What exactly was the point of Scott Brooks’ column (Red Ink: BU Faculty Tilt to the Left, Nov. 21)? He offers plenty of criticism of the liberal student and faculty population but little else. Liberalism, he implies, is a disease. Political scientists who are active in their field are detrimental to the learning environment, if they are liberal. Students who vote are bad, if they are liberal. And political debates are bad, if the liberals win. According to Mr. Brooks, all of us liberals are brainwashing the few remaining unscathed students on campus. Yet, as his column demonstrates, students can think for themselves and espouse their own political beliefs. We would also like to remind Mr. Brooks, who is so clearly upset that the majority of students and faculty on campus are liberal-minded, that he goes to school in Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states in the country. Furthermore, we encourage him to praise student involvement and political awareness in any political group, rather than deter students and professors from speaking out about their beliefs should they happen to be liberal. If Mr. Brooks wants debate and open forums, then by all means he should encourage the expression of ideas in his columns, rather than condemn them.
We are not saying that the forum for debate on our campus is perfect, far from. But, Mr. Brooks, take aim at an appropriate target. Criticizing Professor James Shoch for his activism and for expressing his views on the recent election results is beyond ridiculous. I (Ellen) am a student in one of his classes, and I was there for the lecture on November 6 to which Mr. Brooks referred to in his column. I was happy to hear Shoch, an expert in political science, give his take on how the election results would affect Congress during the next two years. Mr. Brooks also happened to leave out the fact that Shoch weekly allots time in class for discussion of current events, where students of all beliefs are welcome to share their views.
If Mr. Brooks himself feels the expressed need for an open class forum of ideologies and discussion dialogue I personally would like to refer him to taking a class with Prof. Cathie Jo Martin. I (Shawn) am currently enrolled in one of her courses and must say that from day one she made it known that yes she was a democrat and was proud of her beliefs and stances. Never has she shunned students for speaking out in class, and consistently opens the class for dialogue and input from students, irrelevant of their political ideology. Mr. Brooks is 100% correct in stating that through open environments students can develop and mature their beliefs, I feel though that to find these environments he can look no further than the classrooms he shuns in his article.
As for complaining that College Republicans are outnumbered on campus, that argument is highly ironic. The Republican Party has long declared that disadvantaged people or groups hold the power within themselves to change their situation for the better, and that these minority groups chose to be in their current situation. Yet, the very Republicans who reminded us of this belief during the pre-Election Day debate now complain that they deserve our pity for their situation? They chose to attend Boston University, an excellent and liberal institution. If they truly believe in Republicanism, then by all means they should defend its ideals in the face of opposition, rather than whine about it.
Mr. Brooks also makes the point that an overwhelming amount of political contributions in the 2002 election cycle from BU faculty went to Democratic candidates. Again, irony abounds, for two reasons. First, Republicans have consistently raised more soft money than Democrats nationwide. Yet Mr. Brooks cries foul when the tables have turned within our campus? Oh please. Second, perhaps Mr. Brooks should suggest some effective campaign finance reform if he truly believes that this is a problem. Yet again, however, it is the Republican party who feels that campaign contributions are a form of expression, and any limitations on a person’s ability to express himself this way is an impingement on his freedom of speech. Where are you now, Mr. Brooks, in demanding debate?
The forum for debate exists on our campus, but students must take advantage of it. Liberalism can hardly be blamed for the students who choose not to speak up in class. If a student or any individual holds beliefs that he or she feels are dear to them, that make them who they are, they should never feel ashamed for speaking there minds, for raising their hands, and for opening discussion. The potential for debate does exist on campus, Mr. Brooks, perhaps you must raise your hand to get the ball rolling? Mr. Brooks complains of an apparent “problem” but proposes no solution other than to encourage further criticism of those students on campus who do vote, who do debate, who do use college to develop their political beliefs and think on their own. And to quote his own column, “there is something very wrong with that.”
To be fair, we feel we must disclose our personal ties to the issues discussed in this and Mr. Brooks’ column. Ellen is currently the Vice President of BU College Democrats and a student in one of Shoch’s classes. She was a panelist at the Election night debates, and has worked for EMILY’s List, one of the mentioned PACs. Shawn is the current President of the BU College Democrats, a student on one of Prof. Martin’s classes. He too was a panelist on the Smackdown election night debates, and has worked for various democratic campaigns and congressional offices.
– Shawn White (CAS 2004) 617-869-1068, [email protected] – Ellen Weis (CAS 2003) [email protected]
