Way back when Madonna was courting the middle school crowd for their allowance money, a strange scene occurred outside one of her concerts.

Three young girls were asked by a TV cameraman why they were dressed the way they were. All three were wearing lingerie on the outside of their clothing, as were most of the other early teens heading inside.

As most former adolescents can quickly guess, the reason given for dressing in the identical fad as 50,000 other groupies was “we’re expressing our individuality!” The strangest part of it is, at the time I’ll bet they firmly believed it.

That situation bears an uncanny parallel to the quiet national scandal going on in many American universities.

In numerous cases, academic departments have been staffed with faculty who seem to represent only a narrow and partisan political viewpoint, and make ideological evangelism a central part of their class. And as most current college students can quickly guess, the reason given for the lack of political bipartisan representation is “we’re expressing our diversity!”

“What?” some people ask. If your department is so diverse, where are the outspoken conservatives? Where are the traditionalists? Why don’t liberal heroes or non-Western figures get demolished? Why don’t obviously ideologically-driven faculty admit to having a political bias? Why are groups like People for the American Way, a group formed to oppose conservative Christians, introduced in class as being non-partisan? This is true, but only for tax purposes.

Diversity, to the people who use the word most, apparently does not mean what it used to. At my previous school, for example, the only opportunity for extra-credit in freshman composition was to attend movies at a gay film festival and then discuss them in class.

Assigned papers and much classroom discussion dealt with very controversial issues surrounding the race/class/gender focus of the class. However, the extreme liberal perspective was the only one presented by the instructor, except when the views of conservatives were derided. What is more, there was a continual focus on how we as students were “growing” (changing our traditional views) as the semester progressed. And students who “grew” the most were praised.

One topic for a paper was “describe a belief you once had and how that belief has now changed.” We went around the room the day the paper was due, quickly giving our take on the question, and mine was the only paper not dealing with having reduced racist, sexist or homophobic feelings as a result of taking this particular class.

I hope I didn’t permanently damage the ego of the instructor by not playing along. I know it must be hard for him to de-program students coming from fascist parents and communities. Especially when they resist his guidance in “growing” due to a belief in individualism, which, after all, is “considered by many to be racist.”

In my composition class at ISU, we watched”Cinderella” and wrote of the sexism in it. We also wrote journal entries, as is common in race/class/gender courses. As in my previous school, we were graded on participation.

With an almost infinite range of topics to choose from, is it “diverse” to limit required classes on writing to victimology? Is it fair to only offer extra-credit to students who will watch a movie on a gay love-story? Does having a substantial part of your grade be at the discretion of the instructor in the form of participation make students pretend to agree with them on controversial political matters? Does diversity simply mean becoming more politically liberal?

Instructors should be more sensitive about promoting true diversity in their classrooms —the diversity of ideas! Teaching academic skills should not be hindered by making many students uncomfortable by forcing them to swallow politics they find distasteful.

The same analytical and writing skills that go into composing a piece examining sexism in Disney’s “Cinderella” can also go into writing a piece examining the secular-humanism in Paramount Pictures “Star Trek V.” (Kirk to Bones, “maybe God isn’t out there,” Then pointing to his chest, Kirk continues, “maybe God is in here.”) Why don’t students have the option of stepping off the political path instructors lead them on?

Is the goal of changing student attitudes about fashionable social issues so important that we can’t be given more choices? Is having a special mission of making students “grow” in the direction of the instructors world-view appropriate for classes that supposedly exist to teach specific academic skills? Is the goal of changing student attitudes on social issues anything like indoctrination? How about “yes, but in a good way?”

Lack of choices takes place in areas less related to politics as well. I was saddened last year when I read of an ISU student who went to a writing class only to learn the semester would be spent writing on dark, violent source material. When she expressed her wish to write on uplifting themes, her instructor made fun of her.

After writing in the ISU Daily about her wish to have the opportunity to write on meaningful themes in class. When she dropped the course when the instructor refused to offer her that opportunity, a member of the department wrote a letter to respond. In this letter, published in the Daily, the writer called the student a fascist.

Some liberal instructors seem to want students to marvel how wonderfully diverse they have made their classrooms in the same way the emperor in that famous story wanted his subjects to admire his new clothing. More students need to look at what is really going on and figuratively say “the emperor has no clothes.” Hmmm, on second thought, maybe the emperor does have clothes, along with lingerie worn outside of them.

---

Benjamin Studenski is a junior in industrial engineering from Hastings, Minnesota.