Unfavorable feelings towards ideologies

[Mark Graber]

Some notes on the below.

1. A great deal of debate exists on what constitutes the legitimate range of opinion on every side of an issue.  Give that students cannot be exposed to everything, even everything written on the first amendment status of campaign finance reform, professors will have to use the same kind of judgment determining what is the appropriate range of opinions and what are the best expressions of those opinions.

2. So-called "personal views" are not like preferences for ice cream.  I can tell students that not all persons agree that judicial review is politically constructed, but in my view the political construction of judicial review is an established fact.  This moves us back to problem 1, namely disagreement over the legitimate range of opinions and how to characterize various opinions.

3. In one sense, hardly anyone grades based on consistency with their personal views.  But I do grade consistently with my personal view as to what counts of the legitimate range of professional opinion on matters of law and political science.  So does Professor Maule and everyone else.  And for the same reasons we disagree about the best answers to various questions, we are likely to disagree about what constitutes a competent answer.

4. Students in my class may only express views that are relevant to the subject matter.  Again, because disagreement exists as to what views are relevant to, say, the best interpretation of the establishment clause, and I am the professor, my interpretation of relevance goes (of course, I should listen carefully to rival opinions about relevance).

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that there is no way to escape a certain amount of subjectivity in this field.  We can argue about whether my views are right or wrong, or about whether they are professionally competent, but in the end, all of us have to form an opinion on that matter and teach accordingly.

Mark A. Graber

>>> "James Maule" <Maule at law.villanova.edu> 08/14/07 1:46 PM >>>
1. Is it sensible for professors to share their personal views rather
than make available to students the opinions and analyses offered on
every side of an issue by individuals who are not the professor? Unless
students are being evaluated on that view, and they ought not be (see 3,
below), why does the professor's personal view even matter?

2. When a professor does express a personal view, ought it not be
accompanied by a disclosure that it is a personal view and not
necessarily an established fact, conclusion, or law?

3. Ought not faculty evaluate students other than by the extent to
which students express views consistent or inconsistent with the
professor's personal views?

4. Ought not professors, and their institutions, make it clear that the
expression of views, so long as done politely, respectfully, and
hopefully with elegance, is a core ingredient of the academic
environment and educational process, that neither the professor nor the
institution will evaluate students on account of their views, and that
other students have an obligation to listen to others' views and to
express disagreement politely, respectfully, and hopefully with
elegance?

5. Isn't the goal of education, in any field (and not just law), to
teach students how to think and analyze rather than to swallow and
regurgitate views and opinions?

I have stopped counting the number of times students have asked me if I
will evaluate their examination responses based on the extent to which
their views with respet to tax law (or whatever other subject I am
teaching) correspond with mine, and of course I tell them that the
examination seeks neither their opinion nor my opinion but the
appropriate analysis of the tax law as it is. When I teaching a tax
policy course, it is different, but it is a matter of how well reasoned
a position is, even if I happen to disagree. When I ask why they present
the question to me, they tell me that in some of their courses their
grades reflect the extent to which their opinions correlate with, or
conflict with, the personal views of the professor. For example, arguing
that the case of X v. Y should be overruled earns a higher grade than
does the contrary position, even though well-reasoned arguments can be
made for both positions. Personally (yes, here is a personal view), I'd
rather ask students to present three reasons for each side of the debate
because those who can see both sides are going to be better at arguing
whichever side they eventually end up arguing.

It is no surprise that dislike and disdain define the distance between
those advocating different dogmatic doctrines within much of the
nation's education system. Students eventually will figure out that the
earth is not flat (and those who don't will simply fall off the edge
some day), that there are valid arguments in favor of and against most
propositions, and that ultimately most outcomes reflect far more the
practical application of compromise, politics, monetary influence, and
circumstance than it does the theoretical positions espoused in
academia. The education system would do well to teach students how to
live in a world that in order to flourish requires something other than
lock-step adherence to one dominant and unbending dogma.

Jim Maule



_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.