THE WRONG WAY TO REDUCE CAMPUS TENSIONSnA STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOLARSnTht acadtmie eommunity is alarmed by reports ofinlergroup tension at many colleges, including those longncommitted to equal <^poriunity. Vr^fortunately, educators have failed to reassess some recent policies andnpractices that, far from promoting tolerance and fairness, are undermining them. Worse yet, many have seizednuponineidentsof conflict to call for the extension of these policies and practices. They include:na willingness to admit students widely disparate in their levelnof preparation in order to make the campus demographicallynrepresentativenpreferential hiring for faculty and staff positions determinednby race, ethnicity, and gendernracially or ethnically exclusive financial aid and academicncounseling programs, as well as special administrators, ombudsmen,nand resource centers assigned to serve as the putativenrepresentatives of selected student groupsn• punitive codes restricting “insensitive” speechn• mandatory “sensitivity training” for incoming freshmennand sometimes for all students, faculty, and staffnf requirements that students take tendentious courses dealingnwith groups regarded as victimizednf a failure to enforce campus rules when violated by thosenpromoting these policies or other “politically correct” causesnThe National Association of Scholars believes that these policies and practices involve either the application of andouble standard or the repudiation of appropriate intellectual criteria. Consequently, they undercut the academy’snqteeial sense of common purpose and prompt divisive calculations of group interest. Specifically, we believe that:nThe admission of seriously underprepared students creates unrealisticnexpectations and frequently leads to frustration and resentment. Moreover,npolicies that target specific minority groups unfairly stigmatize allnstudents in such groups, reinforcing negative stereotypes.nTwo-track hiring threatens to produce a two-tiered faculty instead of angenuinely integrated one. While such hiring may well create “role models,”nthey will be the wrong kind, encouraging the belief that it is the assertionnof group power instead of the pursuit of individual achievementnthat reaps the most abundant rewards.nDisadvantaged students deserve ample assistance, yet disadvantage neednnot coincide with race or ethnicity. Those excluded are often frustratednby seeing individuals who may be no worse off than themselves receivingnspecial treatment solely because of ancestry. Furthermore, bureaucraciesncreated to serve or champion particular groups tend to havenvested interests in emphasizing differences, fostering complaints, andnmaintaining the separation of those groups.nSafeguarding intellectual freedom is of critical importance to the academy.nThus, it is deeply disturbing to see the concept of “discriminatorynharassment” stretched to cover the expression of unapproved thoughtsnabout selected groups or criticism of policies assumed to benefit them.nHigher education should prepare students to grapple with contrary ornunpleasant ideas, not shield them from their content. What is more, if anhighly permissive attitude toward the excoriation of the “privileged” accompaniesnthe censorship of critical views about other groups, a backlashnis predictable.nTolerance is a core value of academic life, as is civility. College authoritiesnshould ensure that these values prevail. But tolerance involves a willingness,nnot to suppress, but to allow divergent opinions. Thus, “sensitivityntraining” programs designed to cultivate “correct thought” aboutncomplicated normative, social, and political issues do not teach tolerancenbut impose orthodoxy. And when these programs favormanipulative psychologicalntechniques over honest discussion, they also undermine the intellectualnpurposes of higher education and anger those subjected to them.nIf entire programs of study or required courses relentlessly pursue issuesnof “race, gender, and class” in preference to all other approaches to assessingnthe human condition, one can expect the increasing division ofnthe campus along similar lines.nThe discriminatory enforcement of campus regulations can only sap thenlegitimacy of academic authority and create a pervasive sense of mistrust.nIndeed, should students feel that repeated violations not only gonunpunished, but are actually appeased, the reckless may be tempted tontake matters into their own hands. The final stage of discredit will benreached when students and faculty see in such appeasement attempts bynadministrators to justify their own programs of campus “reform.”nThe policies just described are generally well-intentioned. Nonetheless, if the goal were deliberately to aggravatencanons tensions, the same policies might well be adopted. On the premise that the fair treatment of individuals canndo as much to correct the current situation as the doctrine of collective guilt has done to create it, the NationalnAssociation of Scholars urges the following:n^ admitting inadequately prepared students only whennrealistic provision can be made for remediationn^ maintaining nondiscriminatory hiring policiesn4 eliminating all forms of institutional segregation andnpreferential treatment determined by race and ethnicity, togethernwith administrative positions that foster ethnic dissensionn^ protecting the expression of diverse opinionnavoiding programs that attempt to impose “politically correct”nthinkingnadding or retaining ethnic or gender studies courses onlynwhen they have genuine scholarly content and are not vehiclesnfor political harangue or recruitmentnenforcing campus rules, even with respect to those who feelnthey are violating them in a good causenThe National Association of Scholars believes that the surest way to achieve educational opportunity for all andnmaintain a genuine sense of academic community is to evaluate each irulividual on the basis of personalnachievement and promise. It is only as individuals united in the pursuit of knowledge that we can realize the idealnof a common intellectual life.nFor copies of this or other NAS statements, or for additional information aboutnthe National Association of Scholars and its activities, including its fellowsnprogram, research center, speakers bureau, search service, newsletter, state andnregional affiliates, conferences, local events, and the quarterly i4 coifrmicnQuestions, write to the National Association of Scholars, 575 Ewing Street,nPrinceton, New Jersey 08540, or call 609-683-7878.nnn