Newspapers / The Guilfordian (Greensboro, N.C.) / Dec. 3, 1990, edition 1 / Page 4
Part of The Guilfordian (Greensboro, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
PerspectivesPerspectlvesPerspectivesPerspectivesPerspectivesPerspectivesPerspectivesPerspectivesPersp Look at the NAS and Its Critics William C. Burris At the request of The Guilfordian, I am going to share some additional thoughts about the National Association of Schol ars (NAS). Some readers will recall the statement about this organization that I placed in The Guilfordian last spring. They may also recall the student response. The response was a concerted effort, or ganized and orchestrated by one or more professors. It revealed more about the writers and the climate at Guilford than it did about the NAS or the issues about bias in the curriculum raised by the statement. NAS is a relatively new organization based in Princeton, New Jersey. It has about 1500 members in approximately 25 state chapters as well as individual mem bers in most other states. It publishes a respectable professional journal, Academic Questions , sponsors a Speakers Bureau and engages in the usual activities of pro fessional associations of this sort It is not a partisan group. Its members include liberals, conservatives, blacks, whites, Hispanics, men, women, professors both great and small and representatives from mostacademic disciplines. Members from outside the learned professions also play important parts in its affairs. Its formation and expansion across the country reflects a conviction that "those who do not organize are lost." Our col leges and universities are now rife with politics. They are increasingly under the control of what is coming to be known as "tenured radicals." These are the activists NAS does not object to the study of non-Western insti tutions and cultures... it defends the centrality and im portance of the Western intellectual tradition, espe cially free speech, the right of dissent and the use of reasoned discourse rather than political harangues when important educational decisions are being made. of the 1960s who have taken refuge in educational institutions, and now continue their demands for change in classrooms and committee meetings. And, the sad thing is that they continue to hold in dis dain all views with which they disagree. Essentially, they argue that American higher education is and always has been political, that it is Eurocentric and there fore, by definition, racist, sexistand homo phobic. Western culture includes few if any values that should be passed dawn to students. And, there is no common culture that young Americans need learn. Any professor or critic who takes exception to their views is, well, "sick," to quote a local phrase. Opponents of NAS at Duke Uni versity, to cite just one example among 4 THE GUILFORD IAN December 3,, 1,990 many, have urged that members of this organization be barred from serving on key decision-making committees. And, they have hurled the usual charges of sex ism and racism at those who differ with them. It is instructive to note that the group of faculty who offended them includes 19 endowed professors, along with 28 others. This is, of course, quite ridiculous. Why the screams of anguish when NAS appears on the scene? Why this fear of a small group of rather quiet profes sors who are simply asking for freedom of speech and reasoned discourse in the acad emy? What explains the planning, the or ganizing and the in suiting litany? It is all quite simple. The politics of the street has found a comfortable home in American high education. And political tactics have proved successful in intimidating profes sors and administrators alike. More im portantly, the radicals have gained control of the terms of all discussion on these matters. They control the rules of engage ment. Just listen to the terms: racism, sex ism, homophobia, multicultural ism, diver sity, sensitivity, gender and empowerment, to name only a few. The upshot of the whole matter is that colleges and universities are now expected to be instruments of social justice, not hallowed halls of scholarship and learn ing. Classrooms must become political forums, students must be guinea pigs and the curriculum must be an instrument for social change. The greatest danger lies in reforming the curriculum. Once the study of Western intellectual traditions, which only a politi cal activist could argue are racist, sexist and homophobic, is removed from the curriculum it cannot be restored in this generation. What will follow will be fraud parading as education. Multiculturalism is the flag under which these efforts are concealed. This term has a nice, harmless ring and very few professors object to it. see NAS on page 5 >• New Perspectives on the Block Carol Stoneburner One hundred and twenty-five years ago there was no discipline of psychology. Were there any personalities? any uncon scious behavior? any emotional tangles before psychology? One hundred years ago there was no political science and no sociology. Were there no state uses of power or ruling bodies before political science; or no human groups and social classes before sociology? Or even more re cently, were there no cultural mores or tribal behaviors ■HHMMJ before anthropol ogy? The answers are obvious. Of course these phenomena were happening. The perspectives to see them had not focused. The words to describe came less clearly and less systematically from older disci plines or ways of seeing and knowing. So the second question can be posed. Did these new perspectives, new kids on the academic block, have to struggle to get into the games, to find out the secret rules, to learn to play games designed to capital ize and maximize different skills than they had? Did they then gang together and declare they weren't going to play by the old rules or decide to play different games altogether? The answer again is obvious. They had to do all these things, and the nature of the block changed—most people actually thought for the better. A few have never been sure of that. During this century some very impor tant new academic rules within existing disciplines have come into being. Just a few of them are the acceptance of the autobiographical, personal voice as a valid perspective, social history which lets lots of different voices become part of the interpretation of the past, and the entrance of scholars from diverse racial, ethnic and economic backgrounds into higher educa tion thereby adding to the growth of knowl edge. They have brought new perspec tives and new energies to ask questions and to create critical stances about the older ways of knowing. Outside the academy and now even in the academy, several major social move ments —the civil rights/black power, the second phase of the women's movement/ feminism; the peace movement; the envi ronmental movement; internationalism; and cultural and ethnic pride in numerous forms has been established. To parallel our structure—we should ask, did Afro- Americans, women, cooperative modes, the ecosphere, third world nations/peoples HEAD TO HEAD The increased profile of the Na tional Association of Scholars has raised questions at some institu tions about what should be in cluded in the curriculum. Here we present two views about the mer its of a traditional versus a more progressive canon. exist before? Obviously they all existed. But it is a bit different to have been inten tionally ignored by whole groups of kids who already lived on the block. It has been more wounding to not be seen. Thus the study of such groups is full of pain and danger as well as the excitement of discov ery. So during the lifetime of most Guilford students (20f years) new kinds of studies have emerged—the study of women, Afro- American studies, studies of the environ ment, of ethnic groups, of peaceful and cooperative forms of power, of compara tive cultures. All of these studies are at least partially interdisciplinary—that is, creating knowledge based on mixing the rules, changing the game or creating new rules to have a different game than the old one. All of this, plus much more, has gone The entrance of scholars from diverse racial, ethnic and economic back grounds into higher edu cation has added to the growth of knowledge. They have brought new perspectives and new energies to ask questions and to create critical stances about the older ways of knowing. on at Guilford as well as in the larger aca demic world. Yet another question—is this metaphor of new kids on the block an apt and useful frame for looking at Guilford? Here the answer is mixed. It is useful to remind ourselves that the intellectual world is always in motion, not static, not so estab lished that revolutions of knowledge can not and do not occur. In fact, we should prize the new perspectives even as we honor and reform the older perspectives. And it helps to remember that disciplines, somewhat like children, become adoles cent and move into more maturity as they develop. Each stage has some characteris tic growth pains and perhaps may be better understood in that light. At Guilford, In terdisciplinary Studies are about 21 years old, Women's Studies about 17, Afro- American Studies about 10, Peace and Conflict Studies nearer eight, etc. On the other hand, the metaphor has two see PERSPECTIVES on page 5 >*
The Guilfordian (Greensboro, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Dec. 3, 1990, edition 1
4
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75