EDUCATION BEYOND POLITICS
385
dealing in an exact science such as physics. But there are serious people
who do not see it the same way. We would all agree, for example, that
Eugene Genovese, who writes from a Marxist perspective, has written
some of the most penetrating discussion reevaluating the understanding of
slavery. No one objects to that kind of debate: It's based on interpreting
the facts and letting the students see how you see it and why. But it is
objectionable when somebody comes into a field, telling students how
to
think.
Digby
Baltzell:
How could you enforce that, though? What bothers
me about PC are the rules about what it is permissible to say and what is
not. I am convinced that society cannot run with these rules. You're
suggesting that it's common decency to state what your point of view is,
to say, "I have a point of view. I want to sharpen yours with mine." But
we don't use terms like "common decency" anymore. I have to think
that we will win out, because the opposition hasn't got anything.
Roger Kimball:
I agree that it is important to present competing
views. But, as I remarked earlier, we have to be careful not to think that
the truth lies in some kind of specious middle - that somehow by split–
ting the difference we come closer to the truth.
C. Vann Woodward:
I don't think we're going to enforce anything.
This is not a type of system that can use enforcement about important
things, and it's going to get worse. What I think we need to do, as best
we can, is to strongly assert our objectives and our values about the
in titution of the university, what it's about, and what it does. One way
of doing that is to make clear what we are not and are not supposed to
be, and should not try to be. One of these negative identity definitions
which has been made pretty strongly already is that we are not a political
or ideological institution and are not set to promote any politics or any
ideology. Individuals in the system undoubtedly will have their own po–
litical views, and they will become known as they teach. But as an insti–
tution, no. The faculty's not selected for its ideology but for other
qualities.
A second, negative definition is that we are not a philanthropic or–
ganization. I know I'll be challenged strongly on this, especially in this
sense of need-blind education, which is very expensive. It can be defined
as philanthropic, but that's not its purpose. Its purpose is
to
seek talent,
ability, and to furnish the means for students
to
get an education, re–
gardless of their ability to pay. That's not what I call philanthropy; it's
not trying to do good unto people by improving their self-opinion or
flattering their egos or promoting the prestige of their particular group
