To the Editor:
Re “The Moral Deficiencies of a Liberal Education,” by Ezekiel J. Emanuel (Opinion, Oct. 22):
In my upper-level Georgetown University ethics course, “Ethics of Global Leaders,” a discussion of the conflict between Hamas and Israel devolved into chaotic and accusatory yelling.
There were high emotions, but almost no discussion of practical ethics. Little was learned because students, billed as the world’s future leaders, lacked a moral vocabulary, one strong in substance and cognizant of nuance, to discuss the situation.
Like Dr. Emanuel, I have seen the moral deficiency at the university I attend. It has manifested itself by showing students’ inability to hold civil, nuanced discussions of the moral and geopolitical implications of the Hamas terrorist attacks and the ongoing security operation.
Fixing this will take time, but it starts with instilling a moral vocabulary through embracing disagreement. Students must learn to discuss, not disregard, the opinions of those whom they vehemently disagree with. Likewise, universities must encourage the development of argumentation as a skill to be embraced, not shied away from.
Zane Nagel
Seattle
To the Editor:
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel’s critique of academia is consistent with a growing anti-university movement in this country, which casts blame on higher education for everything from political bias to deficient levels of useful skills in the workplace.
But this attack assumes that students come to universities as tabula rasa, without the imprint and influence of parental socialization, years spent in secondary schools, as well as a constant onslaught from all kinds of media, from newspapers to TV to social media, some of which is quite biased itself. It assumes students have no free will and cannot think for themselves.
Faculty and staff of varying political, religious and other perspectives coexist on American campuses. Even within the same major, professors have different perspectives and ways of teaching the same courses. They do not get together in the faculty lounge to conspire to indoctrinate students.
Rebecca S. Fahrlander
Bellevue, Neb.
The writer is a retired adjunct professor of psychology and sociology.
To the Editor:
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel’s criticism of universities for failing to adequately educate students in critical thinking and especially ethical complexities is only part of the problem. I suspect that, outside of the classroom, there are powerful peer forces of tribalism that pit clear thinking against social acceptance and belonging, with the latter dominating.
Yes, curriculums need more attention to ethics and critical thinking, but they also need to address having the courage to take a self-determined stand, even if opposed by one’s closest peers.
Louis Moffett
Menlo Park, Calif.
To the Editor:
Ezekiel Emanuel’s opinion piece thoughtfully addresses the moral decay at the core of our universities. There are many causes of this tragedy. One of the most significant is the cowardice of administrators, from the top down; they are afraid to alienate donors, professors and students.
The recent vacillating statements from the presidents of Harvard, Stanford, Columbia and many other universities regarding Hamas’s barbaric attack on Israel exemplify this cowardice. But this behavior is not new; rather it has been years in the making.
The rot goes further. Professors are cowed by their students into giving high grades for fear that the students will in turn give their teachers negative evaluations. The professors are afraid they will be expelled from the academy when in fact it is the students who should be penalized for mediocre or poor work. The tail is wagging the dog, and we are all the losers.
Victoria DeFelice
Irvine, Calif.
To the Editor:
This isn’t the first example I’ve seen of hand-wringing “What are they teaching kids these days?” complaints directed at universities, blaming them for intemperate statements made by some of their students. Have Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and others forgotten their days on campus? My recollection is that poorly thought out screeds were not unusual in undergraduate publications.
I entered M.I.T. as a graduate student in 1978, and during my time there I recall at least four campus newspapers. Among them were a nutty right-wing paper and a nutty left-wing paper. Some of their editorials and even news coverage were sophomoric. Perhaps that was because they were written by, well, sophomores.
I may have thought that the positions taken on both sides were arrogant and naïve, even callous at times, but it never occurred to me that this was somehow a blight on M.I.T. or the university education itself.
Universities could probably do a better job of teaching their students how to formulate and present ideas, and how to make their claims both more influential and less abrasive. But taking academia to task because some in their community say something foolish seems like demanding that our colleges should be enforcers of “cancel culture.” Is this really what we want?
Steve Lowe
Sudbury, Mass.
To the Editor:
Ezekiel Emanuel says his concern is that a coalition of 34 student organizations at Harvard can say that they “hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence.” He blames this on their university.
I agree that there is something wrong, but I don’t agree that it is Harvard’s fault. Polling data shows a decline in support for Israel among young people. The favorable/unfavorable ratio of views of Israel among those older than 65 is 69 percent/27 percent, according to the Pew Research Organization. For 18- to 29-year-olds, the ratio is 41 percent/56 percent.
There is a problem, but it is not confined to Ivy League campuses. As the Holocaust and Israel’s existential wars of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 fade into the historical rearview mirror, America seems to be losing its emotional connection to Israel.
I do not have a good answer. I think it could help if more Americans visited Israel and developed friendships with Israelis, but I do not know how to make that happen.
In any case, I doubt that tinkering with Harvard College’s curriculum is the answer.
Stuart Gallant
Belmont, Mass.
To the Editor:
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel has clearly identified a major problem in modern liberal arts education — de-emphasizing “critical thinking skills” and avoiding “challenging our students.” He rightly encourages universities to revisit the issue of what it means to be well educated. Unfortunately, this prescription sits uncomfortably in the modern American university.
The problem is that such challenging dialogue is likely to meet resistance. Some students will be made uncomfortable and be offended, which, of course, is the point of the dialogue. One or more will complain to their dean’s office. The “offending” faculty member will then have a meeting with the dean.
Further actions against the instructor may follow, including dismissal, as in the cases of a former Hamline University professor, Erika López Prater, whose students were offended by the showing of a painting of the Prophet Muhammad even though the professor had provided advance notice, and a former New York University professor, Maitland Jones Jr., whose organic chemistry students complained about their test scores.
Instructors are thus incentivized to avoid introducing thought-provoking, possibly uncomfortable material in the classroom. Liberal arts education has been abandoned.
How have universities devolved into this sorry state? Universities have been transformed from viewing students as a group to be educated and informed to viewing students as consumers of a product. The customer is right; their tuition revenues and future gifts are needed.
Perhaps there is a silver lining to recent disturbing events on campuses. They have exposed the weakness of the “customer model” and will hopefully allow us to revisit the question of “What do we think it means to be well educated?” and to begin a return to the liberal education that Dr. Emanuel envisions and that we all should want, uncomfortable as it would be.
Bob Chirinko
Chicago
The writer is a professor of finance at the University of Illinois at Chicago. His views are his own.