Global Studies, Universal Bias

 

Global Studies, Universal Bias

By Robert David Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 6, 2004


Academic conferences showcase a field¢s cutting-edge
scholarship, which the professors in attendance can
then incorporate into their classes. The agenda at the
2004 Global Studies Association conference speaks
volumes at what¢s occurring in classes in the faddish
field of ÒGlobal Studies.Ó

Participants at this year¢s ÒGlobal StudiesÓ event
heard a paper from Carl Davidson offering Òperspective
on how progressives can independently intervene in the
election to defeat Bush in spite of the poor tactics
from the Democratic leadershipÓ in light of the fact
that Òthe U.S. Government, at least over the past 50
years, has been the chief terrorist and sponsor of
terrorism in the world.Ó Ed Green added it was not just
Republicans, ÒThose who closely follow the role of the
United States in the larger world are aware in recent
times there have been quite a few episodes of torture
inflicted by the U.S.Ó  Renate Bridenthal demanded
Òmilitant actionÓ to restore open admissions and
remedial education at CUNY¢s senior colleges, abolition
of which reflected Òthe direct cost to education of the
prison-industrial-military complex.Ó Most of the
conference¢s 14 other papers¯summarizing, again, the
latest thinking in the field¯reflected similar points
of view.
 
In contemporary higher education, advocates of
one-sided curricular initiatives frequently mask their
agendas by using code words or phrases. The phrase
ÒGlobal StudiesÓ represents a perfect example: who,
after all, could oppose students learning more about
international matters in an increasingly globalized
world? It¢s clear what sort of instruction students
around the country receive in classes based on the
themes from the ÒGlobal StudiesÓ conference. Academic
content is replaced by an openly partisan and
ideological message.
 
One fact making this possible is the fact that there
are no reputable graduate programs that award degrees
in ÒGlobal Studies.Ó The most fully developed ÒGlobal
StudiesÓ department, at St. Lawrence University, openly
imposes an ideological litmus test for new hires, who
must be familiar Òwith the theoretical debates
surrounding area, global, development; ethnic, native,
or post-colonial studies,Ó fields known for their
strong ideological bias.
 
A sense of what a typical ÒGlobal StudiesÓ class
entails comes in a ÒcapstoneÓ course at California
State University-Monterey Bay, which established one of
the nation¢s first ÒGlobal StudiesÓ departments, in 1995.
 
The course, fantastically, promises students Òa smooth
transition into postgraduate training in schools with
disciplinary focus on politics and economics.Ó The
reading list offers a clearer sense of what this
ÒGlobal StudiesÓ offering actually accomplishes.
Assigned books include:
 
* Joel Andreas, Addicted to War: Why the U.S. Can¢t
Kick Militarism
* Chuck Collins, Economic Apartheid in America
* Marian A. Ferber and Julie A. Nelson, Feminist
Economics Today.
The Òintent of this course,Ó Professor Robina Bhatti
states, Òis that a better understanding of global
political economy will lead to an improvement in the
rationality and justice of our everyday life.Ó
Students¢ grades are based on the professor¢s
ÒmeasurementsÓ of their progress in achieving this goal.
 
In other words: students are graded on their fidelity
to the political agenda of the professor and the openly
biased assigned texts.
 
Most of the roughly two dozen colleges and universities
with ÒGlobal StudiesÓ programs have imitated Monterey
Bay¢s approach: with the exceptions of three (Ripon,
Brandeis, and Cal.-Santa Barbara), ÒGlobal StudiesÓ
departments exclude offerings in politics, diplomacy,
the law, business, religion, and intellectuals in the
United States and Western Europe. Instead, they focus
on courses oriented towards race, class, gender, and
cultural studies, often containing obvious biases
against the Western heritage or contemporary U.S.
foreign policy. Despite the concept¢s grand title,
ÒGlobal StudiesÓ classes rarely explore material before
the 20th century. Nor, despite the mantra of training
students in Òintercultural communication,Ó do most
ÒGlobal StudiesÓ programs require language instruction:
foreign language courses provide no clear path for indoctrination.
 
Mission College¢s program, for instance, claims to
provide students with the tools necessary for Òmaking
intelligent decisions as global citizens.Ó The courses¢
goals include making students understand Òthat all
earth¢s people face the same global challenges despite
the diverse traditions, values and practices they may
haveÓ and Òcore civic values which generate socially
responsible behavior at both the local and global level.Ó
 
Like most institutions that sponsor ÒGlobal StudiesÓ
programs, the college refuses to concede that people of
good faith define the values that Ògenerate socially
responsible behavior at both the local and global
levelÓ in very different ways. Instead, ÒGlobal
StudiesÓ programs assume that there can be only one
path to generating Òsocially responsible behavior at
both the local and global levelÓ¯the left-wing
political agenda championed by ÒGlobal StudiesÓ
faculty, who are, as the St. Lawrence model indicates,
chosen after passing ideological litmus tests.
 
The national academic organization that has most
aggressively promoted the ÒGlobal StudiesÓ approach is
the Association of American Colleges and Universities
(AAC&U). The AAC&U¢s most controversial undertaking was
the ÒArts of Democracy,Ó a 2003-2004 initiative that
looked to Ògenerate new knowledge about Global Studies.Ó
 
This Ònew knowledgeÓ came in one-sided courses such as
those at the Rochester Institute of Technology, which
organized its ÒArts of DemocracyÓ classes around
explorations of the ÒWestern veil of ignoranceÓ and the
ÒapartheidÓ of globalization. Students (along the lines
of the Monterey Bay model) were graded in part through
journal entries Òabout involvement in social-advocacy
groups.Ó (Emphasis added.) Ironically, taxpayers paid
for the program: the U.S. Department of Education¢s
Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education
awarded AAC&U a grant totaling more than $600,000.
 
Provost Roberta S. Matthews brought an ÒArts of
DemocracyÓ course cluster to my own school, Brooklyn
College, where Ms. Matthews has called for making the
ÒArts of DemocracyÓ program the core of a new ÒGlobal
StudiesÓ department. Such an undertaking, she
maintained, will help make Brooklyn undergraduates
Òglobal citizens.Ó To clarify the concept, Ms. Matthews
unintentionally revealed the code, asserting that
ÒglobalÓ¯as opposed, apparently, to American¯citizens
are those sensitized to Òconcepts of race, class, and gender.Ó
 
Under this definition, ÒGlobal StudiesÓ courses don¢t
have to be ÒglobalÓ at all. They only need to convey
what the AAC&U describes as a central tenet of the ÒNew
AcademyÓ: recognition of Òpersistent inequalities and
injustices in the United StatesÓ and a willingness to
meet these problems by subscribing to the AAC&U¢s
political agenda. Along these lines, Brooklyn¢s Dean of
Student Life, Milga Morales, argued that a ÒGlobal
StudiesÓ curriculum would address blatantly prejudicial
questions related to the 9/11 attacks¯attacks
committed, she cryptically noted, by Òthose referred to
as ¡terrorists.¢Ó Such questions included, ÒWas
September 11 contrived?Ó; ÒWhat did the United States
government know and when did it know it?Ó; and ÒWhose
rights would be violated now?Ó
 
The globe in ÒGlobal StudiesÓ departments contains
exclusively negative attitudes toward one country
(other than the United States): Israel. This year, St.
Lawrence¢s ÒGlobal StudiesÓ major featured a special
seminar on Palestinian activist and theorist Edward
Said. The department also has a regular offering
entitled, ÒWhy Do ¡They¢ Hate ¡Us¢?Ó The instruction
situates the 9/11 attacks Òin several thematic
contexts,Ó focused on a critique Òof US involvement in
the Middle East.Ó
 
Students in a ÒGlobal StudiesÓ course called
ÒPalestinian Identities,Ó finally, are introduced to
Palestinian identification Òas a political and cultural
community as they continue to struggle to free
themselves from Israeli domination.Ó The course
concludes with a forced political activity: Òusing what
we have learned,Ó Professor John Collins notes, Òwe
organize and produce a public activity of some sort;
with the goal of educating the community about the
importance of understanding what Edward Said has called
¡the question of Palestine.¢Ó
 
An objective portrayal of Israeli history, politics, or
culture will not be found in a ÒGlobal StudiesÓ course.
That might be one reason why the Middle East Studies
Association¯representing a field that has come under
increasing attack for its open bias against U.S. and
Israeli foreign policy in the Middle East¯advocated at
its 2003 conference positioning Middle East studies in
the context of ÒGlobal Studies.Ó MESA¢s apparent
rationale: since both ÒGlobal StudiesÓ and ÒMiddle East
studiesÓ courses are inherently biased against Israel,
it makes sense to promote ÒGlobal StudiesÓ offerings,
since those have received less critical outside scrutiny.
 
With the increasingly globalized economy and the
transnational threat posed by the war on terror,
college graduates need to understand more about the
international environment in which they live. ÒGlobal
StudiesÓ departments, however, provide scant, if any,
useful knowledge. Instead, students subjected to such
courses receive warmed-over ideas from discredited
1960s radicalism. This ÒdisciplineÓ is nothing more
than a forum for professors to structure classes around
their political beliefs. In fact, a traditional liberal
arts education provides students with the best
preparation for functioning in the 21st century world.
Colleges also already cover such topics as
international relations, the global economy, foreign
cultures, and intercultural communication in
Departments of History, Economics, Political Science,
Modern Languages, and Philosophy. Parents, trustees,
and state legislators might want to find other uses for
the funds that they are currently providing to ÒGlobal
StudiesÓ institutions.

Copyright©2004 FrontPageMagazine.com
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy

They have their own vocabulary at these places...
"critical thinking"= the rhetoric of Blaming America for Everything
"diversity"= no whites allowed, or at least no white males who AREN'T
homosexual, HIV+, on mental disability SSI, or just plain communists or
anarchists.
"equity"= expropriation of property (but not property owned by the
Rockefellers or George Soros)
and, their favorite, "progressive"= total left-wing mind control,
including racial quotas, unlimited immigration with special cultural
rights for illegal immigrants, with "affirmative action"= ...no whites
allowed (except for slutty white chicks)

and they call everybody else "Orwellian" ! (the Dead Giveaway is when
you look at the reading lists for Poli Sci and Sociology and they NEVER
include Orwell's Animal Farm , it gives them the creeps because it's
such a direct hit on the left) They're not really even too enthusiastic
about 1984 anymore, and see if they even put Huxley on the list. But,
oh, all the Toni Morrison and Noam Chomsky!

Ever notice how none of the treasonous filth from the 60's ever go back
to Viet (police state) Nam to admire their handiwork?