“For starters,” he notes, “how are such political animals identified? And how much does it matter if a Republican, Democrat or Naderite teaches ‘The History of Ancient Greece’?”
Mr. Jacoby has a point, but it is certainly not as compelling as he thinks. Presumably the History of Ancient Greece should not be influenced by one’s political philosophy. And to be sure, that is sometimes the case. What Professor Jacoby overlooks, however, is that in the university hothouse everything is political including and, most especially, pedagogy.Take his example. The quasi Marxist (real Marxists don’t admit to their leftist commitment) will contend that Athens was divided into two societies – one of slaves and the other of landholders each pitted against one another in an irrepressible conflict. The conservative will argue that arête, the striving for individual fulfillment, represented the efflorescence of individualism. The Naderite might contend that Solon, the law giver, was a reformer keen on righting the wrongs of the Establishment.
If the instructor chooses to teach by illustrating many approaches to the subject that is one thing. But if the instructor chooses to preach by imposing his particular orientation on students that is a completely different matter. Is Professor Jacoby arguing that there aren’t professors who fall into the latter category?
In fact, as Richard Rorty and others have admitted their job as professors is to convert, to change and alter student attitudes. Hence, their pedagogy is based on a victory which translates into persuasion.
I am less convinced by the argument of “overrepresentation” to which some conservative scholars refer than I am by ideologically driven pedagogy. I recently heard an English professor who stated definitively that Hamlet had an oedipal complex over Gertrude. When a student said she doubted the veracity of this claim, she was simply shouted down and made to look foolish. The professor in question would not allow for alternative interpretations of Shakespeare’s work.