Letters to the Editor (Editorial Policies)
Posted on February 1, 2007

In defense of professors and a ‘liberal’ education

While reading Craig Finkelstein’s editorial, “We don’t need no indoctrination” from the Jan. 29 issue,  I couldn’t determine if he intended to review a book or reveal a problem. Finkelstein mentions David Horowitz’s book, “The Professors,” in which Horowitz “details the danger of the classroom when professors are allowed too much free reign [sic] in what they teach” by describing the apparent abuses by “101 professors at well-respected universities.” However, Finkelstein does not mention the book again, so he must not intend a review, yet when I look for support for his claims of “professorial abuse” at JMU, I find none.

For example, I’d worry if JMU professors were using their classrooms to push “any sort of agenda [they] may possess,” yet none of the professors Horowitz discusses work here, and Finkelstein does not provide even anonymous examples of JMU professors acting similarly. I’d worry if professors were “alienating students, promoting an unwelcoming intellectual environment, and losing credibility,” but, again, Finkelstein provides no support. Nor does he provide the least bit of support for his six additional claims that JMU professors are acting inappropriately.

Could it be that Finkelstein unintentionally reveals a more serious problem with college education: that far too many students see their educations as the equivalent of swiping their JAC Cards through a card reader, as Finkelstein shows by saying that students pay for “the service of learning.” Students pay for the privilege of access to teaching, but they are responsible for learning and for doing the hard work of thinking.

The all-too-American desire to be a lazy thinker and to be spoon-fed data are what underlie Finkelstein’s remix of Horowitz’s ideas, for life is easier when one isn’t challenged to think, seldom has one’s sensibilities offended, and never experiences embarrassment at one’s own ignorance. However, this lazy-thinking path leads to a life of priggish disregard for people who just might know a thing or two more than one does, and then to the desire to shut them up.

Kenneth R. Wright, writing and rhetoric associate professor

Craig Finkelstein’s Jan. 29 opinion piece is an example of nothing more than fact-free right-wing innuendo. In making the charge that JMU professors engage in “professorial abuse” by attempting to “indoctrinate” students to their particular political beliefs in the classroom, Finkelstein cites no examples and gives no statistics about any complaints. His only reference is to the book, “The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America,” by David Horowitz, which says nothing about anyone at JMU and has been discredited by several reputable critics.

According to Media Matters for America, an organization that has thoroughly examined his book, Horowitz cites in-class speech exclusively in only six of the 100 (not 101) profiles of “dangerous” professors in his book, and in a majority of cases (52), he cites only speech that occurred outside the classroom in declaring these professors “dangerous.” Even the classroom “behavior” Horowitz cites is suspect: from unverified student reports on RateMyProfessor.com to merely the title of a course or book assigned for class reading, the evidence is hardly convincing.

The “pushing” of any political viewpoint in class is inappropriate and irresponsible for any professor, and I know of no colleagues of mine at JMU who engage in this. What a professor says outside of the classroom is of course a different matter — and noting both Horowitz and Finkelstein for their misleading, baseless claims and slanders by implication is certainly well within my rights as a professor and as a citizen.

Jason Haney, music associate professor

It seems that in his most recent editorial, Craig Finkelstein entirely misses the point of education. He works from premises asserted in David Horowitz’s 2006 book entitled “The Professors.” Horowitz is a former radical Marxist who realigned himself with conservatism after the Vietnam conflict.

Finkelstein’s first premise, it seems, is that students should feel comfortable and welcome in their educational environment. This premise runs directly contrary to one of the implicit goals of education — to bring students out of their respective “boxes” and to expose them to new ideas. In a welcoming environment in which views are dogmatically re-affirmed, there is no room to grow intellectually as a student or as a person. One’s views must be challenged, not only for the intrinsic good of broadening one’s perspectives, but also so as to strengthen the supportive arguments concerning already held beliefs. One cannot strongly support their beliefs unless said beliefs are called into question.

Finkelstein also argues that students may not be informed enough to identify “indoctrinating” pedagogies. This premise certainly does not ascribe any kind of accountability to students (accountability which Finkelstein says that students possess and that such things as the honor code call into question). I think that it is exactly this lack of accountability that is a problem with education. It is the duty of the student to be as informed as possible. Learning does not have to cease upon exiting the classroom. The television and radio provide myriad news sources. Additionally, the library is a readily accessible source of information. Perhaps instead of calling professors into question, students should question themselves.

Peter Weems, junior philosophy major

Anti-war protestor or Castro supporter?

I am writing in response to the anti-war protest pictures on the front page of The Breeze earlier this week. I am not writing to debate the war in Iraq or the “surge,” but I would like to express my disbelief that JMU students would denigrate themselves by attending a radical left-wing protest organized by the extremist group, United for Peace and Justice. Leslie Cagan recently founded UPJ as a coalition of more than 1,400 smaller anti-war themed groups. Cagan is a known supporter of the despotic, murderous regime of Fidel Castro in Cuba. Cagan and the precursor group to the UPJ have also protested the unquestionably just invasion of Afghanistan to topple the horrible Taliban regime. In 2004 UPJ joined up with the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition to protest the Iraq War in Washington, D.C.; A.N.S.W.E.R. is best known for its support of North Korea, Cuba, and Hezbollah. 

UPJ is a collection of radical socialists, communists and other ideological vagabonds. This radical organization is not looking out for the national interest, nor do they share any traditional American values. Some may pity the naïveté of anti-war students who attended the rally. They were probably not communists bent on supporting Cuba; however, this is whom they associated with and gave credence to. I believe this sort of irresponsible behavior on behalf of immature JMU students is to be constantly railed against. I hope The Breeze will stop giving front-page coverage to extremists and begin to write exposés about how foolish the protest movement has become.

Jarrett Ray, junior political science & philosophy major

Time to un-pump the diesel myth

In response to Brian Armstrong’s recent letter calling for students to rage against diesel, it is depressing to see such an “enlightened” member of JMU express such an ethno-centric opinion. In the United States, diesels have a reputation for being heavier, noisier, sootier and smellier than equivalent gasoline vehicles. In other, presumably less “enlightened” parts of the world, however, diesels are not perceived the same way. In Europe, 50 percent of new cars sold are powered by diesel engines. A little education might be a little useful for explanation.

A quick search on Wikipedia.org reveals enough information on diesel fuel and engines to become an “enlightened citizen.” The entries on diesel fuel and engines reveal that an efficient turbo diesel engine generates 40 percent more miles per gallon than a gasoline equivalent, although this can vary. In addition, they produce only 69 percent of the greenhouse gasses released by gasoline engines, especially with proper exhaust filtration that also virtually eliminates soot emissions.

Finally, a careful look at energy policies currently being proposed reveals College Republican member Laura Pruner also meant bio-diesel methods are being explored. Bio-diesel, for the unenlightened, is diesel fuel made from plants. It is cleaner and more efficient than regular diesel and many diesel vehicles can be retrofitted to burn bio-diesel.

A better piece of advice for JMU students is to rage less and rationalize more about issues that deserve careful, thoughtful analysis instead of flailing outbursts of emotion.

Michael Yarborough, junior history and philosophy major

Opponents show more support for Dukes than JMU administration

When doubts arose about the intentions of the Sept. 29 sports cuts, the JMU administration repeatedly expressed its deepest regret and sorrow to the athletes, reassuring them that their welfare is at the heart of every decision made. The JMU men’s swim team recently had its last home meet in what is arguably the most successful athletic program in JMU history. Only one JMU administrator was present at the meet, and that person couldn’t even manage to be present for the entire meet. Even the ODU Monarchs, JMU’s opponent that meet, showed more support by making signs for the meet: “LEGENDS LIVE FOREVER” and “9X CAA CHAMPS.”

The following weekend, men’s wrestling competed at home. Not one JMU administrator was present. The same weekend, JMU swimming and diving teams visited William & Mary, their CAA rivals. Their pool seats, at best, 50 spectators. With four teams (two men’s, two women’s), parents and officials on one of the smallest pool decks in the CAA, one might think it would be too crowded for administrators to show. Wrong. William & Mary’s athletic director and president of the university were present for the whole meet, a novel concept.

After the meet, W&M coaches paid tribute to the victorious male Dukes. As a speech detailing the stats of the team’s program history was read (and was quite impressive), tears filled the eyes of the men. The last paragraph started: “As a measuring stick against which we could improve ourselves, they have been invaluable to this school and this team.”

Perhaps the JMU administration could use W&M as a measuring stick to improve its ethics. The administration should be ashamed of the way the Title IX decision has been handled, as it is an embarrassment to JMU. It reveals a tremendous lack of character in the university’s administration.

Tom Martin, sophomore accounting major