History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
I've written previously about the new and growing discipline of"global studies." Despite the name, most"global studies" programs amount to attempts to critique contemporary US (and, sometimes, Israeli) foreign policy and globalization under the guise of an academic rather than partisan lens.
I was struck, therefore, by the recent Zogby poll of US soldiers in Iraq, which has attracted a good deal of attention after Nicholas Kristof referenced it in his Times column. According to Mystery Pollster, the poll had"in effect a 'partisan' sponsor in that, according to Zogby, [it] opposes the war in Iraq."
That sponsor? The new"Peace and Global Studies major" at LeMoyne College. It seems to me extraordinary for an academic department to take an official position on a contested political issue unrelated to the institution's operation. Will we next see the LeMoyne Economics Department endorse a permanent repeal of the estate tax? Did LeMoyne's History Department formally oppose the Alito nomination? Perhaps the Biology Department will take an official stance on reforming the President's prescription drug plan.
More seriously, the LeMoyne"global studies" department purports to offer courses that"will help students understand the origins, challenges and ethical dimensions of 'Globalization'," through courses that ask students"to think about a host of issues that transcend national boundaries--migration/immigration, global climate change, refugees, terrorism, the movement of capital and development." Yet, much like the war in Iraq, all of these issues are inherently controversial ones, on which people of good faith can (and do) disagree. Good courses on such topics, therefore, should reflect a diversity of viewpoints. But is there any reason to believe that students will receive instruction that departs from the department's official party line?
Actually, the Jesuits are very left wing, so your attempted reductio ad absurdum falls flat. Is there supposed to be some inherent, obvious incompatibility between belonging to religious orders and having left-wing political views? If so, I'd be curious to learn where the incompatibility arises. Somehow, I can't imagine St. Ambrose, St. Francis or St. Dominic as Republicans. Or Jesus for that matter.
As for the religious studies statement, I actually do think it's biased against atheists. There is such a thing as the sociology of religion, done from a secular, de-mystifying standpoint. Religious studies is in fact a holy mess nowadays because so little of that sort of thing is taught--or done. So much of what passes for religious studies is just half-baked semi-devout gobbledygook. David Horowitz may be indifferent to that--but then I happen to be indifferent to David Horowitz. Horowitz is neither here nor there. The point is, religious studies departments could use a bit of ideological diversification, too--or more precisely, an ideological kick in the rear.
Education isn't indoctrination, whether theistic or secular. Do you disagree with that, or are you denying that "global studies" is indoctrinative?
Robert KC Johnson -
3/4/2006
The Mystery Pollster column essentially says there's no way we can know the validity of the poll, because Zogby's polling specifics (for understandable reasons, citing the safety of the polltakers) can't be publicly revealed.
This is actually what initially interested me in the story: the first reason that MP listed as requiring taking the findings of the poll with a "grain of salt" was the fact that it came from a "partisan" organization--LeMoyne's Peace+GS department. That an academic department could be described (accurately, as far as I can tell) as officially partisan I still find amazing.
Jim Williams -
3/4/2006
Sorry, folks. I hit return, thinking it would take me to comments - but it didn't. I'm a slow learner, I guess.
Zogby's poll immediately raised my sniff meter since I'm a retired Army Reservist.
Do we know what sort of random sampling techniques Zogby used? Iraq is a combat zone with widely scattered military detachments where non-combatants cannot move around without grave danger.
If Zogby wants his poll to be seen as random, he needs to specify where, when, how, and with what ranks his pollsters talked. Did he have pollsters at all bases (highly
unlikely)? Only in the Shiite south and Kurdish north? How many did he
have? How did he get permission for them to travel, gain admission for them to military bases, persuade military officials to allow the poll to occur, and provide security for his pollsters? Do you believe that the military aided and abetted his poll and provided security to his workers (obviously an urgent military mission!)?
If, indeed, the poll were valid, Zogby should have written a great article discussing how he made it valid! The whole thing reeks!
Jim Williams -
3/4/2006
Jim Williams -
3/4/2006
David Lion Salmanson -
3/3/2006
Better check the updates at Mystery Pollster. Lemoyne did not fund the poll and does not have an official position on the war.
Robert KC Johnson -
3/2/2006
Good point. This is a strange issue, though, since according to articles on Zogby's website, GS faculty participated with him in developing the poll; and the poll is described as a LeMoyne College/Zogby poll. So he does seem to have some authority to speak on behalf of the dept. If he misspoke, they should issue a clarifying statement on his website.
Rebecca Anne Goetz -
3/2/2006
I'll reiterate KC--according to your post, the idea that the department is partisan comes from ZOGBY, not the department itself. It commissioned the poll, and that's something departments (usually political science) do.
Robert KC Johnson -
3/2/2006
The department doesn't call itself simply a peace studies department. It claims also to be exploring "global studies," as if peace studies and global studies are interchangeable--which, of course, they are not. And the issues explored in the department's curriculum range far beyond the current war in Iraq. Given the issues ostenibly explored in the curriculum offered, there's no reason why a supporter of the war in Iraq with appropriate academic qualifications shouldn't be able to teach many of these courses. But it's hard to imagine one could get hired, since this would be going against the department's official position.
More broadly, though, as I noted in the post, it seems to me inappropriate for an academic department to be taking an official position on an issue not related to the institution. Does the department have an official position on the merits of World War II? The Korean War? The Civil War? The war in Afghanistan? The defense budget? The CIA budget?
Jeremy Dupertuis Bangs -
3/2/2006
I'm missing the basis for finding it odd that a department with a major calling itself "P E A C E and Global Studies" might be anti-war.
Oscar Chamberlain -
3/2/2006
I once sat in on part of a Philosophy of Religion class taught by an atheist. A remarkably intense experience. He had an invisible friend who only he could see who came to the room each day--except for the days other students claimed to see him.
His--the prof's not the friend's--logic was relentless. He was reputed to have sent at least one seminary student into a u-turn.
The ironic postscript is that the prof later got religion. The last time I saw him he used numerology to predict my next few years. He said the nect one or two were going to be bad.
The darned thing is, he was right.
Robert KC Johnson -
3/2/2006
On Rebecca's point--I wasn't arguing that teachers shouldn't take a stand on controversial matters in the classroom. The issue here is the department itself taking a stand. There are good and bad things about globalization. There are good and bad things about the use of force in world affairs. Determining the roots of terrorism is an inherently complex task. Yet LeMoyne's GS department seems to have a party line on these issues--so is there any reason to believe that a prof who didn't accept the party line would be hired, or be allowed to teach in the program?
The issue for me seems to be one of truth in advertising. If a department wants to be anti-globalization; or anti-Iraq war; or anti-use of force in dealing with possible terrorist threats, it has the right to do so (though I don't think it's appropriate). But it should come out and say so, rather than take the pretense, as is normally done in GS programs, that it is viewing these issues in an open-minded way.
On the Jesuit point--I don't know a whole lot about the inner workings of Catholic and Jesuit schools. But it's my sense that apart from departments relating to theology, these institutions are run no differently than secular private institutions.
Richard Newell -
3/2/2006
The Jesuits are more than just famous for their command of logic and critical thinking. The expression 'jesuitical casuistry' also has a basis in history, and I think by the 17th Century it was a term of abuse, particularly in the works of Blaise Pascal.
I have trouble understanding how a global studies major can, in the words of LeMoyne College, be in "keeping with the Jesuit tradition of intellectual rigor", when there is no disciplinary base, as such a major barely scrapes the surface of a dozen disciplines in its cross-disciplinary approach. For instance, you'd need a undergraduate degree in demography just to begin to understand the issues surrounding migration from a demographic perspective.
Rebecca Anne Goetz -
3/2/2006
KC--That is Zogby's characterization, not the LeMoyne Department's, characterization of its mission. Perhaps the department would describe itself and its collective position on the war in Iraq differently than Zogby did. However, in terms of the poll, I don't think it matters if LeMoyne's department is partisan or not, so long as the poll itself was designed and administered in as fair a way as possible (i.e. no leading questions).
Even if the LeMoyne department would characterize itself as against the war, somehow I don't find that shocking or unreasonable. LeMoyne, after all, is a Catholic institution, and the church has taken a position strongly against the war. It is no more inappropriate for a peace studies faculty at a Catholic institution to be "against war" than a similar department at a Quaker institution.
KC, you ask "But is there any reason to believe that students will receive instruction that departs from the department's official party line?"
Even if the department is against the war, this lapsed Catholic has great faith that the Jesuits, known for their skills as logicians and critical thinkers, are more than able to both discuss, debate, and impart to their students a variety of different viewpoints.
Lastly, I would say that the reducto ad absurdam of the line of argument you follow here would in the end prevent teachers from ever taking a stand on anything in the classroom, especially on potentially controversial issues like "migration/immigration, global climate change, refugees, terrorism, the movement of capital and development." I pity the students in such a class.
Robert KC Johnson -
3/2/2006
"The school is run by Jesuits." I suppose, then, that all members of the global studies department follow Jesuit teaching on abortion, contraception, and gay marriage. If not, it would seem that the Jesuits aren't really enforcing doctrine on the school's hires or curriculum, outside of the departments explicitly dealing with theological issues. That, of course, is the norm at most Jesuit schools.
As I said in the post, it seems to me extraordinary that an academic department--not individual faculty members--is described by someone it hired as having taken an official position on the Iraq war.
Louis N Proyect -
3/2/2006
This school is run by Jesuits. Everybody knows what a bunch of commies they are. They also have a religious studies department that states: "At Le Moyne College, we believe that exploring life's religious dimensions yields valuable insights into individuals as well as entire cultures." This is obviously biased against atheists. Somebody call up David Horowitz quick.
