Classroom Visitation
Thomas C. Reeves, The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute

At a meeting of the Wisconsin Association of Scholars, a few years ago, I suggested to the faculty members present that the best way to document leftist indoctrination in the classroom was to attend classes ourselves and not rely merely upon student reports. Over the years I had welcomed many observers, friends and foes, to my classes. This posed no problem for me, as I would never say anything in class that I wouldn't say to a reporter or place on the Internet. My proposal, however, was greeted with horror. "We must never violate the sanctity of the classroom," said one colleague solemnly. There were loud murmurs of assent, and the chairman quickly changed the subject.

I have yet to understand the position that professors are not to be accountable for what they teach in the classroom. If nonsense and lies are being taught, or political indoctrination of any kind is the major focus of a course, that professional irresponsibility ought to be corrected, especially if the college or university is tax-supported. There are some minor safeguards now against nonsense and lies, but in practice, in an atmosphere of Political Correctness, they can be ineffective. I have read and heard outrageous distortions of history by politically inclined professors, inside and outside the discipline of history, and have yet to see anyone penalized. Academic freedom, some claim, sanctions all professorial speech. Fortunately, such blanket protection is mythological.

Why not rely exclusively upon student evaluations to judge a professor's objectivity and effectiveness? This process can be tricky, for many young people may not be prepared intellectually to understand fully the nature of responsible teaching. A professor who demands class discussion, for example, can make many enemies in the classroom, merely for demanding that students think. If a professor of economics is convinced that socialism is the best of all possible economic systems and supports this view with solid data, an excited 18-year-old libertarian might make charges that would indeed impinge upon the professor's academic freedom. A pro-life professor who expresses the reasons for his conviction might be condemned by feminists on ideological grounds. "Hate speech" and "sexual harassment" charges can also stem from youthful misunderstanding or intolerance.

The best way to test the fairness and thoroughness of a professor in the classroom is peer review. Research is tested in this way prior to publication, of course. Why shouldn't teaching be judged similarly? There is nothing essentially "sacred" about a classroom, at least for those professors who have nothing to hide.

But what peers should be selected to evaluate a professor's performance in class? A buddy or a political ally might destroy the objectivity of the exercise, and so might a personal enemy or political opponent. Choosing someone from another discipline, as is often done on doctoral examination committees, might be helpful; but suppose the outsider was only casually acquainted with the professor's discipline? And outsiders too, of course, might be personal or political friends and enemies.

The crucial point is: Who chooses the peers? I propose that three different sources each appoint a professor to be part of a trio of judges. Let us assume that a historian is undergoing an evaluation of teaching performance. The administration would choose a senior professor from outside the history department. Someone in, say, political science or English would be a sensible choice. The department chairman would name an untenured historian, someone who could perhaps understand the views of students more accurately than an older professor might. And the historian in question would select a senior member of his department. Nothing is foolproof, of course, but such an arrangement could provide a perspective, and surely a sense of objectivity, that the presence of a single evaluator or mere student opinion might never have.

Each of the three evaluators would visit a class independently on at least two different occasions. Individually written evaluations would go into the historian's personnel file and be used by Department members in assessing promotion decisions and salary increases. Administrators, who make final decisions in such matters, would have access to them upon request. The evaluations would not be made public without the historian's written approval.

How often should such assessments be made? I would suggest every three to five years. For one thing, it is in the professor's best interest to keep himself as responsive to the changing moods and styles of students as possible. References to, say, Dean Rusk or Duke Ellington or Michael Dukakis might fall on deaf ears without the professor's knowledge. (This year's freshmen were born in 1986!) It is also in the professor's best interest to keep up-to-date evaluations as a defense against any and all unjust student allegations. Peer review could be a safeguard against undergraduates who may actually be angry about low grades, heavy reading assignments, or bad weather. And it is in the professor's best interest to see constant criticisms and suggestions from peers about his performance in class; it can be an important way to improve one's effectiveness.

Why spend so much time and energy on teaching? Because that is what we professors, in almost all colleges and universities, primarily do. It's what taxpayers think we do almost exclusively. In my judgment, professors should be teachers who are as effective, reflective, and objective as possible. We owe this to our students, our institutions, and to ourselves.

NAS1:12 PM