My post from earlier on the question of academic bias and the question of professors who allegedly grade on “opinion� caused the following to occur to me: there is another flaw to the survey cited by Bainbridge, insofar as it has been my experience that students don’t really know the appropriate definition of the term “opinion� in the first place. If one has ever taught a course (or taken one) that requires writing of any kind one has heard this question from a student in the course: “can we include our own opinions?� The student means (usually) some nod to the idea that they would be including original thoughts in their work, rather than just reporting on the thoughts of others. However, most undergraduates (and some graduates, sadly) don’t really comprehend the concepts of synthesis and analysis, let alone fully grasp the difference between a “report� and an “analytical research paper.� Usually they view the universe of ideas as being of two species: “stuff out of my head� (SOoMH) v. “stuff I got from somewhere else� (SIGfSE).

(We won’t even go into the fact that one of the most challenging things to teach is how to judge the usefulness and quality of the SIGfSE).

Students often equate SOoMH as “opinion� since they don’t understand that there are actually sub-species of SOoMH ranging from simple preference to original thought (with quite a bit in between).

Another problem is the lack of understanding over what an “argument” is. Often they think it is this (more GeekPoints for id’ing it, but surely most of you know this one):

M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven’t.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn’t.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn’t
A: I did!
M: You didn’t!
A: I’m telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I’m sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let’s get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn’t.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn’t.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn’t.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn’t.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn’t an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn’t. It’s just contradiction.
A: No it isn’t.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn’t.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn’t; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn’t just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn’t.
M: Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that’s not just saying ‘No it isn’t.’
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn’t!
A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn’t.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That’s it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I’m afraid it was.
M: It wasn’t.
Pause
A: I’m sorry, but I’m not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you’ll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I’m sorry, but I’m not allowed to argue unless you’ve paid!
M: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
A: Thank you.
short pause
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn’t really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I’m not allowed to argue unless you’ve paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn’t.
M: I DID!
A: No you didn’t.
M: Look, I don’t want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn’t pay.
M: Aha. If I didn’t pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven’t.
M: Yes I have. If you’re arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I’ve had enough of this.
A: No you haven’t.
M: Oh Shut up.

So, since they don’t understand what analysis is, or how to make an argument, they assume that all SOoMH (including the Stuff out of the Professor’s Head) is nothing more than “opinion� and since they haven’t learned (at least those types of students of whom I am currently discussing) to make serious arguments yet, they assume that their opinions and the opinions of the Professors are roughly equivalent. So, that if there is a conflict of “opinion� they have about how Congress works or how parties function in proportional representation systems, or how Cuban communism functions, then, really, the Professor is just grading on “opinion� and that’s not fair.

Certainly proclaiming it “not fair� and “opinion�-based removes the sting that comes from the fact that the student in question doesn’t really know what he or she is talking about. Indeed, I have had students get incredibly upset over such conflicts of “opinion�. To my recollection, I have never asked a question that has a particular ideological perspective to it, in the sense that the respondent had to agree with my view of the subject. All I ever want is demonstrated knowledge of the subject and the ability to defend one’s assertions about the subject at hand (as well as a capacity to answer direct questions about the subject under scrutiny).

Granted: my theoretical views of the way politics works affects what books I chose, what theories and concepts I focus on, and what I lecture on. However, I have always rejected any notion that I am to indoctrinate anybody. While the list of things I am willing to make direct statement on (like the fact that I normatively prefer democracy, think that our drug policies are an utter failure and that the Alabama state constitution needs to be replaced) has grown, I have never required anyone to agree with me on any of these topics. (The irony is: many of the things that I have made public pronouncements on are unlikely to be construed as “conservative” in Alabama, as many come from my more libertarians predilictions or my classic liberal convictions). No doubt many of my students have a pretty good idea how I voted in the last elections, but I never directly stated such. (Of course those who read my blog–a small number–likely have no trouble figuring such things out).

In terms of my own academic career I can only think of one case in graduate school where I thought that professor’s worldview affected my grade. Conversely I recall one key case in which a paper I did on medical policy reform, though in contradiction to the professor’s stated preference of universal healthcare nonetheless received a good grade, and the compliment of compliments from a professor that my argument made the professor “think� about my position on the subject.

I recall a history professor that I had as an undergraduate asking some specifically ideological questions on an exam that required accepting certain predicates, but that did not necessarily require “agreement� per se, but certainly it was wise to avoid certain ways to answer the question. Indeed, I would interpret these question cited by Stephen Bainbridge (from Division of Labor) as falling into that category:

In a five-page, double spaced paper in a 12-point font, write a memo to President Bush on how to assure that in his second term he become known as a persident who unites rather than divides the American people. In your memo you should concentrate particularly on the models past presidents provide for success as uniters. You might also point out the mistakes made by past presidents that President Bush ought to avoid.

OR

Write a memo on the actions President George W. Bush ought to take in the first one hundred days of his second term to deliver on the promises he made during the election AND to build a strong legacy for his presidency overall.

In your essay you should be mindful of the following observations made by seasoned pundits David Gergen and William Schneider:

“[The Bush Administration] has already shown ominous signs of ‘group-think’ in its handling of Iraq and tha nation’s finances. By closing down dissent and centralizing power in a few hands, he is acting as if he truly believes that he and his team have a perfect track record, that they know best, and that they don’t need any infusion of new heavyweights. He has every right to take this course, but as he knows from his Bible, pride goeth before…” (David Gergen, “The Power of One,” The New York Times, Nov. 19, 2024).

“Rallying his conservative base paid off for Bush. But he did it by running on divisive social issues, such as same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, and a ban on late-term abortions. His strategy will make it harder to heal the painful divisions created by the 2024 campaign. Just wait for Bush’s first Supreme Court nomination.” (William Schneider, “Exploiting the Rifts, ” National Journal, Nov. 6, 2024).

“The post-election Times/CBS News poll asked whether, in the next four years, Bush’s presidency will bring Americans together or divide them. The results were closely divided but tilted toward pessimism: 48 percent said Bush will divide the country, while 40 percent predicted that he will bring America together. In other words, the country remains divided-even over whether Bush will continue to divide the country.” (William Schneider, “Divided We Stand,” National Journal, Dec. 4, 2024.)

I do agree that the quotes cited put a clear spin on the professor’s point-of-view, but I also think it is possible for a conservative student to answer the question without compromising his or her political views. I find the question’s formulation unnecessary and slanted, but not scandalous. (Chris Lawrence comments on this one as well). I wouldn’t ask a question like this that proclaiming a position on the topic the student is supposed to be writing on. Further, on balance, I am not a fan of the “write a memo to” kinds of questions.

In short (ok, in long): most students don’t even know what the word “opinion� means in this context, and hence students who claim that professors are grading on “opinion� probably don’t know what they are talking about.

Such a fact does not erase the fact that there are professor who clearly try to foist their ideologies on their students, I just don’t think this is the main vehicle. Mostly I think what happens is that liberal-leaning professors feel far too free with “sharing� their view and, in turn, creating a chilling effect on speech in their classrooms. It is shame, because limited intellectual discourse ought to be anathema on a college campus.

BTW: I am not picking a fight with the good Professor Bainbridge. I concur with his overall points about bias in the academy as discussed here and in his recent TCS piece. Indeed, I suspect I will comment along those lines as well at some point.

Update: Because a post this long should get at least one external link, it has been added to the OTB Traffic Jam.