To the Editor:
Brett Thiesen '05's letter to the editor, "Another Example of Liberal Bias in Academia," (June 23) should be considered an embarrassment to its author and to those concerned about intellectual freedom at Dartmouth. Thiesen managed to overshadow the many real concerns about the inclusion of conservative viewpoints at American universities with baseless, generalized accusations designed not to generate dialogue or seek solutions, but rather to lay blame. Thiesen's shrill criticism of the recent War and Peace Program Middle East panel accused its organizers of possessing a liberal bias since "there were three speakers who were against the U.S. policy," and only one who did not criticize current administration policy.
First, I question what it means to be "against" U.S. policy. Such a criticism belies ignorance of the many nuances of U.S. foreign policy and its sometime detractors. Criticizing aspects of Middle East policy does not constitute being "against" all U.S. policy decisions in that area. Furthermore, unlike Thiesen's criticism, U.S. policy in the Middle East itself is extremely complex. No one would condone or condemn the entire set of countless decisions made by countless individuals regarding countless countries and situations that constitute U.S. Middle East policy. Few foreign policy experts would call U.S. Middle East policy an utter mistake or an absolute success. Thus I assume a lack of understanding on the author's part. The very basis for his criticism is senseless.
Once we move past the logical inadequacy of Thiesen's argument, a more central problem presents itself. The only panelist above this supposed bias, according to Thiesen, was Dennis Goodman of the U.S. State Department, who Thiesen considered free of liberal "bias" because he "did not call the U.S. Middle East policy a mistake and predict a terrible outcome in Iraq." (Again, how can the U.S. Middle East policy be "a mistake?" It could perhaps contain many mistakes and many successes, but calling the many decisions that constitute U.S. Middle East policy a "mistake" is like calling the defensive line of the Green Bay Packers a "mistake" -- there are just too many people, too many seasons, too many games and too many plays to condone or condemn the whole thing.)
And here we come to the big problem -- the author detected a liberal bias as a result of the fact that one of four panelists did not predict disastrous ends in Iraq. Anxiety and pessimism about Iraq are not "liberal" or "conservative" sentiments. Just this week, Representative Walter Jones (R-NC), famous for promoting the use of the term "freedom fries," expressed his concern at the many lives lost and the incredible amount of money spent on Iraq by calling for a timeline for pulling out of Iraq. Was that his rampant liberal bias talking, or was he using his critical thinking abilities (you know, like the ones we're supposed to acquire at Dartmouth) to criticize a lack of clarity in the Bush administration's approach?
What this comes down to is the expectation of some students that a) Bush administration policy adequately represents conservative viewpoints and b) that Dartmouth should include conservative viewpoints at every event, a line of thinking with major flaws. Being "conservative" doesn't mean being a Bush-style Republican ideologue. Including a "token conservative" on every panel is no better than imposing racial diversity quotas on every panel.
A reasonable expectation of the inclusion of conservative viewpoints, on the other hand, is not only acceptable but necessary. As someone who possesses that ubiquitous "liberal bias," I thoroughly enjoyed four years of finding my own beliefs questioned at every turn, both by my professors and my fellow students.
It is only through true diversity, political and otherwise, that we can achieve a broad and mature understanding of the world around us.
I'm not saying conservative students don't have a hard time at American universities; I'm not qualified to determine either way. I am saying that those students who sense a liberal bias should find a way to articulate their concerns that makes sense and that strikes at the real issues.
