« Tax Reforms | Main | Berger Going to Jail? Part 2 »
March 31, 2005
Columbia University
Here are some links about the Columbia University report on anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli activities by the University. First there is this report from the New York Sun about questionable actions by the University and some other newspapers:
In an effort to manage favorable coverage of its investigation into the complaints, the university disclosed a summary of the committee's report only to the Columbia Spectator, the campus newspaper, and the New York Times. Those newspapers, sources indicated to The New York Sun last night, made an agreement with the central administration that they would not speak to the students who made the complaints against the professors.
Here is a response by some of the students:
Late last night, the Ad-Hoc Committee released its report detailing its findings after months long investigation into charges of intimidation levied against a handful of professors in the MEALAC department. The conclusion: months of research were not necessary. The report treated seriously only three of the most widely publicized out of the well over 60 complaints brought before the committee. In addition, the university attempted to control the media's reaction to the findings of the Ad-Hoc Committee by brokering a deal of exclusivity with the New York Times regarding the report. When approached by members of CAF to gain access to hear the reading of the Committee report, Susan Brown, the university spokesperson divulged that the university had granted the Times exclusive rights to read the report. In return for the right to see the report before anyone else, the New York Times agreed not to seek comment from students. The article was released before any students were even permitted to read the original report. The report was defined in the public consciousness by the university without any thought about its students.
Deacon at Powerline has some issues with the Panel:
The panel found "no evidence of any statements made by faculty that could reasonably be construed as anti-Semitic." But that finding isn't surprising inasmuch as the panel consisted entirely of five faculty members, several of whom have expressed anti-Israel views, according to the Times. This may explain why the panel viewed the statement referred to above to the green-eyed Jewish student as an integral part of an argument, rather than an obviously racist remark.
In a final related issue Todd Zywicki reminds us why we have universities in the first place and why ideological diversity in important:
Educating critical thinking skills: Ideological diversity has a lot to do with this. The purpose of education should be to teach students how to think, not what to think. I don't know how you can teach students to analyze arguments and determine the truth value about claims about the world if you don't expose them to a variety of ideas. As Greg Ransom observes the presence of an intellectual orthodoxy on campus can severely hamper student's critical reasoning skills. Ransom's experience is that many students do in fact absorb some degree of indoctrination at a very superficial level, and that the virtual absence of any serious counterarguments leaves them at this very superficial and unreflective mode of analysis. I think this is probably right--for instance, I am amazed at the shallowness of analysis that I hear from ostensibly educated students. Comments I hear about environmental issues, in particular, come to mind.
My best professors were the ones that always argued for whatever position was losing the debate in the class at the moment. I still think one of the best teaching techniques is to force students to defend theories or ideas they do not agree with.
Posted by Pete at March 31, 2005 02:32 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.petetheelder.com/mt-tb.cgi/450