POINT COUNTERPOINT: Readers' Debate: Is SMC Too Liberal?

• We Need Brave Conservatism

Over past weeks the Corsair ran opinion pieces about whether teachers at SMC are being objective in their classrooms and about whether they are pushing political agendas in their classrooms. Last week Corsair staff writer Danny Grace in his opinion column called "We Need Brave Liberalism" concluded on the subject that teachers have no need to strive for objectivity in the classroom.

Here is what Mr. Grace said: "It's not the job of scholars to be objective, it's their job. . . to battle for their beliefs, and trust that objectivity will emerge from the dust of the struggle."

Mr. Grace must not be aware of SMC Administrative Regulation of BP 5210 which makes the following requirement: "Academic freedom is essential not only to examine controversial issues in an objective manner in the classroom, but also to insure access to information sources required for study of such courses."

Here is more language from BP 5210: "While showing respect for the opinion of others, the instructor should, after impartial examination of the evidence, present the conclusions to which the evidence points. Selective omission of available data would not be in keeping with academic responsibility. Promotion of a partisan point of view to a captive audience would be equally unsuitable."

In his column, Mr. Grace incorrectly interpreted a quote made by me-made some weeks earlier to Corsair staff writer Christoph Seitz for his opinion piece called "Is SMC Too Liberal?" My comment never tied in political parties as Mr. Grace implied, but instead I made my comment to put into question the atmosphere that looms over the Social Sciences Department at SMC.

Seitz quoted me as follows: "Just walk through the Liberal Arts faculty hallway. Almost every door has some kind of anti-Bush or anti-war slogan pinned to it. Not a single American flag in sight."

It is doubtful that there was room or that it was appropriate for Seitz to put in more detail about my comments on the matter. I told Seitz I wondered why there were no pro-Brush or pro-troop fliers in the hallway.

I asked him, was it because professors with such beliefs did not feel the need to post fliers on their doors? Was it that such professors do not exist in the Department? Or was it because Social Science professors with such views were intimidated?

Mr. Grace not only stretched the meaning of my quote, but he also made sweeping generalizations about Republicans. He wrote that "Conservatives/Republicans believe in private good over public good. . . ." A better description of many conservatives and Republicans would be that they often push for less government and more privatization, and their motivation is not to run over the "public good," but to boost the "public good."

A liberal who pushes for more federal social programs may be seeking "public good," but may not be getting more "public good." Liberal policies sometimes perpetuate social ills or make them worse.

For example, Canada has socialized medicine, but many Canadians come to U.S. doctors when they are in a life-or-death situation. Millions of U.S. citizens are not insured on paper, but they all have access to health care at clinics and hospitals specializing in low-income patients. If health care is so bad here, why do many Canadians vie for lottery visas to come here and not the other way around?

I will take government-regulated capitalism over government-monopolized socialism any day.

As another example, many conservatives and Republicans believe the federal government has grown huge by making more and more citizens more and more dependent on the federal government. As a result, entire classes of "victims" have been created, and they have been encouraged to continue dependence on government--in order to perpetuate ever growing federal agencies.

As another example, today in the U.S. , many people, I believe, automatically expect the federal government to handle most charity, and as a result many people find there is no need to become involved directly or locally. Why become involved when one gives a lot in federal taxes every year for others to do it?

As a last example, teacher's unions in public education oppose school vouchers. What are they afraid of? Their fears about it making education worse ring hollow. What they fear is losing their control over the direction of education and losing their jobs. After all there are already successful examples of pilot voucher programs across the country, including in the inner cities.

Shane Smith,
SMC Mathematics Professor