but hateful. Of course, my side of the political playground does the same thing, calling people who want a little more government “socialists” and those who disagree on certain national security matters “soft” on terrorism. But, given the lack of ideological diversity in the academy, our students are much more likely to be subjected to the unexamined assumptions of the left. I was struck – in attending a recent event – the easiness with which opposition to same sex marriage was treated by two prominent speakers (not from my law school) with ridicule and disdain. I would never – at least in an academic setting – treat opposing views in that way. I appreciate that one response to this type of argument – often made when I raise it (but, again, not by my colleagues at Marquette) – is “well, the conservative position on such and such is truly beyond the pale.” Is that right? Or does it suggest the need for more self examination? Till next time.
Posted by Richard Esenberg on October 4, 2010 at 11:18 AM