April 2013
The tale
of a teed-off philanthropist and the head of Bowdoin College, where identity
politics runs wild.
It sounds like the setup for a bad joke:
What did the Wall Street type say to the college president on the golf course?
Well, we don’t know exactly—but it has launched a saga with weighty implications
for American intellectual and civic life.
Here’s what we do know: One day in the
summer of 2010, Barry Mills, the president of Bowdoin College, a respected
liberal-arts school in Brunswick, Maine, met investor and philanthropist Thomas
Klingenstein for a round of golf about an hour north of campus. College
presidents spend many of their waking hours talking to potential donors. In this
case, the two men spoke about college life—especially "diversity"—and the
conversation made such an impression on President Mills that he cited it weeks
later in his convocation address to Bowdoin’s freshman class. That’s where the
dispute begins.
In his address, President Mills described
the golf outing and said he had been interrupted in the middle of a swing by a
fellow golfer’s announcement: "I would never support Bowdoin—you are a
ridiculous liberal school that brings all the wrong students to campus for all
the wrong reasons," said the other golfer, in Mr. Mills’s telling. During Mr.
Mills’s next swing, he recalled, the man blasted Bowdoin’s "misplaced and
misguided diversity efforts." At the end of the round, the college president
told the students, "I walked off the course in despair."
Word of the speech soon got to Mr.
Klingenstein. Even though he hadn’t been named in the Mills account, Mr.
Klingenstein took to the pages of the Claremont Review of Books to call it
nonsense: "He didn’t like my views, so he turned me into a backswing
interrupting, Bowdoin-hating boor who wants to return to the segregated days of
Jim Crow."
The real story, wrote Mr. Klingenstein, was
that "I explained my disapproval of ‘diversity’ as it generally has been
implemented on college campuses: too much celebration of racial and ethnic
difference," coupled with" not enough celebration of our common
American identity."
For this, wrote Mr. Klingenstein, Bowdoin’s
president insinuated that he was a racist. And President Mills did so, moreover,
in an address that purported to stress the need for respecting the opinions of
others across the political spectrum. "We are, in the main, a place of liberal
political persuasion," he told the students, but "we must be willing to
entertain diverse perspectives throughout our community. . . . Diversity of
ideas at all levels of the college is crucial for our credibility and for our
educational mission." Wrote Mr. Klingenstein: "Would it be uncharitable to
suggest that, in a speech calling for more sensitivity to conservative views, he
might have shown some?"
After the essay appeared, President Mills
stood by his version of events. A few months later, Mr. Klingenstein decided to
do something surprising: He commissioned researchers to examine Bowdoin’s
commitment to intellectual diversity, rigorous academics and civic identity.
This week, some 18 months and hundreds of pages of documentation later, the
project is complete. Its picture of Bowdoin isn’t pretty.
Funded by Mr. Klingenstein, researchers
from the National Association of Scholars studied speeches by Bowdoin presidents
and deans, formal statements of the college’s principles, official faculty
reports and notes of faculty meetings, academic course lists and syllabi, books
and articles by professors, the archive of the Bowdoin Orient newspaper and
more. They analyzed the school’s history back to its founding in 1794, focusing
on the past 45 years—during which, they argue, Bowdoin’s character changed
dramatically for the worse.
Published Wednesday, the report
demonstrates how Bowdoin has become an intellectual monoculture dedicated above
all to identity politics.
The school’s ideological pillars would
likely be familiar to anyone who has paid attention to American higher education
lately. There’s the obsession with race, class, gender and sexuality as the
essential forces of history and markers of political identity. There’s the
dedication to "sustainability," or saving the planet from its imminent
destruction by the forces of capitalism.
And there are the paeans to "global
citizenship," or loving all countries except one’s own. The Klingenstein report
nicely captures the illiberal or fallacious aspects of this campus doctrine, but
the paper’s true contribution is in recording some of its absurd manifestations
at Bowdoin. For example, the college has "no curricular requirements that center
on the American founding or the history of the nation." Even history majors
aren’t required to take a single course in American history. In the History
Department, no course is devoted to American political, military, diplomatic or
intellectual history—the only ones available are organized around some aspect of
race, class, gender or sexuality.
One of the few requirements is that Bowdoin
students take a yearlong freshman seminar. Some of the 37 seminars offered this
year: "Affirmative Action and U.S. Society," "Fictions of Freedom," "Racism,"
"Queer Gardens" (which "examines the work of gay and lesbian gardeners and
traces how marginal identities find expression in specific garden spaces"),
"Sexual Life of Colonialism" and "Modern Western Prostitutes."
Regarding Bowdoin professors, the report
estimates that "four or five out of approximately 182 full-time faculty members
might be described as politically conservative." In the 2012 election cycle,
100% of faculty donations went to President Obama. Not that any of this matters
if you have ever asked around the faculty lounge.
"A political imbalance [among faculty] was
no more significant than having an imbalance between Red Sox and Yankee fans,"
sniffed Henry C.W. Laurence, a Bowdoin professor of government, in 2004. He
added that the suggestion that liberal professors cannot fairly reflect
conservative views in classroom discussions is "intellectually bankrupt,
professionally insulting and, fortunately, wildly inaccurate."
Perhaps so. But he’d have a stronger case
if, for example, his colleague Marc Hetherington hadn’t written the same year in
Bowdoin’s newspaper that liberal professors outnumber conservatives because
conservatives don’t "place the same emphasis on the accumulation of knowledge
that liberals do."
In publishing these and other gems, Mr.
Klingenstein and the National Association of Scholars hope to encourage alumni
and trustees to push aggressively for reforms. They don’t call for the kind of
conservative affirmative action seen at the University of Colorado, which
recently created a visiting professorship exclusively for right-wingers. Rather,
Mr. Klingenstein and the NAS want schools nationwide to stop "silent
discrimination against conservatives." Good luck.
In case you’re wondering, Bowdoin’s
official statement on this week’s report amounted to little more than a shrug. A
serious response would begin with inviting Mr. Klingenstein to campus for a
public debate with President Mills. No golf clubs allowed.
Mr. Feith is an assistant editorial
features editor at the Journal.
A
version of this article appeared April 6, 2013, on page A11 in the U.S. edition
of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Golf Shot Heard Round the
Academic World.
Help us maintain freedom in teaching, research and scholarship by joining SAFS or making a donation.
