In any case, this bill does not mandate classroom assignments. In fact, it
specifically forbids such control of the classroom. But the bill does contain gentle
positive incentives to encourage greater debate from different points of view. For more
on this, see my NRO archive's "Opening the Classroom Door."
One comment. I have been careful NOT to characterize area studies centers as anti-
American. That is a serious charge, and I have not made it. Yes, I have noted that
Edward Said's work dominates much of area studies. And his views might certainly be
seen as anti-American. And in my congressional testimony I noted examples of authors
assigned who are called "anti-American" even by liberals. But my point here was that if
even such extremist authors can be assigned, can't we also assign some supporters of
American foreign policy, in order to let folks see both sides of the argument. I do
think most area studies centers are biased against American foreign policy, but the
"anti-American" charge is one I have been careful to restrict to certain authors (most
of them foreign, by the way). I have not applied it directly to area studies
professors. The other side takes my points as a blanket claim in that regard. But they
are wrong. In general, my point is that debate from all points of view should be
encouraged. It's fine to assign radical and moderate opponents of American foreign
policy, but supporters should be assigned as well.
and
Programs that can legitimately advertise themselves as able to encourage debate from
diverse perspectives should get a leg up in the race for funding. But the bill rightly
prohibits the board from mandating or controlling the content of classroom assignments.
So while the bias problem is real, there cannot and should not be a heavy-handed
solution--only gentle incentives encouraging programs to stimulate debate from diverse
perspectives.
I do not entirely agree that it is a serious charge to say that a scholar is anti-
American. So what if he is? We appoint scholars at universities to be scholars, not to
administer foreign policy. If the best candidate for a a chaired professorship is
anti-American, why not appoint him? Whether the government ought to give him grants to
indoctrinate students is another matter, but I have no objection to having diverse
viewpoints on a faculty, even viewpoints with which I strenuously disagree. My own
department includes professors from England, Canada, Italy, Germany, and Korea. Some of
them may be U.S. citizens now, but if they weren't then I would hardly hold it against
them if they were anti-American, so long as they weren't actually helping terrorists or
betraying our secrets to hostile forces in Ottawa or Berlin.
If, however, an area studies center is receiving grant money for the specific purpose of helping to further the foreign policy interests of the United States, there should be some mechanism in place to make sure that that is how the money is spent. Peer review won't do that. For one thing, if scholars decide who gets the money, they will want to use it to fund the best scholarship, which is not at all the same thing as what furthers U.S. policy interests. I just published a book on the Japanese judiciary, for example, and think it was very good scholarship. I can't pretend that my good scholarship helps further U.S. foreign policy, but I bet I would be tempted to give grants for work in that area if I was on a review committee.
That first problem exists regardless of any political bias. But if a field is relatively small--as area studies seems to be, compared with, say, physics-- and most of the top scholars share the same political bias--say, hostility to the U.S. military--- then a second problem arises: that grant funding will be politicized. A center which specializes in how to successfully suppress guerilla wars would have trouble getting funding even if the scholarship was very good. Either the review panels would exercise naked political bias-- "This work is interesting academically, but we think it is evil,"-- or the political bias will enter as subject-matter bias-- "Articles and books on wars and diplomatic history is boring, compared to work on the problems of poor women or the analysis of ancient poetry."
Having a few anti-Americans in a Title VI center would not be a problem at all. But giving scholars who want to avoid helping U.S. military, diplomatic, and intelligence efforts monopoly control of Title VI funding is a bad idea.
[in full at 04.04.11b.htm]
To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/0.rasmusen.htm.