Intellectual Diversity on South Dakota Campuses?

The Rapid City Journal reports on an effort underway to assure college students of an intellectually diverse educational experience. But some legislators balk, and, of course, the universally leftist professors "bristle":

Amid concerns from opponents that it is not what it seems, a state legislative committee Wednesday approved a measure that its sponsors say is intended to ensure a balance of ideas on South Dakota's college campuses. The Senate State Affairs Committee voted 6-3 to pass an amended version of HB1222, which asks the Board of Regents to report annually on what steps the state's six universities are taking to promote "intellectual diversity." It is defined as "a learning environment that exposes students to a variety of political, ideological, and other perspectives."

Not all legislators agree on this, including at least one Repub who should know better. Academics and their apoloigists, however, know when their walled fortresses of Marxism are under attack:

But opponents of HB1222, including Tad Perry, executive director of the Board of Regents, said the measure assumes there's a problem that doesn't exist in South Dakota and is being promoted by national organizations with a political agenda."Those who skillfully crafted this legislation make it appear that this is kind of akin to apple pie and the flag and motherhood," Perry said. "But if you peel that outer layer and look a little deeper, the primary message the bill communicates is that there is a problem in South Dakota's universities. I believe nothing could be further from the truth."

Actually, if you peel that outer layer and look a little deeper, you'll see a vicious little clique, in tune with all the other little cliques nationally, that intends to aggressively defend its fortresses of leftist indoctrination:

Perry, who presented resolutions from the faculty senates of the University of South Dakota and South Dakota School of Mines & Technology opposing HB1222, questioned the aim of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, an organization Heineman cited as a source of a survey indicating an imbalance of political and ideological philosophy on U.S. college campuses. He said the 25 national research and liberal-arts institutions that were surveyed do not reflect South Dakota universities."South Dakota is not Berkeley or Madison (Wis.) or the Ivy League," Perry said. "This bill was designed by out-of-staters with a specific political philosophy. It is a national situation looking for a local problem, and I believe South Dakota is not that problem."

Perry, of course, presents no information to refute the American Council of Trustees and Alumni study, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that not only are America's campuses havens of leftist thought. Leftism dominates institutions almost universally, including those in South Dakota, with anywhere between 90%-and 96% of faculties, particularly in the humanities, consistently voting Democrat and favoring leftist causes. (Download the study here.) More worrisome is the additional documentation strongly suggesting that conservative candidates for rank and tenure are regularly discarded and that students are coerced, under the penalty of poor grades, to regurgitate leftist dogma in their term papers. It is, of course, typical of the left to denounce an argument it dislikes and to smear its proponents without offering any evidence to the contrary. And it must be particularly galling to Perry that the American Council is middle-of-the-road to conservative, which makes them immediately suspect in his eyes. It's curious that reporter Celeste Calvitto doesn't provide this useful little bit of info. (Maybe she doesn't know. But we think that all surveyors, think tanks, charities, etc., should always have their political bias identified, even when they happen to be on our side.)

But back to the professors:

Ron Utecht, an SDSU biochemistry professor who serves as state president of the faculty union, said students may blame poor academic performance on the perceived philosophy of the professor. He also said he was "insulted" by the bill."I am a conservative, and this appears to say that I, as a conservative, am intellectually inferior to liberal professors and I can't hold my own without some sort of quota or backup," he said. "When I look at where this bill is coming from, it appears to be a conservative attempt to move into the political arena at the universities."

How do we know that Prof. Utecht is really a "conservative?" Because he says so? Granted, a prof in SD is marginally more likely to be conservative than one in, say, California. But this self-identification as a "conservative" or a "Republican" is a frequent ploy used by lefty callers on radio talk shows such as Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. It gets them through the call screener and gives them an opportunity to start spreading lefty talking points before the host catches on. Prof. Utecht is, in fact, echoing the precise statements of leftist professors who have often claimed that conservatives don't even apply for academic positions because they aren't interested in intellectual pursuits—a blatant lie. Further, if Prof. Utecht really were a conservative, why would any attempt to balance out the intellectual diversity of a faculty bother him at all, since he would already be well aware of the problem nationwide if not in South Dakota itself? (It's possible, of course, that Prof. Utecht really is a conservative, but is afraid of angering his lefty faculty majority, although this is doubtful.) Once again, the reporter here is taking a statement at face value and failing to probe, doing readers a disservice, we think. Show us the money.

But the lefties, whether actual or in disguise, continue to hog the column inches, much the way they blab on until hard breaks on cable TV, the better not to allow conservative opponents to get a word in edgewise:

Sue Timmons, a former educator from Rapid City, said the national promoters of intellectual diversity are trying to impose a "right-wing, neoconservative" agenda."This is another example of legislation that is a solution looking for a problem," Timmons said. "This is not a South Dakota problem. Look at all the fine conservative and Republican lawmakers that our state universities have turned out over the years. If South Dakota colleges were hotbeds of liberalism and in the business of indoctrinating students politically, they haven't been very successful."

Right away, we know that, as a "former educator," Ms. Timmons is a liberal or lefty because anyone on the right is statistically excluded from being an educator. Therefore, her rant against the "right-wing, neoconservative" agenda is the usual smearing and slandering that substitutes for serious discussion of the issues. And the mere existence of Republican legislators in South Dakota who have graduated from the university system does not constitute any proof whatsoever that South Dakota colleges are NOT hotbeds of liberalism. It merely means that, like most conservative students, they laid low, parroted back liberal doctrine in their term papers, and quietly graduated before outing themselves as conservatives or Republicans.

One has to laugh at Ms. Timmons' backhanded praise for "fine conservative and Republican lawmakers" as well—right after she's attacked them, effectively, as "right-wing, neoconservatives." Logic, however, is never the strong suit of the left. The usual mode of argumentation here is laying on slanders and smears as thickly as possible, knowing that the lefty media will simply publish these as "facts."

After devoting most of its ink to opponents, the article does get back to the good guys who make some obvious but necessary observations:

Sen. Lee Schoenbeck, R-Watertown, the chief Senate sponsor of HB1222, said opponents are missing and mischaracterizing the point of the measure."If we talk about the bill and not about boogeymen, then I don't see where I've heard anyone say it is a bad thing. In fact, it is a good thing," he said.

We agree. And we need lots more of this. It's high time we started flushing the left out of its taxpayer-subsidized hiding places. South Dakota seems on the verge of making a good start.