Indoctrination, Not Education:
Rampant Radicalism in the UCLA Graduate
School of Education and Information Studies
Coloring the Definition of Diversity
GSEIS and its two departments bill themselves as friends of
diversity. As we have seen, this
diversity is only skin-deep. GSEIS-brand
diversity is solely focused on risible manifestations of “diversity”
illegal immigrant students, or is bolted onto curriculum that hardly
such heavy ruminations (the promotion of race diversity in something as
and apolitical as Information Studies being a prime example).
Left conveniently unmentioned in all the chatter about skin
diversity is the only diversity that matters – intellectual diversity. How does GSEIS fare in this
particular measure? Well, if your
definition of diversity is a broad
spectrum of research
and thought that proceeds leftward from Democratic Leadership Council
centrist-Democrats all the way out to mass-famines-in-our-time Marxist
radicals, then GSEIS might be deemed a success (even as Democratic
are cowed and silenced by their extremist colleagues).
But if your idea of a debate involves more
than one general viewpoint, then GSEIS is hopelessly partisan and
comprehensive survey of GSEIS tenured and tenure-track
faculty reveals that those registered with the Republican party are
indeed, with the school faculty boasting 34 Democrats to a mere two
Republicans. Among all listed teaching
faculty other than emeriti, the ratio is hardly more favorable: 54
4 Republicans.[i] If we make the eminently reasonable
assumption that party registration correlates to a general set of
beliefs, it’s clear that GSEIS employs a faculty in which the gamut of
barely touches anything to the right of Joe Lieberman, and the
mainstream can’t spot the American mainstream without a pair of
a country whose political allegiances are split almost
evenly between the two major parties, this sort of imbalance is both
both the city and state UCLA is tasked with serving.
This imbalance also does a grave disservice
to GSEIS students who as of now come perilously close to hearing only
story. UCLA’s GSEIS boasts precious few
(if any) faculty who can speak to conservative educational policy
the No Child Left Behind Act from anything other than a critical
at all. It’s to be expected that even
under normal circumstances, a large percentage of GSEIS faculty would
favor a heavily liberal agenda. However,
the current imbalance is on such a scale that a majority is now also
engaged in carrying it out.
a school baldly dedicated to the by-any-means-necessary
increased representation of various skin colors, genders and sexual
orientations, GSEIS has missed for the forest for the trees. Higher education is about presenting a broad
variety of research, writing and lecturing – a variety best created by
together individuals, be they students or professors, with different ideas. But GSEIS has ignored
such true diversity for a
politically-motivated diversity, making race, gender and sexual
proxy for actual substantive academic contributions.
The result is what we see today at GSEIS –
massive and self-perpetuating academic imbalances, and an increasing
polemicized political environment.
Word has gotten out about the ideological boundaries present
in GSEIS graduate studies. While
financial and logistical limitations prevent a conclusive
significant anecdotal evidence suggests that Republican or conservative
students are even rarer than their counterparts in the faculty. One student well-tuned to the ideological
battles in GSEIS cannot recall meeting a single outright conservative
years of study at the school, or, for that matter, someone who even
occasional praise for conservative or Republican ideas or actions.
UCLA boasts a growing Bruin Republicans student group for
undergraduates, a Federalist Society chapter for UCLA Law students, and
fiscally conservative-minded business groups at the Anderson School of
Management. No such type of group exists
at GSEIS, and little wonder. It defies
belief that any conservative or centrist, even if interested in the
would enter a school like GSEIS. The
school’s mania for skin-deep diversity, its Freirean philosophy of
education-as-politics, and a deeply radical faculty all serve to form
reinforce an environment in which political dissent and contrary
discouraged and often punished.
However, this is not a natural state of affairs. To
be satisfied with the idea that
conservative students and ideas will simply migrate to other fields of
in all defiance of logic and, more importantly, justice.
We know that GSEIS would not tell applicants
of differing ethnicities or sexual orientations with curricular
find a field ‘better suited’ for them. Indeed,
GSEIS unreservedly embraces and celebrates
their presence and
contributions. More importantly, from a
legal standpoint, UCLA is a taxpayer-funded entity with a legal
obligation to maintain
an open ideological door in both policy and practice.
But for now, the door remains most
The conservative student who strays into GSEIS study (be it
a single undergraduate class or enrollment in the Master’s or Ph.D.
sees the agenda very clearly. The
emphasis is at all times on skin-diversity and Freireanism, with all
taught by a heavily hard-left to Marxist faculty. It
is not necessary to say (as one notorious
Berkeley teaching assistant stated in a course description),
thinkers are urged to seek other sections.”[ii] At GSEIS, it’s already understood.
conducted at the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters July 10, 2006. Full details at www.uclaprofs.com