Dear Wake Forest:
As I set off for Wake Forest, fixing my sights on the beautifully kept greens that surround Wait Chapel, the majestic magnolias that roll across campus, and the beautiful sunshine that smiles on our ‘Mother So Dear’ daily, I half-expected an idyllic college experience in all facets.
A year here at Wake Forest has certainly done away with that illusion.
In my opening article for The Wake Forest Review, ardent in my commitment to free speech and discourse, I charged for political engagement across campus.
I wrote, “this engagement requires that we all hold ourselves to high standards as intellectuals and as people. In the spirit of these standards, I challenge each and every student to have conversations outside of their comfort zone, Professors to promote fair and stimulating spaces of learning that allow all opinions, and the administration to reconsider their current stance on free speech at Wake Forest University.”
Without much doubt, I have been fairly disappointed with the engagement of students and faculty on both sides of the aisle.
Conversations I’ve had outside of my comfort zone nearly exclusively occur in the classroom and under artificial circumstances, like through prodding by Professors. While classrooms “allow all opinions” as I desired, it is clear they do not value them equally.
As a conservative in an era where academia is decidedly left-wing, I expected no different, and welcomed the challenge. Regularly, I invited students I disagreed with in class to further deliberate on ideas and rarely did conversations prove to be anything more than a game of one-upmanship instead of addressing differences and common ground.
When Professors feel it compulsory, even necessary, to make constant side-comments about our current President, who is rarely topical in classes, it is dubious to claim that all ideas are treated equally or fairly. While it is excessive to say that one should feel that their academic or social well-being comes under threat as a result of political affiliation, it does not miss the mark to state that the Wake Forest community does not have a healthy respect for discourse outside of its mere pedagogical value.
I have had multiple professors who are openly liberal whose views I respect, but not a single one who has been open about supporting right-wing politics. Whether this is a function of taking classes in departments and a climate where professors tend to be left-wing, or that professors fear divulging counter-cultural politics would damage their credibility with students, I cannot say.
Regardless, if the purpose of the university experience is to seek truth wherever it may lead and to prepare students for life in the professional and real world, then one would certainly assume that a larger range of ideas would be presented inside departments and classrooms. I should qualify this: my experiences in getting to know most of my professors in my first year have been fantastic. Wake Forest has top-rate professors committed to their students and to learning, notwithstanding any political affiliation.
What troubles me far more than any off-topic and frankly unprofessional faculty side-comment about the President’s alleged incompetency is the attitude of most students towards political engagement. Deep apathy strikes many students outside of the classroom. In the classroom, I have found that students have a blatant disrespect for what our forebears would consider concrete, unalienable and sincere truths. These truths include that the first amendment protects nearly all speech, the world continues to get better, and that America is easily one of, if not the most egalitarian country in world history, despite its flaws.
This problem, however, is hardly surprising and is not exclusive to Wake: a recent Gallup poll found that 53% of college students believe ‘diversity and inclusion’ is more important than a constitutional right to free speech. The system built by our founding fathers, meant to stand the test of time and has stood for over two hundred years, now finds itself under siege from petulant students who concern themselves more with feeling offended than exercising their natural rights as Americans.
The pursuit of truth requires uncomfortable situations. One cannot sidestep around that fact. If the average college student prefers feeling safe to discovering the truth, it is hard to claim that America’s future leaders (and yes, that means current Wake Foresters as well) will be capable or even competent at a basic level in a professional setting.
The plague of Wake Forest-wide incompetence is already showing on a daily basis. The goal of the Wake Forest Review is not to provoke or to incite outrage, but instead, provide opinions and commentary from a perspective that has been relegated to the margins of campus discourse. Wake Forest students do not take the publication seriously, and it is a shame.
They are only ensconcing themselves in a cocoon of ignorance by doing so. As an organization, we are equally institutionally committed to this perspective-sharing and to repairing the lost and trampled-over art of respectful and fair discourse on our campus. It is abundantly self-evident that there is still much work to be done. From fringe groups on campus writing vulgar responses to our work, to faculty deeming us ‘propaganda’, it is clear that discourse is still far away from being had on a regular basis.
The Old Gold and Black has to peddling intellectually lazy, fear-mongering articles about how the Review accepts funding from donors than criticize our work on its merits and shortcomings. Yes, we accept donations, and yes, we have a board of directors. So does the New Yorker. So does the New Republic. Wake Forest itself accepts donations and has a board too, but dare the Old Gold and Black call into question anything that may challenge the political ideology or personal agendas of its writers?
I cannot perfectly defend every article we have ever written, nor do I desire to. Of course, as a free-thinking citizen, I am bound to have plenty of disagreements with other writers. If the writer of the Old Gold and Black article discussing the Wake Forest Review bothered to do the diligence of looking into our opinion section, the writer would quickly find that there are a variety of opinions ranging from unequivocal support to condemnation of our President, big spending to budget cuts.
Our Board of Directors has never influenced a single word of what I have written for the Review, nor has it for any other of our writers. We do not profit from our work. We write for the Wake Forest Review because we believe in it. We believe Wake Forest has taken a turn for worse, and we want to right the ship.
Amongst all of this inane moralism and absurdity, there is a way forward. Simply put, let’s talk to each other. The Wake Forest Review has partnered with PHI to create spaces of engagement and inter-political dialogue outside the classroom. Never have we shied away from a healthy debate, so come find us. If your arguments are more compelling than my own, I will change my mind, and I have no shame in admitting that. Our writers regularly discuss how to improve our craft and better our campus relations with professors. We are doing our part to make this campus more hospitable to free thought, and a genuine university environment focused on the pursuit of knowledge—whether that knowledge is liberal or conservative. Truth is above ideology and is a paramount virtue.
Wake Forest, do your part. Discourse is a two-way street, and you are not living up to your ideals. Give us a chance and you will find that we are trying.
You have joined the ever expanding cocoon of academia which isolates and insulates students by issuing trigger warnings and safe space set asides are more than amusing to those of us who never imagined the need for such protections. As schools, at both the grade and university levels, were designed to prepare students for a successful entry into the world of commerce, this branding anything that is said or written which does not align with one’s opinions as not worth a discussion or even described as hate speech only reflects an inability to intelligently converse, debate and reflect on issues. Closing one’s mind to an alien viewpoint is ignorance at its worst and is indeed a sorry state not just at Wake but too many other schools as well..
Jack Breyer, you are a brave young man! The key word here is “man.” Being able to think for oneself and not following the other sheep off the mountain ledge is a sign of a person who is maturing and takes responsibility for their life and their life choices. This is a rare quality among college students in this era of absolute nonsense on campuses. Good on ya, Jack!
Dear Jack. As one who “ charged for political engagement across campus.” Perhaps you would get more engagement without the snide comments:
You say “The Old Gold and Black has demonstrated a preference to peddling intellectually lazy, fear-mongering articles about how the Review accepts funding from donors than criticize our work on its merits and shortcomings.”
However, just this week the fear has become concrete. Arizona’s three universities asked state leaders for $252 million in new money to help pay for educating in-state students next year and to cover increasing health costs. They’re getting $10 million. And of that, 20 percent must go to a pair of “freedom schools” set up to promote conservative free-market ideas as espoused by Charles and David Koch and ALEC. This at a time when the school teachers in Arizona are striking due to under-funding of education.
And also, this week, the president of George Mason University has ordered an inquiry into whether big-money donors are being given undue influence over academic matters, after documents were released showing that the Charles Koch Foundation had been given a voice in hiring and firing professors. The university president, Angel Cabrera, wrote in an email to faculty Monday night that he was ordering the investigation after learning of documents revealing “problematic gift agreements.”
Perhaps you should look at what dark money is doing to universities in the US, and perhaps the fear is justified.
Yes, funding does matter. And the question about funding can be crystallized into a single motto, formulated by a 19th century British educator and historian Thomas Arnold: ‘No one ought to
meddle with the universities, who does not know them well and love them well’. Do those who fund of WFR love universities?
Aha! The secret conspiracy theories, evil Koch brothers and other nefarious infiltrations of the pure academic environment. Did you read his article before commenting?
“They’re getting $10 million. And of that, 20 percent must go to a pair of “freedom schools” set up to promote conservative free-market ideas as espoused by Charles and David Koch and ALEC. This at a time when the school teachers in Arizona are striking due to under-funding of education.”
20% must go to a pair of “freedom schools”? Do any thoughts about an overwhelming liberal bias on campuses come to mind or is yours closed to that realization?
Do you think George Mason University has am overwhelming liberal bias? Most people would say it is overwhelmingly conservative, yet they too think the Koch brothers and other suppliers of dark money have gone too far.
You think there is an “overwhelming liberal bias” at ASU, I challenge you to prove it. Do you really believe that a public school in a very red state is “overwhelming liberal”? Or are all universities, short of Liberty U, “overwhelming liberal”?
Who do you think needs the money more, The Koch brothers, who could fund the “schools” as they have in the past, or public school students from K through 12? ALEC, the Koch funded organization, now has the tax payers funding the Koch “schools”, whether they agree with them or not.
It is not a “secret conspiracy theories”, as it has been well documented in papers and videos from Koch’s own organizations. Do you deny that the Koch brothers are spending many hundreds of millions of dollars at over 100 universities promote their ideology? It is their right, but to call objections a secret conspiracy theory is foolish.
Why does WFR hide every donors name? Do all donors require secrecy? Why does WFR exist? Its articles could just as well be in OG&B. Does WFR exist just to promote the victim status of the conservatives on campus?
Unfortunately for the author, the far left never wants to have a discussion with someone they view as not even human. That is the point we are at. A discussion means having to explain or defend their ideology, which is something they are utterly incapable of without made up ‘injustices’ and circular logic; they only wish to dictate. Bring up any issue, heck, just say the right single word; and watch the vitriolic hate flow out of them. They are a danger to everything they infect.
There was a dialog – do you think you comment promotes a dialog?
Or should I respond by saying” Unfortunately for the author the far right supports the KKK and Nazis.”
No, I do not think that would help.
I don’t know why WFR keeps its donors anonymous, TD. Why are you anonymous?