At The UO, Dissent Is Conformity
So says Forrest Nabors, a doctoral candidate in political science, in a fantastic editorial response to the self-congratulatory braying of UO Professor David Frank’s recent commentary “Dangerous Silence.” Nabors points out that Frank’s assertion that “The greatest danger lurking on the University of Oregon campus is conformity” is true, but not in the way Frank thinks. Frank cites the Universities great victories for patriotic dissent: Frohnmayer’s defense of the Insurgent, the 1962 invitation to the General Secretary of the American Communist Party, Robert Clark’s defense of Marxist teachings under scrutiny from Salem, etc. But, Nabors correctly points out
“The problem for Frank’s case is that all of his examples do not demonstrate bucking conformity, but are typical of what we who live and work here already know — that the UO campus community is left-progressive to the core…
…In taking the positions they did, our university leaders did not buck the norms of this community, they conformed to our community norms. And since Frank believes that conformity is public enemy No. 1, will he next propose shipping conservative professors in by the truckload? How would university departments meet such a nonconformist proposal? Let us sing out the answer together: Dead On Arrival. The day this university’s search committees deem conservative professors a necessary component in the diversity quotient is the day I recommend you look up from your window at a sky darkened by winged pigs.”
Nabors brings his argument home with the most damning example of intellectual conformity on campus: the fact that his summer PS399: American Conservativism class will be the first course on conservative thought to be offered at the UO in 30 years. With the Republican party in disarray and the split between social conservatives and libertarians widening, Nabors has picked a fascinating time to examine American conservativism. And take on the empty posturing of the defenders of the campus status quo.
