Politicization for me, but not for thee

by Liberty and Power

The UNC-Chapel Hill is facing criticism for considering a donation from the John Pope Foundation, a family foundation based in North Carolina that also donates to conservative and classical liberal causes. The $12 million would be used for a Western Civilization program.

Little controversy accompanied past large gifts to UNC from the Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Freeman Foundation.

The News and Observer article quotes some of the more vocal critics. One critic is a professor in the women's studies department, which, if it's like any other across the country, is no doubt scrupulously evenhanded, apolitical, and objective. [The Pope Center, which receives money from the Pope Foundation, responds.]

A second critic, who accuses the Pope Foundation of trying to"manipulate the outcome of the curriculum," is an elin o'Hara slavick (yes, that's the correct capitalization). A quick search on google suggests that Professor slavick is a deeply political person. Her resume lists participation on a conference panel entitled"Bursting the Bubble of U.S. Propaganda and Iraq," a poetry reading called"Poets for Peace," and conference hosted by the Progressive Faculty Network. She responded to 9/11 by hosting teach-ins critical of past American policy in Afghanistan.

All of this, in my judgment, is fine, although slavick's classes on Queer Strategies in Studio Practice are not the kind of thing I would've paid good money to take in college.

However - and this is not a new revelation to most readers of this blog - it's amazing how the most thoroughly politicized left-wing academics can be the loudest critics of the tiniest appearance of politics from another side.

Jason Turner has more to say on this.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Lisa Marie Casanova - 12/17/2004

There is one facet of the situation I find interesting. I know that the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy has been critical of UNC. I've looked around their site a bit, and some of their criticism strikes me as being a little immature in its tone. However, the professors at UNC seem to be framing the issue as though criticism of them, and having to defend curriculum or course content against criticism in a public forum, violates their academic freedom. How do the professors here feel about this? I am curious, since the university has taken money before from ideologically oriented groups. The fact that this one is critical of the university seems to be the important difference. Maybe I completely misread the situation, but all I hear is "letting anyone in here who doesn't like the way we do things violates our academic freedom!" Add to this the fact that I feel a lot of the faculty outside the sciences seem very politicized, and see this as part of their job as professors. They almost seem to reinforce the stereotype of academics who live in the ivory tower, above all criticism from those who just can't grasp the importance of what they do.

Roderick T. Long - 12/16/2004

Well, in fairness to the folks at UNC-CH who are worried about this -- having taught at UNC during the 1990s I can well understand why faculty would cringe in dismay at the name of John Pope, a creepy conservative of the most bigoted and totalitarian sort. The thought of someone like Pope having any influence on an academic curriculum is enough to make any faculty member of any ideology look around for something to throw.

Now I gather that the John Pope Foundation is actually run by John Pope's son, Art Pope, and the son is by no means a clone of his father; indeed he has some libertarian leanings. No doubt UNC faculty haven't distinguished as clearly as they should between the two.

I remember when John Pope announced in an on-campus talk that rape was no big deal and women should stop fussing about it, or something like that, and there was an outcry in response, Art Pope when he came to campus told UNC students, "Well, you don't always agree with your parents about everything either, do you?"

So he's distanced himself from some of the creepier aspects of his father's views, and that's good. The distancing was fairly mild, but that's understandable; after all, it's his father. But I think it's equally understandable why the distancing would be *too* moderate to reassure UNC faculty; I can well understand why they would be suspicious of any proposal coming from an organization named after, and headed by the son of, John Pope.