THE IVORY TOWER WM. F. BUCKLEY. JR. National Review Of /ers Awards to College Students for Auiatance in. Research Project To: Editors of College Newspapers From:
Re: Research Pi-oject Some weeks ago, the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists, which is a small organization that distributes anti-collectivist literature to any stu- dent who asks for it, sent out a chatty letter to its membership asking for news of college happenings. “What, for instance, have your professors been pushing at you?” a member of the staff of the !SI wrote. “Have any of them notably associated themselves with collectivist thinking? (The inci- dents are important, not the names.) Another thing,” the letter continued, “please don’t get the impression that we want to hear only the bad side. We want a barometer reading . . . If the situation at your school is encouraging, we want to hear about that, too.” There has been, to say the least, considerable reaction to that letter. “ProfessO’T’s Blast Group Searching Classroom Politics,” blasted the Har- vard Crimson in a four-column fit of indignation. Said the lead, “Four pro- fessors denounce as ‘ridiculous . . .’ ‘silly . . .’ ‘trivial. . . .’ a right-wing organization’s plea for information about collectivist thinking on the fac- ulty.” Professor Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. told the Crimson that “it is charac- teristic of the state of mind of the rountry to encourage tattling and snooping.” And to give this statement academic depth-as it becomes a pro- fessor of history to do-Mr. Schle- singer added: “This illustrates the typical conservative idea that snooping is the way to get personal freedom.” Professor Kingman Brewster, Jr. (Law) said, “I would be greatly dis- illusioned and bitterly resentful if I thought that students were coming to class as spies or reporters rather than simply as students.” There were statements, also, from Professors Mark de Wolfe Howe and Samuel Beer. 1( N.&TJOKAL Rnmw In a recent PrincetO’lt.ian., a stu- dent editor called James H. Duffy complained that over the months he had been receiviing “a stream of tripe” from the ISI of a character that illus- trated “the sterility and undynamic qualities inherent in the obfuscating doctrines of today’s far right.” And why had he been receiving the tripe? Because he is “an enrolled member of the ISL” And why does he continue, under the circumstances, as a member of ISI … ? (Better watch out, Duffy. You know what the obfuscating right does with snoopers? It eats them.) The Issue The returns are not all in. But there is enough there already to underscore a confusion that NA’l’IONAL REVIEW in- tends to try to clear up. Here is the problem: It is the contention of virtually all educators that it is the business of col- leges and universities to “educate,” not to “indoctrinate.” By this they tend to mean that teachers should expose students to all points of view adequately and impartially, and should not endeavor to inculcate in them the particular point of view of the teacher, let alone anyone else’s views. It is the contention of many in- formed conservatives that a very large number of t.eachers in this country are in fact actively engaged in indocbinat- ing their students in an identifiable position, loosely described as “liberal.” A Solution? One can therefore safely assume that everyone involved will welcome any intelligent effort to determine whether indoctrination is actually taking place -under the very noses of anti-indoc- trinators-<>r whether conservatives are unnecessarily alarmed, and the teaching profession vindicated. A proj- ect designed to look into the matter by field trips into a number of class- rooms ought to be especially encour- aged by those who have been most vocal in denouncing indoctrination, and should interest the American As- sociation of University Professors. That is the association that looks after the rughts of professors, and can be assumed to be interested to know if there is evidence that a significant number of professors are not discharg- ing their correlative duties. If such a project is ridiculous, silly and trivial, why then so is freedom of research in general; in which event the case for academic freedom is weakened, as far as we can see. In any case, we shall seek the truth and endure the conse- quences. The Project NATIONAL REVIEW, then, solicits evi- dence of such nature as will clarify the question whether teachers are engaged in indoctrinating their stu- dents. For example: Does your eco- nomics teacher refer impartially-<>r in any other way-to the works of Fried- rich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Lionel Robbins, Frank Knight, Orval Watts, Wilhelm Roepke, or ‘to those of any other economist of the non-Keynesian school? Does he take a position on right-to-work legislation? Does your teacher of sociology urge a particular interpretation of man and his behavior, to the exclusion of competing inter- pretations? If so, through what tech- niques? Does your teacher of politics insist on or press a particular idea as to the desirable relationship between the Executive and the Legislative? Does your professor of international relations suppress or ignore the writ- ings of learned men who differ with him as to how best to cope with world problems? Are they fair in presenting both pro and con views about the United Nations? Do they explore the views of those scholars who believe coexistence with the Soviet Union Is impossible? If so, how do they go about it? Does the teacher of psychology dismiss religion as fantasy before or after exposing you to the works of St. Thomas Aqumas, or Paul Tillich, or Reinhold Niebuhr? NATIONAL REVIEW will act as a reposi- tory for research material on this important question. Names of profes- sors may be withheld, in which case
Comments