"Indoctrinate U"

An article about political correctness on the college campus in the USA.

[quote]The pariahs of our college campuses
By Katherine Kersten, Star Tribune, Last update: October 24, 2007 – 7:39 PM

Over the years, Prof. Ken Doyle has seen a stream of students enter his office with a crestfallen look. The young undergraduates typically begin by saying they’re worried about one of their professors. Doyle, who directs the communication research division at the University of Minnesota’s School of Journalism and Mass Communications, has a good idea how the story will end.

The particulars differ, but the complaint is usually the same. “Some students tell of being mocked for holding views that differ from their professors’,” Doyle says. “Some fear they are endangering their grades. Many say, ‘I’ve figured out what the professor wants to hear and I just parrot back his ideology.’”

It’s become a common complaint that U.S. campuses are home to a stifling liberal orthodoxy where contrary beliefs are persecuted. Doyle says it’s no illusion.

A new film, “Indoctrinate U,” documenting that atmosphere, opens near campus tomorrow.(more at link)
startribune.com/191/story/1506348.html[/quote]

St, Olafs is mentioned in the ‘comments’ section of a blog discussing this article here:
The Pariahs of Our College Campuses

I received my BA in '74…pc was unheard of then. I wrapped up my Masters in '86 and it was just starting. I have seen the results of this Stalinistic doctrine exemplified in job applicants and workplace rules mandated by state and local governing bodies.
It stifles thought and creativity…IMO.

Stage 3 in building a totalitarian state: attack the academics.

Very true…thats why the stalinist pc elites have so successfully accumulated in the Ivory Towers of Academia.

Undergrads are pretty maleable.
Nothing like a professor, who only profess to know, can manipulate those hoop-jumpers. So timid of their own grasp of reality, they readily and willingly warp the minds of minnows!

Yawn, burp, fart…

Doyle doesn’t seem to be too intimidated by the liberal thought police, does he dumbo?

Interesting too that he doesn’t go into detail about the sort of beliefs that get mocked or the kind of classes they get mocked in. Young earth creationists being mocked in a geology class maybe?

From wikipedia…

What are your degrees in, TC?

Ben Stein has a new movie coming out that’s something along these lines. It’s called Expelled and is about how “big science” has shut down people who criticize Darwin and advocate intelligent design. Apparently, Stein feels intelligent design is a good scientific theory. I always thought he was smarter than that. It comes out in February 2008.

Hmmm…I would have expected more from Ben. He’s usually intelligent; a conservative I actually respect…usually.

Imagine an advocate of alchemy, astrology, perpetual motion or magic who demands equal time in the science labs of academia. Should he be taken seriously? Should he be given equal time?

I say that long- and oft-debunked theories should be left in their coffins to molder. Pseudoscience simply does not belong in science class, unless it’s a class on what science isn’t.

Its not wise to make decisions or base ones opinions on …“apparently”…and I think Ben Stein is both entitled to his own opinions and darn well smart enough to make his own arguments, which I’m certain would be good ones, to support them.

But it appears that some would throttle someone expressing their divergent opinion or theory…Hmmmmmmmm

Not all opinions or theories are worthy of being taught in a science class, as Chris’ examples illustrate. Do you believe that astrology should be taught as a legitimate alternative to astronomy? How alchemy as an alternative to chemistry?

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Its not wise to make decisions or base ones opinions on …“apparently”…and I think Ben Stein is both entitled to his own opinions and darn well smart enough to make his own arguments, which I’m certain would be good ones, to support them.

But it appears that some would throttle someone expressing their divergent opinion or theory…Hmmmmmmmm[/quote]

Should French be taught in German class? What if some professor of German “decided” his German classes would be devoted to French instruction? After all, it’s his divergent opinion…but should it condoned by the school?

There are places where pseudoscience and religion may be studied. You want to study I-Ching? Aromatherapy? Water divining? Vedic hermeneutics? One is free to do so. Science class, however, should be reserved for the teaching of…well…science.

True I wrote apparently because I haven’t seen the movie. I just looked at the website for the movie and Ben Stein wrote a blog entry for it. He didn’t say much about the science aspect but instead is focusing on making it a freedom issue. He claims that people will lose their jobs, funding or be refused tenure if they even mention God.

Of course, it may in fact not be a freedom issue but a bad science issue. If these scientists who are losing their jobs are shown to be doing verifiable, testable science that shows the possibility of a divine creator and are still losing their jobs then he has a point. But, if they cannot do this, then framing the problem as a freedom issue simply serves to confuse the issue. If they are not doing science and lose their science funding then it is not a freedom issue.

The expelled movie website is here expelledthemovie.com/home.php

This article refers to a University in the United States…I have no idea if this mandatory political indoctrination is being so aggressively pursued in other countries.

[quote]University of Delaware Requires Students to Undergo Ideological Reeducation
October 30, 2007

FIRE Press Release

NEWARK, Del., October 30, 2007—The University of Delaware subjects students in its residence halls to a shocking program of ideological reeducation that is referred to in the university’s own materials as a “treatment” for students’ incorrect attitudes and beliefs. The Orwellian program requires the approximately 7,000 students in Delaware’s residence halls to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is calling for the total dismantling of the program, which is a flagrant violation of students’ rights to freedom of conscience and freedom from compelled speech.

“The University of Delaware’s residence life education program is a grave intrusion into students’ private beliefs,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “The university has decided that it is not enough to expose its students to the values it considers important; instead, it must coerce its students into accepting those values as their own. At a public university like Delaware, this is both unconscionable and unconstitutional.”

The university’s views are forced on students through a comprehensive manipulation of the residence hall environment, from mandatory training sessions to “sustainability” door decorations. Students living in the university’s eight housing complexes are required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and one-on-one meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs). The RAs who facilitate these meetings have received their own intensive training from the university, including a “diversity facilitation training” session at which RAs were taught, among other things, that “[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. [color=red]The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.”[/color]

The university suggests that at one-on-one sessions with students, RAs should ask intrusive personal questions such as “When did you discover your sexual identity?” Students who express discomfort with this type of questioning often meet with disapproval from their RAs, who write reports on these one-on-one sessions and deliver these reports to their superiors. One student identified in a write-up as an RA’s “worst” one-on-one session was a young woman who stated that she was tired of having “diversity shoved down her throat.”

According to the program’s materials, the goal of the residence life education program is for students in the university’s residence halls to achieve certain “competencies” that the university has decreed its students must develop in order to achieve the overall educational goal of “citizenship.” These competencies include: “Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society,” “Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression,” and “Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality.”

At various points in the program, students are also pressured or even required to take actions that outwardly indicate their agreement with the university’s ideology, regardless of their personal beliefs. Such actions include displaying specific door decorations, committing to reduce their ecological footprint by at least 20%, taking action by advocating for an “oppressed” social group, and taking action by advocating for a “sustainable world.”

In the Office of Residence Life’s internal materials, these programs are described using the harrowing language of ideological reeducation. In documents relating to the assessment of student learning, for example, the residence hall lesson plans are referred to as “treatments.”

In a letter sent yesterday to University of Delaware President Patrick Harker, FIRE pointed out the stark contradiction between the residence life education program and the values of a free society. FIRE’s letter to President Harker also underscored the University of Delaware’s legal obligation to abide by the First Amendment. FIRE reminded Harker of the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), a case decided during World War II that remains the law of the land. Justice Robert H. Jackson, writing for the Court, declared, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

“The fact that the university views its students as patients in need of treatment for some sort of moral sickness betrays a total lack of respect not only for students’ basic rights, but for students themselves,” Lukianoff said. “The University of Delaware has both a legal and a moral obligation to immediately dismantle this program, and FIRE will not rest until it has.”

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process rights, freedom of expression, and rights of conscience on our campuses. FIRE would like to thank the Delaware Association of Scholars (DAS) for its invaluable assistance in this case. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty at the University of Delaware and elsewhere can be seen by visiting www.thefire.org.
thefire.org/index.php/article/8555.html[/quote]

Absolutely atrocious. Its a “Cultural Revolution” occurring in the American system. When does the cannibalism start?

thefire.org

Other countries? I’d be curious whether it exists in the US.

Shocking? Obviously this is a biased op-ed piece, not a news article.

What if those specific views were that students must not discriminate against others based on race, gender or sexual orientation; must not use abusive racist language; must dispose of their trash in proper trash receptacles? Would it be Orwellian for them to force such views on students?

[quote]The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is calling for the total dismantling of the program, which is a flagrant violation of students’ rights to freedom of conscience and freedom from compelled speech.

“The University of Delaware’s residence life education program is a grave intrusion into students’ private beliefs,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “The university has decided that it is not enough to expose its students to the values it considers important; instead, it must coerce its students into accepting those values as their own. At a public university like Delaware, this is both unconscionable and unconstitutional.”

The university’s views are forced on students through a comprehensive manipulation of the residence hall environment, from mandatory training sessions to “sustainability” door decorations. [/quote]

Tough shit. If you don’t like it, pick another school.

I don’t believe it. I believe that is a blatant misstatement of the facts and I challenge you to find proof that that’s what the RAs were told and by whom, because it’s obviously an idiotic statement. Perhaps one idiot made such a remark (though I’m doubtful of FIRE’s credibility), but that doesn’t necessarily represent the official university position and is definitely not representative of all US institutions of higher education.

Again, I don’t believe the above account. FIRE, if it really exists, or the author of your editorial, is obviously very angry and biased. I suspect he’s also making stuff up. But even if true, it just shows there’s one wacky RA at one school in America and if students don’t like it they should complain to the RA or his/her superior or move to another dorm or pick another school. The above quote says nothing about US universities as a whole being overly PC.

Please post a link to the materials. That should be a far more reliable source than your article.

Tough shit. If you don’t like it leave. There are 10,000 institutes of higher ed in the US. Who forced them to attend U Del? If I sign up at West Point, do I have a right to whine when they tell me to make my bed and shine my shoes?

Cheeky monkey…taking this a bit personal.

Not at all. I’d be pissed off too if I attended that school and half of what is reported is true, but I suspect (a) it’s not true and (b) even if it were true it’s definitely not representative of US education in general; it would be just one wacky school.

Furthermore, who goes to uni in Delaware anyway? :idunno:

MT -
a) Prove it isn’t true.
b) No one has said it is.

“Enrollment: Fall 2006 enrollment totals 20,380 which include 15,849 undergraduates, 3,446 graduate students, and 1,085 professional and continuing studies students. 14,992 (95%) of undergraduate and 2,540 (74%) of graduate students are enrolled on a full-time basis. 42% of undergraduate students are male. 60% of undergraduate and 68% of graduate students are from out-of-state. 5.6% of undergraduate and 4.6% of graduate students are African-American. Approximately 50% of undergraduate students live in residence halls.”
udel.edu/IR/fnf/index.html

Now go play…

Ok, I confess, University of Delaware appears to have hired a woman named Dr. Shakti Butler to provide a two-day “Diversity Facilitation Training” and she may or may not have nutty beliefs (I haven’t taken the time to leaf through her materials).

But, whoopdee doo. It’s hardly indoctrination. If U Del students don’t like her they can skip her training and go get stoned instead, as they would’ve done in my school.

It’s not like Clockwork Orange.

University of Delaware: Students Speak Out

I have posted previously about collegian institutional attempts to stifle less than toe tag party line views.

Here is the University of Delware’s response, in full:

[quote]October 31, 2007

Samantha K. Harris
Director of Legal and Public Advocacy
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

Dear Ms. Harris,

Thank you for your letter to President Patrick Harker dated October 29, 2007 detailing your concerns about the University of Delaware’s residence life educational program. I appreciate your commitment to the role of free speech in education. Though we may articulate views quite differently, a commitment to free speech is one we share. As noted in our own literature, “the central mission of the University of Delaware is to cultivate both learning and the free exchange of ideas.”

Your letter asserts a number of conclusions that can be supported by a selective citation of documents, but are not actualized. The idea that students are “required to adopt university approved views” on the issues listed is not a goal of this institution or of the residence life department. This type of goal is both highly undesired and wholly unattainable. Students are challenged to express themselves as free-thinking citizens. The indoctrination you speak of serves no educational purpose and does not exist as part of a systematic effort on this campus. I assume that you have noted the absence of any policy, rule, or regulation pertaining to your concerns about disciplinary action being taken against students for unwillingness to be changed in the manner that you describe.

There is in fact a program within the residence halls that engages students in self –examination of the roles they hope to take in society. This effort is consistent with the mission of the University which states, “Our graduates should know how to reason critically and independently…communicate clearly in writing and speech, and develop into informed citizens and leaders.” The program is designed to encourage students to think about and to consider a number of issues, but all make their own decisions about the outcome of this reflection. FIRE’s assertion that students are told what to think is inaccurate. In common with FIRE, our institution values free speech, active voice, and open dialogue. We believe that students learn and grow in part by engaging in significant discussions on both sides of the classroom door.

I do acknowledge that there have been some missteps with the implementation of our program. This is a new effort involving over two hundred staff. As with any University educational endeavor assessment and feedback measures have been established to identify issues or concerns. Each of the issues FIRE presents are currently under review. In fact, we recently became aware that students in several residence halls were told their participation is mandatory at these activities and we have taken steps to clarify this misconception and to notify students of their rights in this area.

Additionally, I would like to briefly comment on several of the other concerns expressed in your letter.

The information about “best and worst” RA/resident one-on-ones are certainly of concern, but taken out of context. This terminology has only been used by supervisors to ask Resident Assistants to reflect on their facilitation skills and never to describe students or the outcome of a conversation.

Students are not required to participate in any residential activity, educational program, or to maintain the University provided nametag on their door. We do, however, encourage students to participate in as many experiences as they are able as we believe this enhances their life at the University.

We share your concern about the language used in our assessment plan. The term “treatment” is commonly used in research and assessment literature. Admittedly, this language is easily misinterpreted and may be construed as inappropriate for use in this educational setting. On the other hand, your assertion that “progress is apparently determined by examining whether there is an increasing proportion of ‘right’ answers over time” is not an accurate way to describe the aim of the program or assessment goals.

I have tremendous respect for the ability of our students as well as their emotional and intellectual capacity. My main point of contention out of the multiple assertions is that the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education seems to presume that our students are so empty-headed and ignorant that they would be “indoctrinated” with ease. I believe you have underestimated the quality and caliber of our students. You have examined many internal and public documents in your search for concerns. I invite you to explore our web site more fully to get a better picture of the capacity of a University of Delaware student. You will find that they are highly intelligent and capable to assert their viewpoints and to face challenges from a variety of areas. Our students are fully able to encounter multiple values and perspectives and remain true to their own identity. As they emerge from college, their ability to use their free speech rights will be only one of many talents they posses. While I consider many of your points to be open for legitimate discussion and debate, the supposition that University of Delaware students are simply empty vessels to be filled by any willing authority figure is an unstated assertion where we can find no common ground.

As I hope I have expressed through this letter, I am aware that issues and concerns exist as we ask students to discuss and share their own viewpoints on important issues. I do appreciate your organization’s interest in higher education in general and free speech specifically. Your points will continue to be examined as a part of the overall review mechanism.

Sincerely,

Michael Gilbert, Ed. D.
Vice President for Student Life
University of Delaware[/quote]

I would really like to know more about is the “assessment plan” mentioned in the bolded paragraph above. Even if the residence life educational program is voluntary (as the university states) rather than mandatory (as FIRE claims), I would be curious to know why there would be an assessment plan at all, much less one-on-one sessions with an RA. The university acknowledges “missteps” with the implementation of the program, and says it is reviewing FIRE’s allegations, which I take to mean the university is investigating the staff who implement this program to determine if any misconduct occured.

I think the university is handling the allegations well, but I also feel they could better alleviate concerns if they provided some more details about the program and the manner in which it is implemented.