Sifting through the rhetorical ashes generated by the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill’s Islamic reading assignment, what have we learned? Touted and trumpeted as an “academic freedom” issue, the sound and fury revealed less of freedom and more about academic politics and leftist control of the university.
The UNC Board of Governors reactively voted to affirm “religious, academic and political freedom” after the state House Appropriations Committee overwhelmingly approved cutting funds for the reading program. The board temporarily backed away from affirmation. Predictably, commentators, editors, and faculty were quick to show indignation.
Board action really rankled Dennis Rogers, a columnist with the News and Observer of Raleigh. He accused 10 members of the Board of Governors of “intellectual and academic cowardice” for voting against the proposed affirmation.
N&O editors instructed us: “A university is a marketplace of ideas . . . where freedom must resonate with knowledge and truth.” The editors didn’t mention common sense, good judgment, or balanced views in the university marketplace. They did admit that after thousands of Americans were recently killed by Islamic terrorists, the reading requirement was bound to draw criticism. And it did.
Wilmington Morning Star editors weighed in with pontification. They accused the House committee members who voted, 64-16, to cut funding — for what some thought would be used for propaganda rather than knowledge — of doing so for “political” effect. Imagine. Representatives responding to the people they represent.
But these rants were mild compared to reactions by UNC-CH faculty. Professors were “fuming,” faculty members were “incensed;” people were “appalled, aghast and angry.” My, my, such intolerance. What happened to diversity of thought on campus?
It all started when the Family Policy Network and some students filed a lawsuit against the university. These folks had the idea that the reading program sought to indoctrinate students in Islam. And it is reasonable to believe the marketplace of ideas is closed at Chapel Hill. Faculty Council Chairwoman Sue Estroff said they would carry out the dictated program “come hell or high water.” So much for understanding and tolerance.
And, what did outsiders think of this commotion? Wall Street Journal editors believed that the UNC program would be an “exercise in compulsory religious study.” Where, they asked, are the civil liberties watchdogs? The WSJ thought it curious that the American Civil Liberties Union, usually a promoter of public freedom from religion, rather than the free exercise thereof, defended the university’s attempt to promote “the politically correct” view of Islam. Editors accused the ACLU of inconsistency.
John Boffie, president of the ACLU of North Carolina, said the Wall Street Journal had them all wrong. We aren’t inconsistent, he said. We “oppose religious indoctrination” in public schools, but at the college (in this case a public school) level, studies of the Qu’ran and Islamic beliefs are simply “enriched understanding.” Well, we’re glad he cleared that up.
Michael Sells, author of “Approaching the Qur’an: The Early Revelations,” the text in question, defended his book. Sells wrote, “the book makes no general claims about Islam.” Maybe so, but his book omits portions of the Koran (Qur’an is a varietal word for the noun Koran) — parts that justify Islamic jihad terrorists.
In our politically corrected university marketplace, unfettered exchange of ideas will likely not be saleable. Leftists on campus monopolize the marketplace with only their approved political thoughts.
American universities are one-party campuses. Faculty in most liberal arts departments are about 90 percent registered Democrats. Karl Zinsmeister, editor in chief of The American Enterprise, writes: “. . . colleges are now hostile environments for economic and cultural conservatives. Only a narrow spectrum of view is really welcome on campus.” But there is more behind the groves of academe than political bias.
State Rep. Larry Justice said the issue at UNC is not about academic freedom. It’s about money, and the faculty’s fear of losing what Justice calls broader support.But, they needn’t worry. Our public universities now have a power base strong enough to risk showing disdain for the people who so generously fund them. And the courts side with the university. A Greensboro judge ruled against the Islamic program challengers since, he said, it was not mandatory and there was no evidence that the university planned to force Islamic study on students.
No evidence, maybe, but plenty of reason to be suspicious. Where there’s smoke there’s fire.