The vocal “progressive” faculty members at UNC (“progressive” is a word that has been hijacked, just like “liberal”) have once again been wailing about how terrible it would be if UNC were to go forward with the proposed Western Civilization program to be funded with Pope Foundation money. I sent off a reply letter to the Chapel Hill Herald. Whether they run my letter or not, here’s what I wrote:
To the Editor:
Professor Slavick?s March 9 column calls for a response.
First, she confuses the Pope Foundation, which supports numerous educational and charitable entities, with the Pope Center, which is a think tank focusing on higher education issues. The Center is largely financed by the Foundation, but is an independent organization. We speak for ourselves.
Second, she avers that we are ?generally critical of UNC Chapel Hill.? In fact, we are selectively critical of UNC Chapel Hill — and other institutions of higher education. The basis for our criticism is most often that courses are a waste of time or worse ? as in cases where students who don?t agree with a professor are penalized for their temerity. We don?t target or disparage faculty members unless they have done something abusive of their position or which undermines the curriculum and academic standards.
Third, Slavick?s concern that the proposed Western Civilization program will go in a ?certain ideological direction that is beyond conservative? (whatever that means) is hard to take seriously. The UNC catalogue is laden with courses where the statist or ?multicultural? ideology of the instructor is barely concealed. Is there really anything to fear from the introduction of a small number of courses that would teach Western philosophy, history, aesthetics, and so on as something other than the plague of the planet?
For decades, the direction of the curriculum at UNC has been consistently in the direction favored by the ?progressive? faculty. They?re upset over a small step the other way.
George C. Leef
Jon Sanders
