ACTA's Must-Reads
« It's official: FAIR didn't play fair | Main | Northern Kentucky in tight spot »
Case studies in campus activism
Immigration has become the issue du jour on campuses across the country, and it's no surprise that the normative institutional stance on the issue is left-leaning--pro "immigrants' rights" (a phrase that assumes the putative "right" of illegal immigrants not to be deported or otherwise punished for being in the country illegally) and, of course, pro protest.
At the University of Pennsylvania, local rallies have been embraced in the manner one might expect of activist faculty who see their classrooms as ideological soapboxes. As Philadelphia geared up for a rally organized by the Day Without an Immigrant Coalition, at least one Penn professor pressed his students into the movement's service. "One of the marchers, Penn Asian-American Studies professor Ajay Nair, said he recommended that students in two of his classes attend the rally," the Daily Pennsylvanian reported. Nair told the DP that he's been doing his best to recruit his students to his cause: "We've also invited community folks to come and talk about immigration," Nair said. "I've been getting my classes mobilized." As one might expect, the spectacle of a professor working to "get his classes mobilized" was presented by the DP as completely acceptable practice--despite the fact that Nair's behavior is quite ethically questionable, not to mention pedagogically irresponsible. Using the classroom to promote political views is just what professors do; Nair can thus be forthright about it, and the paper can report it matter-of-factly, without surprise or comment.
At Penn State, things are playing out a little differently. Penn State is currently faced with the embarrassing problem of a College Republicans club that wishes to protest proposed legislation that, in the CRs' opinion, would essentially reward immigrants for having entered the country illegally. The College Republicans are consequently planning an "Illegal Immigration Awareness Day" that aims, like the affirmative action bake sale protests that are its agit prop ancestor, to educate by offending. The centerpiece of the event will be the "Catch an Illegal Immigrant Game," which purports to "raise awareness" by enlisting participants in a contest to see who can obtain the most information about illegal immigration.
Penn State administrators are, predictably, offended in advance by the CR's plans, but they've been in enough trouble enough times with FIRE to know they have to honor the First Amendment rights of conservative students. Unable simply to censor or otherwise punish the College Republicans, PSU administrators are urging the CRs to consider whether they really want to engage in expression that will be offensive to many on campus. Their exhortations are couched in studiously careful terms that both state the university's awareness that the CRs have the right to go forward with their event and communicate a strong wish that they wouldn't.
Here's Terrell Jones, vice provost for educational equity: "As we've learned more about what was proposed, it's evident why many people would find this program offensive. ... The College Republicans certainly have a Constitutional right to conduct such an event, offensive as it may appear to some in the community. In protecting everyone's right to free expression, the University cannot censor the content of student-organized events." Jones sounds a bit wistful here -- as if he wishes PSU did have the right to censor certain student events.
Here's Vicky Triponey, vice president for student affairs: "Penn State is committed to ensuring respect for the dignity of all individuals within the university family. ... The University continues to strive for a welcoming campus community. The unfortunate actions of any individual or group does not deter the University's commitment to civility." Triponey makes it quite clear here that while the CRs have the right to proceed, they are violating the "University's commitment to civility" by expressing views that might offend others. There is a strong sense, from her statement, that while the CRs' "unfortunate actions" are showing a lack of respect for "the dignity of all individuals within the university family," the CRs do not themselves deserve to be accorded the same basic respect. To be a full member of the university "family" (a loaded term that totally mischaracterizes the proper temper and tone of campus culture), one must accept the implicit politics--and accompanying etiquette--endorsed by that family.
And here's PSU president Graham Spanier himself: "The nation's immigration policy is a legitimate topic for discussion and debate, and a university is clearly an ideal forum for such discourse. We encourage discussion on such issues. ... However, the approach initially proposed by the College Republicans, while protected by the First Amendment, was unproductive and offensive to many." It may be true that offending people is not the most productive means of promoting one's ends -- but it is also worth noting not only that the CRs have already managed to spark debate, but also that Spanier, in tacitly declaring that which offends to be "unproductive," may not be as open to debate as he says he is. If he were, he would be announcing that the CRs' protest is an opportunity to exchange views on all sides of the question, rather than deploring the CRs for choosing to broach the subject in a manner that might bother people.
Penn State admins know they can't censor the College Republicans. But they don't grasp how sad their cringing disapproval of the CRs really is. As administrators, they should be signalling the importance of debating the issues openly and robustly, no matter who raises them and how they are raised. They should not be falling back on a snobbish evocation of manners and civility to mark a student group out as mean, and therefore as somehow deviant or illegitimate.
Conversely, Penn admins might want to take notice of Professor Nair's blithe declaration of his intent to "mobilize" his classes in the service of his politics. At the very least, Nair and others who share his assumptions about the value of turning students into "change agents" ought to be reminded that this is an abuse of authority, one that almost certainly sends the message to students that their grades and good standing may depend, in some unspecified way, on whether or not they curry favor with their professors by parroting their politics.
Posted by acta online on April 13, 2006 at April 13, 2006 09:00 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/138
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Case studies in campus activism:
» Charlie's Show Prep #75 from The American Mind
The road builders say there isn't enough money for southeast Wisconsin highways. I weep--not really. Want to talk about... [Read More]
Tracked on April 14, 2006 04:03 AM