The Socratic Scribe

I have so much to say that this is likely to be all over the place, but I have to start somewhere, so here goes. Pardon the sloppy writing by the way.

Yesterday, I had finally had enough in my history class. I am currently enrolled in a graduate course on Ancient Greece. Somehow, our professor finds a way to bring current politics into every class, and he does it in a derogatory way. Every day in class we insults any conservative who might be on his mind, any conservative ideals, and any conservative movements. He makes it clear that anyone who believes in such ideas are mindless idiots not worth taking seriously. Quite a few of us in the class are conservative, or at least subscribe to some conservative values. He also has a thing about talking about sex whenever he can, spending a great amount of time glorifying the openness of Greek sexuality, which included commonplace homosexuality/bisexuality, polygamy, prostitution, and pederasty. According to our professor, our culture is so sexually repressed and put off by the Greeks because of our unnecessary “squeamishness.” So, apparently, it's better to be completely open and loose in our sexuality than to hold it as something sacred and special to share with one person. How dare I believe in chastity and monogamy. It's not like any harm ever came out of sleeping with anyone and everyone. STDs, regrets, unwanted pregnancies, objectification of women – surely those things couldn't be bad. You know, what really irks me is the fact that these liberals are such strong advocates of cultural relativism and yet they judge our own culture relentlessly. Pederasty in ancient Greece? Well, that was just their culture. Female genital mutilation in north Africa? That too is just their culture. Sexual abstinence? Saving sex for the person you are going to marry? That's just sick, ignorant, sexually repressed thinking there. Yeah, the libs aren't too good at sticking to their own ideals, are they.

So, as I was saying, our professor makes it a point in every class to somehow drag politics into the classroom, where they are not relevant to the subject, and voice his personal opinions to a captive audience. Here are a few examples of how this plays out.

We are talking about Alciabades, an Athenian who was extremely handsome and who ended up selling the Athenians out to the Spartans, and who, even after this treachery, was welcomed back to Athens and given another chance. Our professor states that the Greeks had a thing for beautiful people, just like we do, otherwise how would people like Sarah Palin and Nikki Haley ever be able to run in a political campaign. He constantly attacks Nikki Haley and accuses her of adultery, though no one has any proof and one of the accusations comes from a member of her opponent's campaign staff, a very questionable source. He bad mouths Rick Perry, blasts the Arizona immigration bill, and yesterday, this is what put me over the top. We were talking about Alexander the Great's campaign and how really there is very little written history to describe what actually happened, one of the most trusted sources being written 500 years after his conquests. I told him how one of the most interesting things to me about history is just how sometimes some of the most history changing events have so little documented about them, and also how historical accounts can contradict themselves even shortly after they occur. I cited a case I had read about earlier that day regarding the opening of the Georgia Guidestones, a rather strange monument erected in 1980 in the state of Georgia. One report has it that 100 people were there for the ceremony, while another states that 400 people witnessed it. This was only 30 years ago. He then jumps to talk about the Tea Party and how all of the Tea Party rallies are photo-shopped to show that more people are there than actually are. He laughed and made fun of all of those “Tea Partiers.” At that point I had had it. The man himself has never attended a rally and has never seen for himself what they are about or how many people are there. He apparently wants to believe that the time lapsed photos taken from the city of Washington D.C. at the 9/12 Tea Party rally are faked. There is enough video and photographic evidence from the thousands upon thousands of people who were there that would prove contradictory.

He also said something quite asinine the other day in class that was only slightly political, but it truly showed his ignorance. He actually repeated it on two different days. He stated ancient history is great because unlike today, there are actual conspiracies that happen. Ceasar was assassinated. That was a conspiracy. But today we don't have any conspiracies. Seriously buddy, are you that ignorant?

Conspiracy, as defined by Merriam-Webster: the act of conspiring together.
Conspiring, as defined by Merriam-Webster: to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement

I'm sorry, but there are conspiracies every day. We have political conspiracies, business conspiracies, personal conspiracies. When a man takes out a huge life insurance policy on his wife and has her murdered, that is a conspiracy. When a group of accountants fudge the numbers to reap greater profits, that is a conspiracy. When a group of radical Muslims hijack four airplanes and fly them into American buildings, that is a conspiracy. When John F. Kennedy is assassinated in Dallas, Texas, that is a conspiracy. To be so stupid as to say that conspiracies are a thing of the past completely reveals his ignorance, especially his ignorance of history, which he has somehow managed to earn a Ph.D. in and teach at the university level.

I'm not surprised anymore though. Most people who are Christians and/or who are of a more conservative political bent are constantly bombarded by hateful speech from their professors in college. This derogatory treatment of students has no place in the American university system. The university is supposed to be an environment favorable to academic freedom, where a student is allowed to formulate their own opinions and come to their own conclusions based on well-rounded studies, not based on their professors' political opinions or even by a one-sided study of issues. For a professor to push his own agenda or beliefs on his students is an abuse of his power toward a malleable young mind. It is a professor's job to teach his students how to think, not what to think. If the class is examining a controversial subject, the professor should provide the student with access to both sides of the argument. The reading list for the class should consist of books and articles from various view points. In a class on Marxism in Europe, for example, a student should be exposed to both pro-Marxist and anti-Marxist writings. The professor should leave out his own personal opinion of the subject and allow the students to explore the subject and come to their own conclusions. If a professor happens to be a Christian, the classroom is not the place to proselytize his faith. If the professor is an atheist, the classroom should not be a forum for the professor to degrade others' faith. For a professor to vocally assert his own opinion and degrade the ideas of those opposed to him is an abuse of power in a different way in that it intimidates students who happen to disagree with him. If a professor is constantly blasting conservatives, a conservative student might feel afraid to write a paper based on their opposing opinion for fear of being unfairly graded. If a professor makes it clear that he devalues the opinions of those whose ideas differ from his, then on what grounds can a student with a differing opinion trust him to treat his or her ideas with respect? To foster a truly free-thinking and open-minded atmosphere in the university, academic freedom is a necessity and this requires professors to put aside their personal views and to stop using their classrooms to impose their agendas on a captive and vulnerable audience. Academic freedom is the only way to ensure that a university education leads to true enlightenment.

Immanuel Kant writes in his essay What is Enlightenment? that “Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another.” An enlightened student must be able to think for himself, come to his own conclusions, and use his own reason. It is only when we learn to do this that we escape from the control of those who would have influence over us for their own sake. Kant continues on. “If I have a book which understands for me, a pastor who has a conscience for me, a physician who decides my diet, and so forth, I need not trouble myself. I need not think, if I can only pay – others will readily undertake the irksome work for me. That the step to competence is held to be very dangerous by the far greater portion of mankind...is seen to by those guardians who have so kindly assumed superintendence over them. After the guardians have first made their domestic cattle dumb and have made sure that these placid creatures will not dare take a single step without the harness of the cart to which they are confined, the guardians then show them the danger which threatens them if they go alone.” When we are not enlightened, when as students, we have been taught to rely on the knowledge and guidance of our professors who “know better” than we do, we end up shackled, enslaved to their control and their ideas. We do not think for ourselves. We do not formulate our own opinions. We do not give birth to new ideas. We have been taught to submit to those in authority and agree with them if we know what is best for us. We must be able to think for ourselves, to voice our own opinions. This is academic freedom. “It is the freedom to make public use of one's reason at every point,” Kant continues. “But I hear on all sides, 'Do not argue!' The officer says: 'Do not argue but drill!' The tax collector: 'Do not argue but pay!' The cleric: 'Do not argue but believe!'...Everywhere there is restriction of freedom.” Our professors, when they insult our beliefs, when they assert their ideas and agendas forcefully on us, are restricting our freedom to use our reason. But we do have freedom. We do have the right to think for ourselves, to argue our ideas, to not be intimidated. We have a right to break free from the shackles imposed upon us by oppressive academics. We are the enlightened ones.