Spring Break
The Archconservative steps down as editor
By: William Mulgrew
Issue date: 6/8/07 Section: Ed-Op
Originally published: 6/8/07 at 4:00 AM EST
Last update: 6/8/07 at 4:00 AM EST
Originally published: 6/8/07 at 4:00 AM EST
Last update: 6/8/07 at 4:00 AM EST
- Page 1 of 2 next >
I've served as ed-op editor for nearly two years now and I greatly enjoyed being at the forefront of college debate. However, all good things must come to an end. Having accepted a fellowship with the College of Arts and Sciences to help Professor Dilworth write a textbook on Pennsylvania government, I'm excited to help expand this area of knowledge when civics and localism are in decline in America. But with these new responsibilities, I cannot continue to serve in the capacity of ed-op editor.
I know many of you are thinking right now, "Good riddance!" I hope that I've shown honesty and mutual respect to others. I have an open mind, but I do not have an empty mind. Even if you do not agree with me, I hope at the very least I've challenged your thinking. There's a problem when anyone goes to an institution of higher learning only to have their own truisms confirmed in class, rather than challenged through differing viewpoints. I would say the same even if conservatives dominated all universities.
But conservatives are not dominant. I'm encouraged and grateful that CoAS would offer me this position, but there are precious few of us conservatives in academia. I'm haunted by the words of Professor Robert Brandon, chair of the philosophy department at Duke University. He said, "If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire." I cannot comprehend what arrogance would presume to know everything in an academic setting, which is suppose to encourage the free exchange of ideas, well enough to exclude others.
Brandon's words drive at the heart of the university's purpose. Is it supposed to preserve the American regime by teaching students what it's about, or is it suppose to change it into something else? If it's the latter, then Brandon's arrogance is justified, but the former has its own problems. I support it for primary education, but I'm of two minds when it comes to secondary.
I know many of you are thinking right now, "Good riddance!" I hope that I've shown honesty and mutual respect to others. I have an open mind, but I do not have an empty mind. Even if you do not agree with me, I hope at the very least I've challenged your thinking. There's a problem when anyone goes to an institution of higher learning only to have their own truisms confirmed in class, rather than challenged through differing viewpoints. I would say the same even if conservatives dominated all universities.
But conservatives are not dominant. I'm encouraged and grateful that CoAS would offer me this position, but there are precious few of us conservatives in academia. I'm haunted by the words of Professor Robert Brandon, chair of the philosophy department at Duke University. He said, "If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire." I cannot comprehend what arrogance would presume to know everything in an academic setting, which is suppose to encourage the free exchange of ideas, well enough to exclude others.
Brandon's words drive at the heart of the university's purpose. Is it supposed to preserve the American regime by teaching students what it's about, or is it suppose to change it into something else? If it's the latter, then Brandon's arrogance is justified, but the former has its own problems. I support it for primary education, but I'm of two minds when it comes to secondary.
