Foiling the Thought Police:
Bringing Intellectual Diversity to
the University of Maine System
by Jon Reisman

Next spring, a very different and unique course will be offered statewide on the University of Maine System's interactive TV.  The course, Political Correctness in American Society, analyzes the roots and consequences of efforts to constrain individual liberty in the name of "community".  It will be taught by one of the most politically incorrect UMS faculty members (myself).  The course is part of an essential mission: restoring intellectual diversity to higher education in Maine and the United States.

Although many Americans would identify "PC" as a left-based university centered movement to control speech in the name of diversity, it is in fact a broad equal opportunity facet of American society that dates back to the Salem witch trials.  Other prominent outbreaks of repression in the name of "community" and the "public good" include the Alien and Sedition Acts, Prohibition, and McCarthyism.  More recently, anti-drug and tobacco policies, campaign finance reform, harassment policies and recent gun control initiatives have all sought to constrain liberty in the name of community.  As one colleague told me, "Without constraints on freedom, there would be no civilization."  I replied, "Without freedom, there would be no America."

Freedom and intellectual diversity are particularly important in our institutions of higher education.  Without them, they cannot be functioning universities which produce a thoughtful and free thinking citizenry.  Rather, they are reeducation camps producing intellectually hobbled graduates wary of offending the thought police.  Star Trek fans will recognize two memorable lines from the series.  A telepathic alien warns, "Wrong thinking will be punished…right thinking will be just as quickly rewarded".  And of course the Borg statement: "Resistance is futile."

In the 1978 Bakke "reverse discrimination" case, Justice Powell held that intellectual diversity was a compelling interest for universities, and that they could consider race in order to pursue it.  Powell also said that 'simple ethnic diversity' is not a compelling state interest.  Diversity must 'encompass a far broader array of qualifications and characteristics of which race or ethnic origin is but one.'"  Somehow the logic and declarative simplicity of that finding has been lost on diversity advocates across the country.

The Bakke decision outlawed racial quotas and pushed Universities into pursuing "goals" with a variety of racial profiling techniques, most of which have since been outlawed by the courts.  Here in New England, racial preferences and profiling in education have been outlawed as a result of challenges to policies practiced at Boston Latin High School.  Despite the court decisions, such racial preferences are still routinely practiced and applauded.  University officials simply await the arrival of a sufficiently outraged and deep-pocketed litigant to force an end to racial and gender profiling.

This spring, the Court held in Southworth that students could not prevent the use of student fees supporting programming they objected to.  This commendable decision relied once again on Powell’s finding that intellectual diversity is critical to the university's mission.  The Court explicitly stated that the institution must invite speakers in an ideologically neutral and balanced manner--in other words, promoting intellectual diversity.  Furthermore, the court made a finding that strikes at the heart of the current PC regime: students at the university do not have the right not to be offended.  Should that finding find fertile ground in the future, much of the current threat to free speech from harassment and diversity policies will evaporate.

PC in American Society is in all likelihood the first such course in the nation.  Last year a similar course was proposed at Bowling Green University in Kentucky.  The faculty refused to consider it, and even refused to discuss why they refused to consider it.  My faculty peers at Machias did better, perhaps because a history of open, occasionally rancorous and generally reluctant debate over these issues created a climate where outright and open censorship of such a course was not acceptable.

Two years ago, every UMS campus was directed to develop a specific diversity policy, including a definition of diversity.  The University had numerous policies promoting diversity, but no definition, and the Trustees realized this was an invitation to litigation as well as being pretty sloppy.  At Machias, our definition not only includes the usual (race, gender, sexual orientation, age, etc, ) but also uniquely adds "ideological" diversity to the list.  Several white males supported the UMM diversity policy specifically because it included ideological diversity.

Last year, the UMM faculty considered a motion supporting free speech and academic freedom.  The motion passed, but not without major opposition.  The leading feminist on campus opposed the motion, stating that "Jon Reisman will use this motion to hurt diversity on campus."  Oddly, the campus EEO officer did not consider such statements hate speech.

The first major test of our new diversity policy came this fall when the Science Division presented a review of the Environmental Studies program.  The Program Review process had deliberately excluded faculty (myself) who the science division saw as "hostile" to the Green movement, and removed the successful courses and program concentration (environmental policy) I taught.  The administration supported the Science Division, and dismissed, indeed refused to acknowledge or discuss, the violations of our diversity policy.

As a result of this decision, if I wished to stay employed at the University, I needed to develop new courses to fill my time.  The first of these is Political Correctness in American Society.  The course is well grounded in many disciplines, including political science, philosophy, and history. My political and policy experience and research interests made me uniquely qualified to teach this course.  I insisted that the same academic criteria used for women's and ethnic studies courses be equally applied. I also pointed out that all of my syllabi state that I welcome and encourage ideological diversity .

My faculty peers and the University administration were in no position to censor this course after approving a gross violation of our diversity policy and "encouraging" me to pursue other areas.  It remains to be seen whether the course will be blacked out at other campuses or not.  Since there is no similar alternative being offered by any other campus, the only reason to block it out is to prevent an outbreak of intellectual diversity.  Very dangerous stuff you know, even if it is a compelling interest.  If students start thinking for themselves, who knows what they might start to question.

Jon Reisman is an associate professor of economics and public policy at UMM,
and a member of the Maine chapter of the National Association of Scholars.
Published as the Feature Opinion in the Sunday May 28th, 2000 Lewiston Sun-Journal
Submitted to U. Machias Online by Jon Reisman.