Clemson Board Member Les McCraw of Greenville (“Tension Inevitable at Great Universities” August 30) is to be congratulated for entering the debate now raging over the freshman campus-wide reading, “Truth and Beauty.” The content of education is important and board members should be paying attention to it. McCraw’s approach to the controversy comes in the form of a response to Professor J. David Woodard’s article (Clemson reading assignment offers no moral standard, August 25). Alas, Mr. McCraw’s contribution to the debate does not do much to help us appreciate “Truth and Beauty” but only tells us why Woodard’s comments should be discounted.
McCraw criticizes Woodard for likely not having read the book in question and for being unqualified to comment on whether or not the university was correct in its selection of this particular book. The first charge is highly speculative and the second is demonstrably wrong. Woodard teaches political philosophy and like Socrates, he is qualified to comment on all aspects of civic education. But beyond that, as a member of the faculty he has a responsibility to use his wisdom and knowledge to guide the university’s curriculum especially insofar as it impacts his students. Note, the freshman reading assignment is for all entering freshmen, not just literature students. Second, literature selections on university campuses are often based on political motives that are justified by the need to help students overcome prejudices or to participate in civic engagement. Hence, who better than a political philosopher to comment on literature selections?
“The controversy,” says McCraw, “was initiated by one ill-advised, but widely disseminated, list of excerpts from the book.” Was that really the source of the controversy? It seems more likely that the choice of a provocative reading selection lies at the root of the public discussion. But regardless of the source, public discussion of a book is a good thing,—in fact, the purpose of the freshman reading assignment is to get students discussing a piece of literature. If their parents are also discussing it, isn’t that even better at least insofar as we want to encourage discussion? He also questions the motives of the book’s critics. But given the likely political motives behind the book’s selection, no one should be shocked that there has been a politically motivated response.
Dr. Woodard’s failure to mention academic freedom in his piece is another concern of McCraw’s. However academic pundits engaged in public controversies do not usually waste words defending something they obviously enjoy. And nothing Woodard says infringes on anyone else’s academic freedom. The purpose of academic freedom is to protect dissent. Academic freedom does not shield professors and administrators from the criticism and the second guessing decried by McCraw. In fact, it invites it.
Mr. McCraw is also concerned about Dr. Woodard’s “incendiary” comparison with that other great university in the state, because it can “easily generate adverse emotions.” But students need to know they have arrived at a great university, one that permits and welcomes dissent and also one where everyone on campus does not march in lockstep. They need to know that they too can criticize the choice of “Truth and Beauty.” They too have academic freedom.
Mr. McCraw does praise Woodard for articulating the conservative view. Woodard makes wise observations on the purpose of literature. Significantly, he reminds us of our great literary heritage and how since the days of the ancient Greeks, literature has been used to teach, inspire and inculcate virtue. McCraw brings in Woodard’s political orientation as a “conservative” because today only conservatives regularly champion this traditional approach to education.
No doubt there will be more articles on this subject, one most worthy of discussion and debate. The public debate is, in fact, the one indisputable good to come out of the choice to have students read “Truth and Beauty.” If the debate is cut short, much of the benefit is lost. I for one look forward to seeing professors and Board members on both sides of the political divide weighing in on this subject and the free market of ideas producing much fruit. But are there enough conservatives on campus to hold up their side of the debate? That remains to be seen.
Christina F. Jeffrey is President of the Institute for the Study of Liberty and a visiting professor of Politics at Coastal Carolina University.
