A family member used to say things like, “If he’s not guilty, why did they arrest him?” or “He’s guilty. What do they mean, ‘alleged’?” When I mentioned that the prosecution must provide evidence to prove the charges in court, their answer was, “Why bother? Everybody knows he did it.” Yet, accusations are not enough. “Innocent until proven guilty” and “Guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt” come to mind. The bar of proof is set high for a reason: so we don’t end up hanging an innocent person.
Lately, we’ve been hearing high-ranking individuals accusing colleges of being “Anti-American” or “Enemies of the State.” Supposedly, colleges are “indoctrinating students” with “liberal/woke ideology” or systematically “censoring conservative speech.” As a former college professor, I find these accusations dangerous, especially when they are made without substantial evidence.
I spent 38 years teaching at the college level and was a full-time student for 6 years before that. What most of the political audience does not realize is that over 95% of what goes on in college classrooms has nothing to do with gender studies, women’s studies, black studies, critical race theory, DEI, or even the general discipline of sociology. Yes, a small number of faculty and students pursue these areas, but most professors are much more concerned about teaching standard stuff: math, history, literature, natural sciences, business, engineering, nursing, education, agriculture, and many other subjects.
Contrary to political assertions, college programs are not overwhelmingly “woke.” We shouldn’t believe the logical fallacy that a small portion of college life represents the whole. Most professors are simply trying to make sure students understand their subject areas and don’t have time to spread “subversive” ideas. Most are overjoyed whenever students do their assignments and come to class. I taught music courses for a long time, and my main concerns were to help students improve their knowledge of the subject and their general musicianship, not to shape their ideology – unless “woke” ideology means I tried to teach students to work together and show respect for each other. Pardon me, but I thought cooperation and mutual respect were just old-fashioned values.
For several years, I taught a course on critical thinking. I emphasized the now “woke” concept that we must provide facts to back up our arguments. Logical fallacies, such as cherry-picked data points and over-generalizations, do not constitute an argument. They are at best “talking points.” And, it’s crooked thinking to mischaracterize the opposition in extreme terms. The Declaration of Independence states, “All men are created equal.” However, not all opinions are equal. An opinion without a foundation of facts, evidence, and logical reasoning is essentially worthless. While I welcomed honest debate, I tried to make sure students didn’t come to class just to trade preconceptions, insults, or ignorance.
If we wish to critique what goes on in college classrooms, there is an awful lot to discuss. Some professors lose objectivity, become defensive, or fail to accept divergent opinions. We should brainstorm ways to make college better, not condemn college as the source of all societal evils. The key takeaway is that most professors do a pretty good job tolerating various viewpoints and fostering student growth. So, let’s not confuse bellicose accusations with healthy debate. I did not permit this kind of thing in the classroom, and we should not allow it to infect public discourse.
It seems to me the man who thinks he is our king respects the law only when it works to his advantage. Since the time of the Magna Carta, we have relied upon certain legal traditions: the right to a fair trial, freedom from arbitrary imprisonment, equal application of the law, and equal access to the justice system. These principles permeate the Bill of Rights. We have also agreed that even a king should be subject to the law and not its final arbiter. Wild accusations against colleges, the press, and individuals who disagree with the “king” are contrary to 800 years of legal precedent. Mere suspicion of wrongdoing does not prove someone has committed a crime, my relative’s opinions notwithstanding.
Robert Bolt, in his play, A Man for All Seasons, wrote this little exchange about the importance of the law. I think it’s applicable to recent events.
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
Nevertheless, Henry VIII had Thomas More and many others beheaded, because they wouldn’t automatically go along with his desires. In the end, the law did not protect them. Henry was more interested in power and wealth than in upholding the rule of law. Apparently, the law does not necessarily protect people from those who cast it aside whenever it suits their purposes.
In the 18th century, the American colonies revolted against King George III. He also wished to be the ultimate source of law. Yet, no man is. Not even an American President. Therefore, if Harvard, or any other University, decides to act as a man for all seasons and stand up to a man who thinks he is a king, this would be a point of honor, even if the university lost the battle. The president is not a king and is not above the law. He must swear to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” If any president breaks this oath, the people have the right to hold him accountable.
MurrayWorks 
Wonderful ♥️
LikeLike