How the AHA Killed Viewpoint-Neutral Teaching

James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal ^ | January 12, 2024 | David Randall

[karpov]

The October 7 Hamas mass-murder of Israelis highlighted the academics around the world who have a soft spot for Jew-killers, as well as how their bigotry’s gotten into everything they do. At the University of California (UC), Michael Drake, president of the UC System, made a softly-softly statement in favor of “viewpoint-neutral” teaching where the history of the Middle East is concerned. No end of professors immediately wrote to protest the very idea of “viewpoint-neutral history,” by which Drake “appear[ed] to be calling into question the academic integrity of the community of University of California scholars.”

Providing the deep theoretical background, history professor Mark LeVine stated that “teaching history in a ‘viewpoint-neutral’ way is ‘literally impossible.’ He said the concept harkens back to a ‘19th-century idea of objective history’ disfavored by historians for ‘decades and decades.’”

[ClearCase_guy]

Were the Japanese justified in that whole Bataan Death March thing? Well, there’s two sides to that issue, and it’s important to have a neutral viewpoint ...

Jonas Salk invented a polio vaccine that worked very well. Was this a good thing? Well, there’s two sides to that issue, and it’s important to have a neutral viewpoint ...

[Jonty30]

History was, more or less until the leftist academics took it over, being taught relatively neutral. Nobody’s acts were hidden and we could evaluate if what was done was the best of choices.

[bk1000]

How are they gonna further the hate-whitey narrative if they have to remain viewpoint neutral?

[Macoozie]

Maximum Liberty-
Let all voices be heard.

There are always two sides.
Teaching History should show all of the available information.

Like good trial lawyer training, take BOTH sides of an argument to see the weaknesses of each.

Wanna argue Nazis were good?
Go ahead and make your case.
Ham-Ass is a just, fair, and honorable organization?
Go ahead and make your case.

What is “good” today, may turn out to be bad in the future.
The Tuskegee Study was real “science”, at the time.
Rose Kennedy’s Lobotomy was a justified medical procedure, at the time.
Kill Shot for ChiCom WuHu was a correct response, at the time.

Shutting down the debate is not the answer.

“The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn’t exist.”

So let them all be heard.
Expose them for who and what they are.
They will reveal their evil.

[joe fonebone]

It’s a blog.
Why not post the whole thing right here

[Brass Lamp]

Were the Japanese justified in that whole Bataan Death March thing? Well, there’s two sides to that issue, and it’s important to have a neutral viewpoint ... Jonas Salk invented a polio vaccine that worked very well. Was this a good thing? Well, there’s two sides to that issue, and it’s important to have a neutral viewpoint ...

An unbiased interpretation of history would still condemn the Japanese because the Bataan Death march OBJECTIVELY was a moral crime. An unbiased history of medical science would lionize Salk because his discovery was OBJECTIVELY beneficial to all mankind. Only an extremely biased interpretation could depict those Japanese favorably or defame Salk.

"WWII Japs bad" and "polio vaccine good" ARE morally neutral positions.

[ClearCase_guy]

I, personally, agree with you.

But the other side is pretty funny about this stuff. They don’t like this concept of “objectivre truth”. For them “your” truth is no better than “their” truth. And, in fact, since your truth is probably racist, they’ll just decide that their truth is superior. Remember: Biden said “We choose truth over facts”. And he wasn’t taking an objective stance when he said it.

For me (and I think for you) a neutral look at history shows some Good Guys and some Bad Guys. For the Left, it’s always about the Revolution and which way information can be twisted to serve that Revolution.

[nicollo]

Here's the takeaway from the article:

Even if one stipulates that a radical professor could do justice to conservative points of view, the point is moot if radical blackballing has scrubbed the entire profession clean of dissenters. “Viewpoint-neutrality” within a profession that has one viewpoint means little.

[nicollo]

Here's the takeaway from the article:

Even if one stipulates that a radical professor could do justice to conservative points of view, the point is moot if radical blackballing has scrubbed the entire profession clean of dissenters. “Viewpoint-neutrality” within a profession that has one viewpoint means little.