UNMIA

Editorial by Lynn Provencio

UNM’s current vision statement does not contain the left-wing buzzwords cited in the article below, but “social justice” teaching is a strong undertow in several UNM departments. Each year there are several courses across the campus that give credit for “community organizing” and “social justice” of various flavors.

Is any credit given for right wing organizing? Has anybody ever gotten course credits for campaigning for Republicans, spending the weekend volunteering with the Minute Men, attending an AIPAC conference or lobbying for offshore drilling? Why not? Chances are the very thought made you laugh. But seriously, objectively, analytically: In what way is it better to go to Central America and teach local people how to be political activists than it is to show local young women practical alternatives to abortion for unwanted pregancies, for example? Is campaigning for the Democratic candidate more academically desirable than campaigning for the Republican candidate? What if a UNM climatologist wrote a professional paper showing that global warming, as described by the UN and Al Gore, were not true? What would be the results for his career at UNM? Good, bad, no effect?

Social Justice at face value is a good thing, of course, and true social justice is an aim for every decent human. But in academic and political parlance it is one of the main codewords for furthering a far left wing social and political agenda. This agenda involves communist ideology, liberation theology and so on, and has a very slanted sense of justice, which is to say practically none.

However, while this left wing current is very strong in many parts of UNM, we can be glad that those of us who disagree with the left wing viewpoint and aims do in fact have the ability to speak up, present our views and work toward our goals in a matter fitting for a public university, the same as our left wing colleagues do.

Whatever “minority” political/social viewpoint you might hold, even political or religious conservatism or Zionism, or some uncommon mix of right and left, you will not be mobbed or harassed for speaking. It only takes the courage to speak up and go against the flow, and you may be surprised at the positive results you see.

More importantly, if those who hold these minority political/social viewpoints do not speak up and give their views and celebrate their causes, it will become increasingly difficult to do so. People who agree, but are less bold will be afraid to speak up alone. Those in the opposing camp, having no opposition, will become bolder in presenting their political/social agenda as truth, and students who do not have strong views will begin to assume the most commonly stated view is the truth, since they hear no other side.

Do your fellow students, staff and faculty a favor, and speak your views out loud with courage and good reasoning, whenever you find something you feel is wrong, unjust or otherwise objectionable.
Don’t be afraid of the bad grade, the bad graduate recommendation or the passed over promotion for holding unpopular views. Nobody ever improved a society, a government or a campus by keeping silent.

When “peace”, “social justice”, “international justice”, “family values”, “choice”, “life”, “grassroots”, “democracy”, etc, become buzzwords at the service of any particular agenda, they have become meaningless sounds, and the ideals that may once have been behind them are not advancing.

The following article concerns Brandeis University in particular and large American universities in general.

Posted by Students for Academic Freedom

Brandeis University is now officially committed to social justice. The university’s “Diversity Statement” says that the university considers social justice central to its mission. Is this controversial? Absolutely, says George Mason law professor David Bernstein, blogging at the Volokh Conspiracy. Universities shouldn’t be in the social justice business, according to Bernstein, a Brandeis alum who thinks the formal commitment is an attempt to attract donations from left-liberal alumni and other like-minded sources.

Citing a brochure used in a class to stress the important of social justice, Bernstein says, “At best this is just p.r. talk and has no effect on academic freedom in the university, and is merely embarrassing. At worst, Brandeis in fact institutionally favors certain ideological views over others, has no claim to be a university devoted to the pursuit of truth regardless of ideological implications.”

But isn’t justice an obvious goal for people of good will across the political spectrum? In theory, yes. In practice, “social justice,” sometimes used synonymously with “social action,” is a campus buzzword that refers rather clearly to the agenda of the left. Bernstein quotes a Brandeis administrator hoping that the university will turn out operators of “socially responsible” businesses and politicians who “head progressive national governments.”

“Social justice” bureaucrats make an effort to keep the language neutral, but commitment to the left shines through. The term often refers to plans for government-sponsored redistribution of income. Other social goals include more anti-discrimination laws, environmentalism, resistance to “oppression” and support for gay marriage and adoption. Columbia Teachers College, perhaps the most vehemently ideological of the “social justice” schools, says education is a “political act” and educators “must recognize ways in which taken-for-granted notions regarding the legitimacy of the social order are flawed.”

The policy makes clear that any would-be teachers who believe in merit and individual responsibility would be better off not showing up at Teachers College: “social inequalities are often produced and perpetuated through systematic discrimination and justified by societal ideology of merit, social mobility and individual responsibility.”

So Bernstein is probably wrong to see the Brandeis commitment to social justice as an attempt to attract financing from the left. More likely it is simply another example of the spread of a partisan codeword and the ideological pressure behind it.