Have you seen the common reading book for incoming freshman?
Parents, you need to read up on this book. Seriously.
Brodhead is from Yale which has a clearly articulated strategy of de-programing the incoming class so they can remake your children in their image. It is a frightening thought when you begin to understand what “New England Ivory Tower group think” has wrought. The Duke faculty is, generally speaking, very liberal, as is the case at every elite college and university. Fortunately, however, the student body at Duke is able to retain more of the core value set they entered with than would be the case at the Ivies and top LACs (there is good representation across the political spectrum - whereas the student bodies at the Ivies are far more liberal). This is a large part of why our children are attending Duke rather than a Yale.
This summer reading is very similar to what is being read at other similar schools and the first step in the attempt to re-program our children to conform with a politically correct worldview.
It is unlikely you can stop this insidious process. However, you can prepare your children to read and learn with discernment, and to stay grounded as enter an increasingly complex world.
Thank you for posting @am61517. What you’ve posted is true, however, in this instance the book is a graphic novel depicting lesbian sex. How can this be justified as educational or pro-activism?
Read more here: http://campusreform.org/?ID=6561 or Google for more hits.
I am not wanting to stir up a debate here, but seek to alert students and parents about the book that is being mailed to their home and is implied to be mandatory reading. I am surprised no one else is having an issue with this.
@Trusting
Minimizing the book to “a graphic novel depicting lesbian sex” is a heavy simplification. Regardless of whether one agrees with the lesbian identity the main character holds or the homosexual identity of her father, there is a lot to be gleaned from the novel. Granted a major subject of the book is sexual identity, but one must look toward the state of finding acceptance, something many must have faced in their lives (not necessarily regarding sexual orientation, but regarding an innumerable amount of other circumstances). The graphic novel teaches about coping with death, an experience many students will have had, and likely even more will not have had (allowing for a gaining of perspective). Additionally, it references classic pieces of literature that could be quite key to students’ educational and literary history (such as Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by Joyce, Wallace Stevens’ Sunday Morning, and Camus’ A Happy Death (which is a wonderful existentialist novel, by the way)). These components allow for students to gain great awareness of elements of life they have yet to experience, as well as to re-evaluate experiences they have already undergone in a new context, providing new perspective. Then, of course, we come back to the issue of sexuality, which will stir up quite some contrast. First of all, the incoming freshmen are likely around the age of 17 to 18, by which point sex is not something foreign to their minds. It is time for them to experience novels, if they have yet to, that incorporate such manners as it is important to learn how to look beyond aspects of a text with which one does not agree or is not comfortable toward the true subject matter and substance of the text. This applies to the notion of homosexuality in the novel too, students must learn to look into homosexuality and understand several perspectives, whether or not they conclude to agree with it, but also to look beyond it into the rest the novel has to hold.
I would like to emphasize this: if all students glean from the text is that some people are having homosexual interactions, regardless of whether the student is for or against it, then the student has failed to truly analyze and appreciate the literature for all it has to offer.
Eh, it’s good to read about different perspectives and expand your worldview even if you don’t agree with it necessarily. I have never heard of the book so don’t have any context – but I see that it has 4.5 stars on Amazon based on 347 customer reviews and is the #1 Best Seller in “Educational & Nonfiction Graphic Novels” (I realize that can’t be a huge category, though) and was a National Book Critics Circle Award Finalist.
I think it’s cool that they chose a graphic novel to spice things up a bit. If you’re having a strong reaction to it, then it’s probably a good book to choose since it will spark a rich dialogue. Honestly, these summer reading books aren’t really “mandatory” – it’s no big deal if you don’t read it. I was assigned Savage Inequalities, which also has a more liberal viewpoint, and I think it was good for a discussion topic because it makes people think.
It’s certainly true that Duke does have more of a mix of conservative/liberal than most top tier educational institutions, though. I remember there was an educational show about sex workers of some sort at Duke several years back and there was a fairly huge backlash from conservatives that it was inappropriate. The people running the show were very surprised saying something like, “We’ve down the same show at several other top universities including Harvard and Brown and haven’t heard a peep about being controversial from anybody. No idea why all of a sudden it’s a big deal.”
Because of the more balanced student body (although still leaning liberal definitely), sometimes it appears Duke has a lot more controversies than other schools because there are vocal people on both sides of the aisles. I think this helps students grow more and appreciate all perspectives – learning to form logical arguments to support their views and learning that listening to others with opposing viewpoints helps expand their worldview.
Having said all that, political affiliation/leanings of the student body and faculty had basically no impact on my educational and social growth at Duke as it didn’t come up ever since I studied BME and wasn’t involved in any political organizations. If you want to be involved in that sort of thing, you can; if you don’t, it’s by no means overwhelming in the least.
@am61517 @Trusting All it takes is for you two to open your mind. It’s not that hard. No one is trying to indoctrinate new students at Duke or the Ivies. Just for them to be exposed to many and different perspectives that they would probably not have been exposed to had they not enrolled at these schools. In any case, the best thing to do as a scholar is to listen, investigate, and cultivate your own beliefs.
http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2015/06/08/fun-home-set-spark-discussion-among-incoming-freshmen
This article seems to address the points mentioned above head on.
As a parent of an incoming freshman, I got a copy of Fun Home from the library and read it. Is it great literature? No, but it is thought provoking and touching. Yes, there are a couple of shocking scenes. However, it’s important to note that both the protagonist and antagonist are gay. One of the most sympathetic characters is the put-upon, straight mother. There are many layers to the plot, and it will start many interesting discussions. Our family also saw Fun Home on Broadway which is a bit more lighthearted than the book. As parents, we have to let our children discuss and debate the issues of the day. Whatever they choose to believe is up to them.
Sticking to the facts, I offer two comments re your supposition in post #2 that “The Duke faculty, generally speaking, is very liberal:”
- While the “arts and letters” contingent of Trinity’s faculty certainly is so, they quantitatively represent FAR less than half of Duke’s total faculty members (Law, Business, Medical schools, researchers, Duke Med clinicians, Pratt, Nursing, and so forth). I’d agree that they are both quite visible and directly affiliated with most undergraduates’ education, but your generalization simply is not correct.
- Duke is indistinguishable from its peer institutions (both the most-selective National Research Universities and the most-competitive LACs) in this regard. The issue – if there is one – is endemic throughout higher education (especially at “elite” institutions) and certainly not Duke-unique.
Much more important, isn’t the fundamental purpose of education to expose minds to a wide range of ideas and their rationale? I have considerable confidence that Dukies – of all ages and backgrounds – will not succumb to any “one-sided indoctrination.” They clearly are bright enough not to.
@TopTier, both your first points are consistent with what I said. As we were discussing the book assigned to the undergraduate freshmen, I was referring to the teaching of undergraduates, which is done predominantly by Trinity faculty. The Pratt Faculty are likely, as a broad generalization, to be more conservative but represent only about 20% of the undergraduate faculty. In your Point 2, you reprised my point that Duke and its peer undergraduate institutions are similar in terms of where their faculty sit on the political spectrum.
I also support your view regarding the purpose of a liberal arts education and strongly advocate for its importance. It is about training the mind to think broadly, deeply, and, importantly, critically (including the ability to discern between what is praiseworthy and true, and what is drivel and degrading to our consciousness). That said, I don’t believe reading books such as the one assigned (yes, I skimmed it) supports the objective of training up the mind to be a constructive, productive, and value additive member of our society. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of books that could have accomplished the objective in a more constructive and substantially less offensive way.
In fact, by asking incoming students to read a book that might be troubling to those practicing any of several faiths and even no faith, the Duke faculty and students who chose the book demonstrated their arrogance in believing they know what is best for our children and their willingness to impose their “superior” worldview on many they should have known would be troubled by the contents of the book. They also demonstrated a profound disrespect for, and intolerance of, the views and values of many of those they coerced into reading this book. I can understand and accept this book being taught as part of an elective course where the student knowingly chooses to participate in the class. But, to mandate all students read the book is highly inappropriate. This is not an issue of a student’s intelligence or of their tolerance and acceptance of the views of others, but of a calculated assault by the book selection committee on religious, family and personal values and sensibilities. To think otherwise is naive.
I think the point of making this book the all-school read is to encourage conversation, even debate.
What would be the point of having the school community read a book upon which everyone agrees?
@am61517: “This is not an issue of a student’s intelligence or of their tolerance and acceptance of the views of others, but of a calculated assault by the book selection committee on religious, family and personal values and sensibilities. To think otherwise is naive.”
Garbage. By attending Duke, you have made a commitment to be intellectually challenged by new and diverse ideas. Obviously, they need not alter your conclusions and values – although some certainly may – but they SHOULD cause you to think and to enter the debate. To characterize this selection as “a calculated assault by the book selection committee on religious, family and personal values and sensibilities” is as ridiculous as it is intolerant.
I further find it ironic that an about-to-become Duke freshman (who is probably 17 or 18) would suggest that a 69 year “seasoned” Dukie, with multiple degrees from our University, with decades of service on several Duke governance Boards and their Executive Committees, and with 45+ years of professional and personal achievements (including successfully raising three kids, all now in their forties, so I understand the temerity of some freshmen at “elite” institutions) is “naive” in comparison to a teenager.
@TopTier: Nicely stated. However, am61517 is a parent of rising Duke junior and incoming Duke freshman based on posting history, not a student himself/herself. Which I fully expected since a current Duke student would be very unlikely to be making those statements. 
Just to reiterate the points above, reading a book does not equate to agreeing with all perspectives and arguments within said book. It is meant to spark thought and dialogue. Ignoring that those perspectives exist does nothing to expand one’s worldview. I clearly don’t agree with the political ideology of Mein Kampf, but it’s still an educational read to get into the mind of somebody like that and many people continue to read it to this day. I am not being indoctrinated by reading it. (Not equating this summer reading to Mein Kampf obviously – just illustrating that even a universally “disgusting” book can be educational). The summer reading book is SUPPOSED to provide an avenue for robust discussion and debate, so choosing one seemingly “controversial” achieves that goal mightily.
As an aside, it’s hardly “mandatory” to read it, although it’s highly encouraged. If your daughter chooses not to read it for whatever reason, it’s not a big deal in the least. Lastly, the political leanings of faculty had approximately ZERO influence on my Duke experience…I have no idea if my Pratt professors skewed more conservative than Trinity counterparts as it never came up (admittedly, I did not take many courses that might be considered “political,” but did take an anthropology writing course, art history, several psych courses, etc.).
@bluedog: I appreciate your very helpful additional information; however, as you’d expect, it does not modify my basic conclusion – exposure to diverse thinking is crucial both to intellectual growth and to the development of wise judgement – even slightly. As you know, but @am61517 may not, I’m quite conservative in my values and outlook (lengthy careers as a Naval officer and with Lockheed clearly was influential), but being receptive to the thorough and rationally honest CONSIDERATION / ASSESSMENT of new ideas absolutely is not synonymous with the axiomatic acceptance of those ideas.
By the way, “Fun Home,” the musical adapted from the book won the Tony Award for Best Musical this year. We took our kids (then 12 and 16) to see it last year when it was at the Public Theater and it was a fantastic production.