The only thing stranger than Miami University's recent alcohol Prevention Excellence Award is its ninth place ranking on David Horowitz's list of "Dirty Dozen" schools, which The Miami Student reported (March 17, "Book lists MU among radical 'Dirty Dozen'"). Considering Miami's conservative reputation, it is surprising to think our professors are among the most likely to include "undermining democracy" in their lesson plans.
Proving he is a fierce critic of radical political ideology in the classroom, Horowitz proposes university professors limit themselves to the enunciation of "neutral" knowledge, void of any indoctrinating biases. However, his argument rests on the constitutive lie that university discourse could ever disavow its performative dimension. Let's start with the supporting claim made by College Republicans Chairman Chris Berry who said, "Students are captive to indoctrination." Here, I would have to agree and disagree for a number of reasons.
I disagree because, if Miami students still have an ounce of academic integrity (which I think they do) no one should be entirely at the mercy of course content. Assuming we all have the capacity to make subjective decisions, overtly biased teachings should be met with positive, intellectual resistance. Berry's claim only holds water if students are incapable of actively engaging with the course material and the opinions of their professors. In other words, if you show me an individual who passively accepts everything he or she hears from a professor, I'll show you a bad student.
However, I agree with Berry on an entirely different level because the university, as an institution, is capable of passing off ideologically oriented information as the truth.
I'll use the Farmer School of Business as one example. Classes in the business school, far from delivering "objective" information, present a widely accepted political decision disguised as a simple insight into the factual state of things. Disciplines in finance, accounting, supply-chain management and economics (just to name a few) require at least a basic understanding of the dynamics of the market mechanism. Budgetary measures, interest rate adjustments, inputs and outputs are all represented as necessary functions, but this objective thrust of economic jargon conceals an intricate set of ideologically charged power-relations.
The discipline of economics is a perfect example to help clarify my point. On the surface, the language of economics deals exclusively with concrete, mathematical operations, void of any subjective influence. The "invisible hand" of the free market is treated as an object to be studied, however, beneath such a "neutrally" composed discipline is the Foucauldian application of power-knowledge. The acceptance of modern capitalism passes as impartial knowledge because it resists being included in the discursive network of modern politics. Behind the "unbiased" lessons of business professors is a collective political decision sustained by the active role of state apparatuses and ideological beliefs.
I think this is cause for concern. After all, if we are taught to believe the financial system is an objectively constituted organism, we will all end up like the hysterical residents of South Park who elevated the "Economy" to the status of a mysterious deity. All too often the economy is referred to as some kind of beast or machine that operates solely on the cunning of reason. Economics classes perpetuate this divine image by disavowing the underlying political choice that is necessary for modern economics to function. It is obvious Horowitz never considered the underside of his position. Instead of making a neutral request for impartiality, he is arguing that the prevailing economic and governing structures should be removed from the realm of political debate. Horowitz is simply trading one political view for another. Are these systems so perfect there is no room for constructive criticism? Should we just accept their imperfections as necessary consequences of an undeniable truth? Horowitz, by virtue of his argument, would respond, "yes" to both questions.
The institution of the university is one that demands an active engagement toward all claims over the truth. If the College Republicans and David Horowitz believe Miami is brainwashing students, they should not cry for more objectivity simply because purely unbiased insight is a strict impossibility. It is as if Horowitz and his conservative counterparts have some exclusive access to the truth with which they could actually legitimize claims against politically motivated teachings. They fail to acknowledge the invisible dynamic of ideology: the dominant beliefs in our society not only escape inscription into political dialogue but also structure our seemingly unaffected, sense of reality.
Enjoy what you're reading?
Signup for our newsletter
Read More
How one professor and her classes are preserving Oxford’s Black history
By Sean Scott | March 20, 2024Jazma Sutton, an assistant professor of history, teaches The Black Midwest (HST 350Q) and Black Women in America (HST 450D) classes. In both courses, she has students working with the Smith Library of Regional History and Miami’s archives to document and preserve Black history in Oxford.
Miami faculty members recount Freedom Summer in new documentary
By Luke Macy | February 25, 2022After seven years of work, “Training for Freedom,” a documentary highlighting Oxford’s involvement in the Freedom Summer of 1964, premiered on PBS Western Reserve on Valentine’s Day.
“Documenting the COVID-19 Pandemic”: History in the making
By Alice Momany | August 29, 2021In March 2020, Miami University’s archives launched “Documenting the COVID-19 Pandemic,” a collection focused on life during the COVID-19 pandemic.