I knew Cornell would most likely have, at very least, a politically correct, left-leaning faculty and student body. However, I thought that I would be able to tunnel under all of that by being in the College of Engineering. I had the image of myself working side by side with a politically inert genius physics professor, cranking away integrals and solving real life situations via complex mathematics. So far this image has, for the most part, come to life (other than the word ‘solving’ at times).
What I overlooked, however, are the Freshman Writing Seminars (FWS). At Cornell, freshman students who did not receive a 5 in AP English (this being a small minority of students) are required to take a FWS each semester of their first year.
The FWS list is a very diverse one, with subjects ranging from ‘Dante’s Divine Comedy’ to ‘the Role of Technology in Live Performance.’ Peppered throughout this list, however, is an array of subjects that, at least on the surface, seem conducive to liberal thinking and political correctness. (Why am I bringing up this issue of PC-ness? Because I believe that political correctness is a thought process which discourages opposing the conditional views and instills fear of speaking one’s mind due to fear of rejection. But that is another article for another day.)
Anyway, these classes I speak of often cover subjects regarding women’s rights, African American studies, American Indians, white superiority and manifest destiny, as well as a class on the war in Iraq. Now, I am not saying there is anything wrong with studying these subjects; they are all very fascinating, informative, and important for developing a class of people with a wide knowledge spectrum. However, being familiar with the political ideologies of most Cornell professors and students, it is reasonably safe to say that many of these classes will be taught from a slanted viewpoint.
I will be honest: my first semester I was weak – I decided to once again bypass the potential liberal influence and took a class about Beowulf and medieval studies. It was great. But this semester, I have embraced a new mindset. I have decided to take the debate head-on and enroll in a potentially controversial class: “Reconquest and Conquest: Narratives of Conflict in Old and New Spain.” Being of Spanish heritage, I am ready to defend (to some extent) my ancestors and ensure that two-sided debate takes place in the CU classroom.
After my first class of the semester, I am confident that the instructor will present the material in an unbiased, open-forum way. On the other hand, the words ‘hate,’ ‘annihilation,’ and even ‘genocide’ have already been tossed around by members of the class. Now, I am not one here to deny the existence of sometimes brutal treatment from the Spanish, but I am also not one for revisionist history, whether that be stretching the frequency or level of violence exhibited by European explorers, or denial of pre-existening primitive tribal brutality and violence common among native Indian tribes.
So, get ready for a lot of posts about gold, conquistadors, disease, violence, and the discovery of the new world!
What exactly do you mean by “discouraging opposing the conventional views”? I tend to think that the conventional liberal beliefs at Cornell are reinforced by political correctness because opposition to these liberal/relativist views is often perceived as racism, prejudice, etc.
I think what was being implied was that the effects of political correctness discourage possessing opposing viewpoints. In other words, political correctness both passively reinforces the liberal beliefs and actively squelches opposition under the perceived notions of racism and prejudice.
Thanks Jmb.
I think maybe I must have mis-wrote or you misread the sentence regarding this, Dennis. Liberal thinking does indeed support the ‘conventional view’ here at Cornell, and thus political correctness tends to favor only growing support of the already existing beliefs. Thus, it discourages opposition by labeling other ideas as racist, prejudice, or insensitive.
What’s so pathetic about the politically correct nonsense of European conquest and it’s manifestations of domination and subjugation of native people’s theory, is that most professors leave out part of the narrative. Namely, the countervailing “facts” (i know those can sometimes get in the way) that native indian tribes were exterminating each other, and even their own(anasazi cannibalism and human sacrifice)and that tribal lords in Africa sold thier own to Europeans for guns and rum.
Maybe what should be elevated for study and debate is why is the natural condition of human beings so evil and what forces might be at play? Most human beings at some time or another are brutal, selfish and evil when it comes to surviving and flourishing.
Ive always felt that warfare and genocide spoke less of European evil than an innate evil in mankind’s heart.
I agree with you cberty. Have Europeans done some awful things to other people? Yes. Have the other people such as Native Americans, Asians, Africans, et al done things just as bad or worse? You bet. What drives humans to do this sort of thing, I don’t know. Man can be the most caring or most brutal of creatures. Its part of the complex beauty of who we are, I guess.
Hi all,
I’m an instructor of a FWS and one in the social sciences (probably rather related to the conquest one you’re taking). I think you’re doing the faculty (and grad students) somewhat of an injustice here, Osheezie – any historian, anthropologist, or other social scientist of any area would know very well about these kinds of injustices inflicted upon “indigenous people” by other “indigenous people.” The “evil European versus victimized native peoples” is a narrative that you are probably hearing out of the mouths of your fellow students more often than the instructor (I hope). It has gotten so popular because it challenges what many people see as the dominant way of thinking – Europe = advanced, rest of the world = backwards – but this idea really loses its relevance when you get into hard research. (Side note that that punching bag for the right, Ward Churchill, isn’t a social scientist at all.) In my own seminar, we talk about the development of the idea of race in Southeast Asia – the idea of racial divisions may have come in with the European colonial powers, but before this there was a well-established and long history of abject slavery in the area. We talk about how this category of “indigenous people” also is a fiction – that such groups are, like things which people think of as traditions, things which are invented at one point in time and then lost at another time.
My suggestion to you is to separate what the instructor is saying from what your classmates are saying – my guess is that the instructor has a far more nuanced view of these things. The things you’re looking for as “PC” comments are the knee-jerk responses of people used to late-night conversations in the dorm lounge, not academic classroom talk. It would be pretty boring in an academic debate if we all just sat around and said “Yes, Europe bad!”
I’m reminded of a course I took on power in various social sciences, where we were going to read a lot of philosophy, etc., and the professor asked, to open: “What is power?” A freshman taking the class raised his hand and said “I have a very negative view towards power…” Now, this isn’t a terribly well-informed comment! Even the most ardent anarchist wants to have power, everyone wants power! But while the instructor sat back and said “What do other people think about this?”, he quite definitely didn’t agree with the statement, rather, he thought it would be a better use of *his* power to have the other students shoot the first student down.
Fwsinstructor –
First off, thanks for the comment! It’s good to hear this sort of response coming straight from the horse’s mouth. I absolutely agree with you that most of these notions are coming more from the general student population rather than the professors or grad students teaching the classes. From my personal experience so far, my teacher has done a fabulous job in examining all aspects of the subject and maintaining a classroom discussion which does not devolve into rantings on preconceived notions held by students. You’re quite right in saying that a class taught one-sidedly on this subject would be very boring, and also irresponsible on the part of the instructor.
Now while I have had a very positive experience, I still know several people who have noticed their instructors continuously inserting their own personal beliefs and opinions. What I will say, though, is that this certainly seems to be the minority, and that the good majority of FWSs have been able to remain informative and objective!