A Word from London

 

Herbert London

      Herbert London is John M. Olin Professor of Humanities at N.Y.U., President of the Hudson Institute, author of Decade of Denial, published by Lexington Books, and publisher of American Outlook. He can be reached at: www.herblondon.org.

Bias on Campus

The data about political opinion on campuses across the nation keeps rolling in. Most recently, ACTA (American Council of Trustees and Alumni) revealed the results of a recent survey. What it found confirms earlier studies and confirms as well the belief that universities are rife with biased political judgments.

According to the study 49 percent of students surveyed at the top 50 colleges and universities contend professors frequently inject political comments into their courses, “even if they have nothing to do with the subject.” Almost a third believe they have to agree with the professor’s political views to get a good grade.

The survey also points out that “48 percent report campus presentations on political issues . . . seem totally one-sided” and “46 percent say professors use the classroom to present their personal political views.”

As one might guess, partisanship became quite blatant during the presidential campaign with 68 percent of the respondents claiming negative comments were made about President Bush.

Anne Neal, the president of ACTA, struck the appropriate note when she said,

Students pay hefty tuition to get an education, not to hear some professors’ pet political views. When politics is relevant, multiple perspectives should be present. The classroom should be a place where students are free to explore different points of view. They should not feel they will be penalized if they think for themselves.

The survey makes incandescently clear that college and university faculty members are often biased. Seventy-four percent of students said professors made positive remarks about liberals, while 47 percent reported negative comments about conservatives.

American Association of University Professors (AAUP) General Secretary Roger Bowen stated that the political affiliation does not ipso facto suggest bias. On this point, he may be correct. What he overlooks, however, is the nexus between political affiliation and bias. If the ACTA survey demonstrates anything at all, it is the extent to which faculty members inject political bias into their classrooms in ways that suggest proselytizing rather than teaching.

There is little doubt that while university administrators beat the drum for racial and ethnic diversity on campus, diversity of views is either overlooked or ignored. Perhaps surveys like ACTA’s will alert trustees and parents to campus politicization.

At one university with which I’m familiar, a professor told his class he is a Marxist and would preach Marxist doctrine. When a student said wouldn’t it also be desirable to consider capitalism as an alternative, the professor said “I don’t teach that, but I can refer you to instructors who do.” Well, at least he identified himself accurately.

Unfortunately universities have become political hot houses belying the common assumption that they promote the free and open exchange of opinion. More and more elite institutions in the U.S. resemble the University of Peking.

The wonder, of course, is that the system perpetuates itself despite the impediments to genuine learning. Some time ago Thorstein Veblen described contemporary students as “educated in incapacity.” He was right of course, but Veblen could not possibly appreciate the magnitude of the problem.

It isn’t simply that American students are often poorly educated; it is the extent to which efforts at proselytizing are confused with education by an unwary student population and by parents unable to recognize the confusion.

Years ago Alan Bloom’s Closing The American Mind became a best seller. Professor Bloom was perplexed by his success. I suggested to him that the popularity of the book was due to the parents of college students who want to know why they are spending so much money on college tuition. It seemed to me that parents were willing to spend $25 on the Bloom book in order to understand why they were “wasting” $25,000 a year on tuition. Alan nodded approvingly and said “you’re right.” It’s too bad Alan isn’t available to write a sequel since universities today provide so much rich material for gifted writers.

What TV Sells Children

Recently Kraft Foods representatives said that the company would stop advertising junk food to kids under 12. On January 12, 2005, the company issued a statement that products such as Oreos, Chips Ahoy and most Oscar Mayer Lunchable meals would not be advertised on television, radio or in print. The company claimed this was “a step in the right direction” in an effort to combat child obesity. It is instructive that Kraft’s announcement came the same day the U.S. government issued its guidelines on appropriate dietary measures, which seem to suggest that Kraft was seeking to preempt government regulation of children’s advertising.

More to the point is the interesting observation that what children see on television or popular media has an effect on how they act, an implicit admission in the Kraft Company statement. This claim is quite inconsistent with the argument of television executives who invariably argue that there is very little evidence that what young people watch is related to what they believe and how they behave.

Yet the Kraft statement is merely one strand in an interlocking web of media presentations. The American Academy of Pediatrics has suggested that portrayals of sex on television--now the theme for 66 percent of prime-time programs--may contribute to precocious adolescent sex. Empirical data examining the relationship is tentative and inadequate for addressing the issue of causation, but the evidence is still meaningful and suggestive.

Moreover, early sexual initiation is an important social and health issue. In fact, a recent survey indicates that most sexually experienced teens wished they had waited before their first sexual encounter. Almost all the data indicate that unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases are far more common among those who begin sexual activity at any early age.

The conclusion of this American Academy report is that watching sex on TV predicts and may hasten adolescent sexual initiation. Reducing the amount of sexual content in entertainment programming, by contrast, could appreciably delay the initiation of coital and non-coital activity.

This, of course, is not the first study linking TV sexual content and attitudes to sex, including dissatisfaction with virginity and a whole range of perceptions regarding normative sexual initiation. But this study is among the most rigorous and careful ever conducted.

If one were to rely on the results of this study--and there appears to be valid reasons for doing so--the health hazards for adolescents from a regular diet of provocative sexual content on television programs are real and should not be discounted.

Presumably if food companies such as Kraft are sensitive to the relationship between advertising and obesity, television producers should be equally concerned about the relationship of prime time programming and its preoccupation with sex, including illegitimate births and the rate of teenage pregnancies in the United States.

Erstwhile mayor of New York Jimmy Walker once said “no one got pregnant from reading a book.” My suspicion is Walker didn’t read very much and probably didn’t read many salacious books. Of course, that is only an impression.

In a television age, however, nothing is left to the imagination. Programs deal with sex graphically and, in most instances, suggest directly or obliquely that sex at any age is desirable. That there may be a health hazard associated with adolescent sex is relegated to the dustbin of Puritanical behavior, a kind of Comstock critique.

Yet, remarkably, a disproportionate share of the 30 percent of children born out of wedlock have a teenage mother. Yes, in the last few years the rate of illegitimacy among teenage moms has declined slightly. But the leveling off has occurred at historically high rates, rates that suggest this is still a major health issue.

Lest someone contend this is a plea for censorship, let me nip that contention in the bud. What the evidence seemingly suggests is a plea for tastefulness and responsibility from television producers. Sex is an exciting and critical part of life, but it is only part of life. Just as Kraft Foods decided to forestall criticism with its own measures, it is high time television programmers did the same. “Sex and the City,” to cite one example, may be titillating, but it is far better for adults than for children. What TV producers must learn is that their responsibility is to a public trust, not only a bottom line. Sex may sell, but it may destroy teenage lives as well.

Rise and Fall of Democracy?

In 1787 a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, Alexander Tyler, writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2000 years ago, argued that democracy is always temporary in nature.

He maintained that at some point a majority will discover that it can vote itself generous emoluments from the public treasury and, in keeping with this theme, support the candidates who promise the most benefits. At some point, he contends, democracy collapses due to a debased fiscal policy and is replaced by a dictatorship.

Clearly Tyler wasn’t alone in his assessment of democracy, since Plato voiced the same concern soon after the fall of the Athenian Republic. Self-aggrandizement in the sense of getting something from the labors of someone else is an inherent weakness in democratic organization.

From Toynbee to Sorokin, from Tyler to Spengler, historians of civilization have addressed the patterns that account for the rise and fall of various governments. Toynbee contends that civilizations over time lose their will and fervor to survive; Sorokin argues that sensate considerations trump ideational values, turning societies into pleasure-seeking entities that cannot sustain themselves, and for Spengle will is diminished by a loss of belief and confidence in the political organization, leading ultimately to decline.

Tyler believes that

. . . the average age of the world’s greatest civilizations, from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage.

Anyone reading this analysis will surely see some parallels to our own democracy. Close to half of the American people do not pay personal income tax yet are increasingly insistent that those who do provide them with ever larger benefits, i.e. in health care and retirement care.

The courage displayed by our Founding Fathers in defying British overlords and establishing a Constitution has transmuted into complacency; some might call it living off the fat of the land. So many Americans are dependent on government--in one way or another--to address their needs that invariably the first question interrogators ask presidential candidates is “what will your election do for me?”

Moreover, the question many foreign governments ask of the U.S. is: If you are having a hard time sustaining your democracy because of intrinsic flaws, why do you assume it is a form of government desirable for our people? Clearly democracy can establish stability and as clearly, relying on the will of the people is more desirable than relying on a leader, however benign. But there are dependency characteristics that offer concern.

Is the Tyler scenario formulaic? Can democracies forestall this pattern? History, of course, is replete with idiosyncratic examples. However, it is also true that the evolution Tyler depicts has the ring of truth and enough empirical evidence to warrant self-examination.

The road to political success is paved with promises. Those who promise more are usually the victors. With these promises a consensus emerges. Could any politician in the United States today, for example, rail against Social Security or Medicare? Could they say that these legislative entities have an unfunded liability six times G.D.P.? The public wouldn’t stand for these comments even if true. People want “what is coming to them.”

John Kettle, a 17th century English philosopher, wrote: “Any time any opinion comes to be held by nearly everyone, it is nearly always wrong.” I believe Kettle was right, but what is  “wrong” in this matter is a normative judgment. In democracy the people speak and, even if a majority is wrong, that opinion will prevail. This is a flaw democracies must overcome or perish.

Alexander Tyler did not live to see modern democracy. Yet it is fair to postulate that what he said may afflict democracies, may indeed be afflicting us now. History, of course, waits in judgment. But that is a judgment we should wisely seek to influence.

Religion in the Public Square

Notwithstanding the claim that all Americans share a common culture, there is fundamental discord in the land. It was evident when the newspapers of record argued that President Bush’s success in the 2004 election was due primarily to the outpouring of support from the Evangelical community. Unstated but nonetheless intended, is the belief that religion should be relegated to a private concern; that it hasn’t a place in the public square.

Yet it is worth asking if the great majority of Americans want religion excluded from every aspect of public life. Despite the secular sentiments of many elites in America, most Americans profess a belief in God and few are inclined to deny the custom of giving thanks to God. Nevertheless, there is a powerful campaign underway to suppress religious expression.

Of course, individual believers can pray and sing hymns as long as these practices are done in private, away from giving offense to nonbelievers. But this was a nation founded by religious men that involved deep-seated conviction about the nexus between religion and the republic. Our currency doesn’t say “in mankind we trust” but rather “In God we trust.” And the Constitution is an Augustinian document predicated on countervailing forces that are intended to restrain Original Sin.

Jean Jacques Rousseau, a philosopher whose views helped to inspire the French Revolution, wrote that liberty represents the abolition of all dependencies, such as the family and religion. But as the Founding Fathers of this nation fully understood without such alliances, without the mediating structures of family and church, the Social Contract cannot exist.

It is this Rousseauian vision, however, that haunts contemporary America. The lineaments of social organization are being challenged in every quarter. Respondents of gay marriage push an agenda that will cut the bonds of family ties. Secularists oppose the use of the expression “One nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Avatars of late-term abortion are willing to engage in infanticide in order to maintain personal freedom.

Social order based on humility in the face of God has been reduced to basic materialism. I can recall the words of O’Brien in 1984 who explains:

You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable.

Alas, governments unrestrained by religious belief invariably try to mold human nature. But while humans are malleable, they are certainly not infinitely malleable. Whether one accepts it or not there appears to be intelligent design in human nature.

Einstein noted that the earth was not organized with a simple throw of the dice, a chance moment in creation. Religion reaches for a vision of human nature beyond the material. Most significantly, it also is the antidote to solipsism and to a morality of “me.” In the late sixties Abbie Hoffman wrote Do It! If it feels good, do whatever it might be. But feeling good and doing good are not the same. A society based on a personal sense of satisfaction cannot sustain itself.

Similarly, a culture that accepts anything that produces wealth will ultimately destroy itself as well. Wilhelm Roepke, a leading free market economist, wrote

. . . the market does not create values, but consumes them and it must be constantly reimpregnated against rot.

The choice before Americans is the advancement of incremental rot or reimpregnation. One can use the value of materialism or the values that spring from religion. Adam Smith, author of the Wealth of Nations and sometimes described as the father of the free market, was also a moral philosopher. He recognized that a free market unrestrained by virtue is ultimately corrosive.

From what roots does virtue spring? The answer is apparent to those who know the story of the nation’s founding. It is also apparent in the order of the universe and intelligent design. As Browning noted “God’s in his heaven, and all’s right with the world.” Well, all may not be right, but if God is not in his heaven, all would certainly be wrong.    

The Campus Implications of Striking Down the Solomon Amendment

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently rendered a decision to halt enforcement of a federal statute known as the Solomon Amendment. Put simply, the statute requires colleges and universities that receive federal funds to provide military recruiters the same access to students that other on-campus recruiters receive.

What this decision means, in effect, is that educational institutions will no longer be at risk of losing federal support if military recruiters are barred from their campuses. Within days of the announcement, the Harvard Law School faculty agreed to bar military recruiters from the school.

Years before the Solomon Amendment was enacted, many colleges noted that military recruiters were not welcome, a residual effect of the Vietnam War, and based on a contention that the military allows discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In 1993 President Clinton signed into law a provision that requires the military to enforce “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which discretely permits discrimination without identifying it as such.

With the Court decision, universities may not lose federal funding for the stand they take, but inadvertently, I suspect, the decision changes the nature of the Academy as an open and free environment in which different points of view and approaches can be entertained.

Those who pay the real cost of this decision are men and women who may want to serve in the military. Moreover, the nation is adversely affected when a significant portion of the student population is not given access to military recruiters and to future career opportunities.

Clearly the military has a justifiable desire to recruit on campuses in order to attract the best and brightest to its ranks. This includes lawyers who serve as advisers to servicemen and women as well as infantrymen who are obliged to make decisions in the field of combat.

The Third Circuit, in striking down the Solomon Amendment, ruled that the law violates the First Amendment rights of universities by requiring them to disseminate the military’s pro-recruitment message. Yet it is obvious that in circulating the military’s message, universities are not necessarily signaling approval of military policies. For example, giving a military recruiter access to a university facility does not mean the university endorses discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Universities at all times have had the right to ban military recruiters, notwithstanding the Solomon Amendment. What they did not have is the right to have their cake and eat it too. If they wish to stand on their principle, then they had to forgo federal funding.

It was and is a question of determining what is more valuable: federal support or a latitudinarian antidiscrimination policy. That speech comes with a price tag should be a lesson all university students should learn.

That the Solomon Amendment is not a direct statutory command should be obvious to anyone including the judges in the Third Circuit. The argument that a government benefit should not accompany relinquishing a constitutional right rings hollow. After all, a university is free to prevent military recruiters on campus.

The real issue, as I see it, is that the college campus as a sanctuary for openness has been converted into a center for radical orthodoxy. In the vanguard of the “new” university is, first and foremost, homosexual rights, even if in the process of recognizing them the university itself is restructured.

In the first line of defense for radical university activism is the shield of academic freedom. For the framers of radical opinion, academic freedom is the trump card to be employed whenever duty, fair play or free exchanges are introduced. The campus as an open environment in which all opinion is given voice is an idea so antiquated that it is barely recalled by a new breed of academics and, if recent events are any indication, will be interred by judicial action.     *

“There are certain social principles in human nature, from which we may draw the most solid conclusions with respect to the conduct of individuals and of communities.” –Alexander Hamilton