This past year at U-M has seen  the continuation of a disturbing trend: a continuous stream of liberal to far left speakers have visited Ann Arbor to share their “wisdom” with adoring crowds of U-M faculty, administrators, and wide-eyed students. So far, we have been treated to Gloria Steinem, Greenpeace founder Paul Watson, lunatic gubernatorial candidate Geoffrey Fieger, masturbation evangelist Jocelyn Elders, racial preferences apologist William Bowen, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, and just this past weekend, ultra-liberal Minnesota senator Paul Wellstone. On the rare occassions when conservatives have appeared, they have done so not as individuals but as part of panels--such as Elizabeth Dole’s participation at a recent U-M panel on women in politics, or Abigail Thernstrom’s appearance at a “Diversity Theme Semester” event.

Similarly, the U-M has hosted a veritable cornucopia of bizarre radical conferences and workshops this year. The Review has chronicled many of these, including a recent lecture by radical feminist Carol Adams on “The Sexual Politics of Meat,” a workshop on the evils of “white privilege,” and last but not least, the “Diversity” theme semester.

This trend is nothing new or surprising. In October 1997 we published an analysis of the political leanings of campus speakers (“Campus Speakers: Too Left?” October 29, 1997) which found that during a two year period, over 75% of U-M campus speakers whose speeches included political content could be classified as “tending liberal.”

For an institution that constantly engages in moral preening about its gallant defense of “diversity,” Michigan is doing a pitiful job of providing students with a balanced variety of political viewpoints. True education comes when a person is exposed to many different ideas and is allowed to judge them on their merits. Similarly, an institution shows true “diversity” and intellectual courage when it can offer a platform for speakers who may challenge that institution’s fundamental assumptions and worldview. Thus, the University should make a better effort to offer students alternatives to the homogeneous slate of speakers and events that currently comes to campus. For every race-baiting ideologue like Jesse Jackson, there exist distinguished black and Hispanic conservatives like Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, and Linda Chavez, all of whom could offer students a much different and just as compelling take on racial issues as Jackson. For every radical feminist like Steinem, there are intelligent and eloquent critics of radical feminism, such as Christina Hoff Sommers or Wendy Shalit.

Bringing in such alternative speakers would bring a welcome breath of fresh air to the University’s political discourse. This is not to say that the campus would suddenly become ardently conservative if these speakers were brought to U-M. However, as we noted in our 1997 report, a general trend towards one direction or the other in the political leanings of speakers can serve as a “reinforcement” mechanism, helping students who already lean towards a particular political viewpoint gain more conviction in their beliefs. Conversely, by bringing in a set of ideologically diverse speakers, the U-M could challenge students to reassess their current beliefs--a key goal of a liberal education.

Since it is not unexpected that the administration and relevant student groups (MSA, UAC etc.) have failed to provide ideological balance, a good deal of the blame for this state of affairs must also rest at the feet of conservative and libertarian groups on campus, such as the College Republicans, Objectivists, College Libertarians, the Law School’s chapter of the Federalist Society, and yes, even the Review. We cannot recall a single important, relatively well known right-leaning speaker that these groups have brought to U-M within the past year. To be fair, these groups lack the institutional backing and University resources that are usually provided to the groups who bring in leftist speakers. However, there are many conservative groups, such as the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and Young America’s Foundations, who respond to the political homogeneity of campus speakers, by sponsoring the appearance of articulate and forceful conservatives on college campuses.

A solution to the imbalance would appear to lie in a combination of greater grassroots efforts by campus conservatives and libertarians to bring in like-minded speakers, and more thoughtful consideration by the administration and student leadership (MSA, etc.) of their duty to provide the campus with a wide range of viewpoints.  Thus, we hope, for instance, that the U-M takes advantage of next year's “Morality Theme Semester” to find relevant speakers who promote traditional values, free markets, and the free society. Only then can the U-M say that it truly possesses the vaunted “marketplace of ideas” which is supposed to be such a vital aspect of the college experience.