<p>Brown does not seem to be tolerant of particular viewpoints/freedom of speech on campus. A good example of this is their ban on the ROTC programs. Brown had originally banned ROTC on the basis of Dont Ask Dont Tell, after this was repealed they formed a committee to explore whether ROTC should return and the committee basically decided not to. As they write in Washington Monthly, The problem with this is that Dont Ask Dont Tell was actually the secondary issue. The problem is more structural. Brown just doesnt really like the military.</p>
<p>Also, according to this article 129 faculty members gave to Mr. Obama, and just one staff member thats right, a single individual donated to Mr. Romney. </p>
<p>Do you think there is a problem with this sort of ideological imbalance? Do you think the school has a reluctance to hire or embrace conservative principles? Does having everyone think liberally and essentially the same way weaken the university?</p>
<p>The ROTC and the political leanings of the faculty are separate issues.</p>
<p>But it is not surprising that faculty are more Democrat than Republican party leaning, as the latter party has moved more away from the center than the former, and has taken up ideological stands that go counter to what faculty research and teach about (e.g. evolution in biology, study of climate change, etc.). In addition, social conservatism tends to inhibit some areas of academic study due to intrinsic disapproval (e.g. economics of prostitution, psychology gambling, literature about sexuality, illegal immigration, study of other religions, LGBTQ issues, etc.), as well as being difficult to reconcile with a university bringing together people from widely different cultural and religious backgrounds (not necessarily the intention, but often an effect of concentrating post-secondary study in a number of schools smaller than the number of K-12 schools).</p>
<p>It’s not clear to me how a private university’s decision not to offer a military training program on campus implicates freedom of speech. They don’t have a nursing program, either, even though nurses perform invaluable service to the nation. What does that have to do with free speech? </p>
<p>I’m not sure what leads you to the conclusion that liberal academics all “think the same way” in their fields simply because they all agreed on much simpler question of Obama vs. Romney. I see no evidence for that conclusion even in political science or economics, much less in French literature, microbiology, or linguistics.</p>
<p>Both issues are separate, but fall under the same umbrella of whether Brown potentially discourages dialogue from groups that it disagrees with. Also, I think there is a difference between being left-leaning (most top universities are), and simply being an echo chamber where everyone thinks the same way. This seems dangerous.</p>
<p>If those stances you mentioned for social conservatism are wrong, wouldn’t a healthy dialogue be better than silencing those minority viewpoints. For many subjects like economics there are many scholars on both sides of the issues – however Brown only employs liberals.</p>
<p>Hannah, Brown tries to pride itself on diversity of speech. However, a pro-military viewpoint isn’t being allowed. Although ROTC is not a political issue, it tends to be one that conservatives frequently support and liberals tend to be against. When ROTC was banned in the past at universities Vietnam and DADT were commonly used as issues (which also tended to have political divides). </p>
<p>Obviously, schools have limited funding but Brown tends to only pick programs and professors which support their ideology which seems closeminded. As you mentioned, I’m sure some of these professors have disagreements but there would be far more viewpoints on campus if alternative viewpoint/programs were allowed.</p>
<p>It is not so much that the socially conservative stances are wrong or right, but that socially conservative people probably would not want to engage in academic research in many areas which they find intrinsically distasteful. In addition, having to interact with other faculty and students from various cultural and religious backgrounds that social conservatives may find intrinsically distasteful may not appeal to them either. So that reduces the pool of socially conservative potential faculty members, relative to those who are not socially conservative.</p>
<p>On the other hand, fiscally conservative people are not that hard to find at universities; they tend to be libertarian in the absence of social conservatism.</p>
<p>Of course, with thousands of colleges in the US, one does not have to go to Brown or any other college that appears to be a poor fit in terms of the political leanings of faculty or students.</p>
<p>I don’t have any official connection to Brown but I live very close by and, over the years, become good friends with many faculty and staff. I also have known many many Brown students over the years.</p>
<p>My observations are that Brown is, indeed, more left wing than most other top universities. I don’t think the difference is primarily with the faculty or staff. I think that, for whatever reason, Brown seems to attract a significant number of hard core, rather militant leftists as students. These types exist on most other campuses as well but their numbers seem to be greater at Brown. These are by no means a majority of the student body, but they are very vocal and aggresive enough to intimidate their more moderate cohorts. Conservative and/or moderate students exist at Brown but most tend to stay under the radar. And many conservative or moderate students simply choose to enroll elsewhere, which exaserbates the problem.</p>
<p>It is very hard for a conservative speaker to be able to openly express their views unmolested at Brown. This, in my view, is very unfortunate because no one has a monopoly on being right and students should be exposed to many viewpoints.</p>
<p>It is striking that Brown continues to be a lightning rod for so much animosity. If is an amazing university and thousands of students are clamoring to get in. My son attends Brown, and has not returned home as a left-wing, closed-minded individual. If anything, it has opened his mind to greater charity, complexity and flexibility. </p>
<p>And by the way, Brown honored the military formally on Veteran’s Day in a ceremony on campus.</p>
<p>Is there a reason (other than political) that schools in a small city like Providence needs ROTC programs on every campus? I believe that Penn also has a joint program with Drexel and Temple.</p>
<p>If Brown’s institutional philosophy, prevailing campus culture, or values do not align with yours, and you can’t tolerate the differences, then don’t go there. There are literally hundreds of colleges, many of them of excellent quality, where ROTC and the military are welcome. Look into some of those.</p>
<p>The trick is to find a college that fits what you are looking for, not to expect to college to conform to what you want it to be.</p>
<p>No reasons for the DOD to set up where interest is low, I agree.</p>
<p>But Brown was considered the “hippie Ivy” when I was in school and attracted more liberal kids. I’m sure the open curriculum has a lot to do with it. </p>
<p>(My nephew is in ROTC in Ohio, a senior now…he loves it. He’s pretty liberal politically but really enjoys training and everything about his ROTC unit.)</p>
<p>“However, a pro-military viewpoint isn’t being allowed.”</p>
<p>You are making logical leaps not supported by the evidence you cite. I repeat, you do not know that liberal academics all “think the same way” in their fields simply because they agreed on Obama vs. Romney. They are paid to pose and answer much more complex questions than that. There isn’t any such thing as “the liberal viewpoint” on any serious academic question. If you believe that all liberal professors “think the same way,” I suspect that you have never been in a departmental faculty meeting.</p>
<p>A couple of things. First, I always thought the purpose of ROTC was to train prospective military officers, not to propagate a “pro-military” point of view.</p>
<p>Second, re: the political leanings of the faculty. Surveys have shown that it is actually natural scientists, not academics in the humanities and social sciences, who self-identify most heavily as Democrats and liberals. One doesn’t usually think of the chemistry or physics or biology department being primarily motivated by politics or ideology in their hiring decisions. Unless openness to science based on the theory of evolution or global climate change are deemed to be evidence of ideological bias, as apparently they are to large elements of American society. </p>
<p>As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Brown does offer the opportunity to do ROTC to its students; just not on our campus. There are thriving ROTC programs at other Providence schools, so interested students go there. I occasionally see students walking around campus in uniform. However, the level of interest in ROTC is relatively low among students, so honestly there wouldn’t be much gained by having a program on-campus.</p>
<p>In terms of the political views of faculty: they’re very welcome to hold whatever political views they wish. The faculty here at Brown are very open to other viewpoints and encourage students to think critically at all times. Brown does tend to be a very liberal place, but I know that many of my peers hold different political views from my own. In my experience, it’s always allowed us to hold a great discourse and learn a lot from each other.</p>
<p>As has already been stated, the conclusions you’re trying to draw do not follow logically from your premises (evidence). </p>
<p>One of the hallmarks of academic liberalism is open mindedness and logical thinking - we ought accept positions which have good arguments and reject those that have bad arguments. </p>
<p>In my experience, academics have historically tended to be very forward thinking and thus tended to publish papers and books which reflect a ‘liberal’ ideology. I’ve oftentimes (in philosophy and political philosophy) found that the arguments presented for ‘liberal’ viewpoints are simply more cogent and therefore there’s more reason to accept such positions. </p>
<p>At a University such as Brown, if a very good cogent argument was presented which advocated for a ‘conservative’ viewpoint, I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be accepted. </p>
<p>The tendency for top universities to be highly liberal is due to many factors, but what you consider to be ‘liberal’ today, likely won’t be ‘liberal’ in 50 years; Universities simply seem to push for social movements that eventually follow a number of years later. </p>
<p>The case simply seems to be a matter of fact that in academia there are oftentimes simply better papers which argue for ‘liberal’ positions. And, has already been pointed out, a number of subjects are inherently distasteful to ‘conservatives’ - LGBTQ studies, biology of sex in relation to the construction of a sex identity, political philosophy (hugely dominated by the likes of Rawls, Dworkin, Kymlicka), academic law also tends to be liberal.</p>
<p>I just have to say, again, that I think the open curriculum at Brown has been a lightning rod for others’ projections of anger toward perceived liberal politics. Brown fosters an intellectual environment that encourages creative and careful analysis and study of a range of views. Highly intelligent individuals may be drawn to this atmosphere who may be "liberal’ as in “open-minded.” The idea that college students could plan their own curriculum, delve into complex ideas, and be exposed to “liberal” concepts is threatening to a lot of individuals. </p>
<p>This is not the 60’s any more. Most students in college have a lot of respect for individuals who serve in the military, even if they choose not to serve or disagree with political decisions. Please don’t make assumptions about Brown just because of what you hear on Fox. Let’s not stereotype people, whether they’re at Brigham Young U., Wheaton, West Point or Brown.</p>
<p>Maddiedog, I think Brown’s open curriculum is a selling point. Also, all of the Ivies are left-leaning however some seem to be more tolerant than others. From my experience, most conservatives don’t feel comfortable applying to Brown (or Columbia). Maybe these schools don’t really care, but I think they would be stronger if they hired a couple more conservative professors. </p>
<p>Also, I don’t think open curriculum really has anything to do with liberal politics. Moderate colleges like University of Rochester have the same program among others. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By law, I believe colleges are required to do this otherwise they are at risk of losing federal funding from the Solomon amendment. If Brown allowed ROTC on campus it would be more visible, and I think it would add some needed diversity to the campus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t need to be in a departmental faculty meeting to understand that there will be a greater diversity of viewpoints among a liberal/conservative in a political science or economics faculty than two liberals. James Carville and Ari Fleisher would have a better debate with more varied perspectives than two people of the same ideological opinion. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are several conservative colleges that have set up LGBTQ groups on campus even though interest in these programs is low. If setting up organizations should be based upon interest, do you believe they were wrong to do this?</p>
<p>Also – for certain organizations it could be an issue of “if you build it they will come”. There could be a potential applicant who loves Browns open curriculum but passes on the school because he wants ROTC on campus. By setting up the framework and advertising that the school is committed, more students would apply that ordinarily wouldn’t.</p>
<p>Seriously? You think there are students out there who would refuse to apply to a school they consider a good fit because they have to travel a mile or two off-campus to dress up and play soldier?</p>
<p>My feeling is that Brown’s tendency to mock even itself makes it a poor recruiting fit for an organization that adheres to an obey-authority-without-question system.</p>