On Oct. 15, The Herald published an opinions column by Peter Makhlouf ’16 about university campuses that argued that “right-wing ideology (shies) away from critical examination.” Makhlouf posits that right-wing groups, including ones to which I belong, think colleges are “force-feeding liberal values down the throats of their students” via the ideological homogeneity that exists among professors and students.
Some of Makhlouf’s arguments are correct. Brown is replete with professors who are of exceptional intelligence and repute. Furthermore, many Republican arguments do not stand up to the test of intellectual scrutiny because they are inherently ideologically hypocritical — on social issues and immigration, for example.
But the hypocrisy of Brown students has also been a source of incredible tension for me. Makhlouf is entirely correct when he describes how “our students (maintain) such lofty ideals, while pining to become the next investment bankers, corporate lawyers and hedge fund managers.” Though I have no problem with investment banking or corporate law, and in fact think they are essential careers, I am baffled by the students who aggressively criticize these fields and then try to gain employment in them after graduation.
Makhlouf’s other arguments, however, do not address the problem of ideological homogeneity strongly enough. Makhlouf, who was responding to my Sept. 26 column, “Ordinary conversations in disguise,” believes my point was that there is some type of liberal conspiracy at the upper levels of academia. I do not think there is collusion. Professors at our academic institutions are just more liberal, naturally. Therefore, though one might be exposed to multiple views, the views of right-wing scholars are critiqued more aggressively.
There are plenty of professors who are liberal and present conservative and liberal views with equal amounts of rigor. However, students are spoon-fed liberal ideology via the students and professors who share uniform views. As one of those on the outside: I definitely am a whiny conservative.
Makhlouf questions my citation of the statistic that 96 percent of Ivy League professors’ donations in the 2012 presidential election went to President Obama. He asks: If 96 percent of non-Ivy League professors made the same donation, would this statistic still be significant? The answer, unequivocally, is yes!
Professors who share a fundamentally statist, interventionist government viewpoint educating students may not be brainwashing, but it means they are more likely to lack objectivity when addressing the views of right-wing thinkers. In class, the professor invariably injects his or her own views and describes right-wing thinkers in a negative way or via a more critical lens. For instance, I have never been in a political science class where President George W. Bush was mentioned without a cynical or humorous comment related to his oratory comments.
Makhlouf’s criticism of liberalism on campus is less poignant. His description of the trend of “lip-service” liberalism is not just a trend among liberals — it’s a generational phenomenon. Specifically, observe the effect of the KONY 2012 video that went viral. “Lip-service” politics has become more of a trend since the proliferation of social media and Internet sources that facilitate what University of British Columbia Professor Kirk Kristofferson has described as “token support,” or the minimal level of effort required to support something.
As an October 2012 Forbes article stated, “millennials don’t feel the need to show up to a one-day rally to protect the spotted owl.” This means the phenomenon that Makhlouf describes — of being a “lip-service liberal” — is more generational in nature than something unique to Brown.
Finally, Makhlouf demonizes the ideological hypocrisy of liberals who want to go into finance. He describes an occurrence all too familiar in the Brown community, where one can see students flocking in droves to recruitment sessions for the paragons of corrupt capitalism. Makhlouf implies an inherent tension, however, between investment banking and liberalism. He doesn’t probe further. Could these students not reform the institutions into ones that subscribe more closely to ideal capitalistic values?
Or maybe this trend is part of a larger systemic problem. In the context of a capitalistic society, where we strive for choice and competition, one hopes that those who conform to liberal policy ideas would be entrepreneurial enough to create high-paying employment opportunities in less objectionable environments. Why hasn’t a “true liberal” created an institution that conforms to liberal policy goals whilst offering competitive salaries?
Additionally, what is the moral impurity of becoming a hedge-fund manager? Hedge fund managers are responsible for the management of pensions, provide necessary investment into publicly traded companies and serve to create more wealth via investment. Though this view is inherently naive about hedge funds, their purpose is to increase the absolute gains of their clients and themselves. Is a liberal opposed to unionized workers getting higher pensions? Unless Makhlouf thinks liberals should all be inherently opposed to the nature of capitalism, the purpose of hedge funds should not be a source of such moral outrage.
Though Makhlouf makes some excellent points, he fundamentally misrepresents intellectuals on campus. Finally, he portrays liberal principles as unaligned with popular forms of employment on Brown’s campus when in fact they are not.
Feel free to email Graham Rotenberg ’17 at graham_rotenberg@brown.edu.
ADVERTISEMENT
