The U.S. Department of Education has criticized the Middle East Studies programs jointly convened by Duke University and UNC-Chapel Hill as not serving the purposes of the Title VI funding that supports it. The letter to the program administrators from Assistant Secretary of Postsecondary Education Robert King indicated "a lack of balance" in the Middle East Studies program, favoring Islam over other religions, and "advancing ideological priorities" instead of language development and geographic/historic discourse on the Middle East.
Terry Magnuson, Vice Chancellor for Research at UNC, responded that, "The consortium organizes public events presenting diverse perspectives and a wide range of views on many of the Middle East's most challenging subjects, including -- in recent years -- conferences on censorship in Turkey, Islam and religious identity, World War I and the transformation of the Middle East, the aftermath of the Arab Spring and lectures on human rights in Iran, civil war in Syria, repression in Egypt, and many other subjects."
U.S. House of Representatives Democrats challenged the Department of Education's review of the Duke-UNC Consortium for Middle East Studies by saying, "The Title VI stature only requires curricular to offer 'diverse perspectives and a wide range of views and generate debate.'" The Department of Education responded that their inquiry related to a lack of diversity and absence of a language requirement in the Duke-UNC Consortium.
It's not terribly difficult to read between the lines in these exchanges. While the Department of Education is claiming that the Duke/UNC program is ideologically imbalanced, the topics being addressed are a natural part of academic discourse and just so happen to touch on issues that the US Department of Education might not want exposed and more broadly discussed. Who's guilty of ideological bias?
Mitchel Stevens of Stanford indicated that viewing the Duke/UNC program criticism as the result of the Trump administration's ideological leaning is a mistake. He poses that it is indicative of "steadily growing government skepticism about the value of academic knowledge of the rest of the world." Professor of Education at the University of Pennsylvania, Sigal Ben-Porath expressed concern that the U.S. Department of Education criticism of Duke/UNC criticism represents an unhelpful intrusion in regulating free speech on campus. Joining with 29 other higher education organizations, the American Council on Education sent a letter of concern about the U.S. Department of Education's collection of information on foreign gifts and contracts.
Terry Magnuson, Vice Chancellor for Research at UNC, responded that, "The consortium organizes public events presenting diverse perspectives and a wide range of views on many of the Middle East's most challenging subjects, including -- in recent years -- conferences on censorship in Turkey, Islam and religious identity, World War I and the transformation of the Middle East, the aftermath of the Arab Spring and lectures on human rights in Iran, civil war in Syria, repression in Egypt, and many other subjects."
U.S. House of Representatives Democrats challenged the Department of Education's review of the Duke-UNC Consortium for Middle East Studies by saying, "The Title VI stature only requires curricular to offer 'diverse perspectives and a wide range of views and generate debate.'" The Department of Education responded that their inquiry related to a lack of diversity and absence of a language requirement in the Duke-UNC Consortium.
It's not terribly difficult to read between the lines in these exchanges. While the Department of Education is claiming that the Duke/UNC program is ideologically imbalanced, the topics being addressed are a natural part of academic discourse and just so happen to touch on issues that the US Department of Education might not want exposed and more broadly discussed. Who's guilty of ideological bias?
Mitchel Stevens of Stanford indicated that viewing the Duke/UNC program criticism as the result of the Trump administration's ideological leaning is a mistake. He poses that it is indicative of "steadily growing government skepticism about the value of academic knowledge of the rest of the world." Professor of Education at the University of Pennsylvania, Sigal Ben-Porath expressed concern that the U.S. Department of Education criticism of Duke/UNC criticism represents an unhelpful intrusion in regulating free speech on campus. Joining with 29 other higher education organizations, the American Council on Education sent a letter of concern about the U.S. Department of Education's collection of information on foreign gifts and contracts.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.