This Chronicle column by McManis may be simply a parody, so I'm not sure how harshly to attack it.

I think the gist of it is 'lots of Professors have intentional bias, and students are smart enough to deal with that. Now I shall ramble on about Snehal for awhile, blah blah blah, make some insipid comments about what discussion in the classroom should be like, and then finish this 7th martini.'

If his purpose is to defend Snehal's column, he's going about it by ignoring every solid critique of the class. To claim that the world is miffed only because Snehal had the balls to purposefully exclude Conservatives is to set up an unusually flimsy straw man.

Critiques of the Snehal class:
1. It's a requirement for Freshmen, violating McManis' 'Only sympathizers will take it' concept. This isn't a class that Sophomores-Juniors-Seniors will take; it's a class for brand new Freshmen.

2. There is no counterclass, so the University is cherry-picking ideologies. Well and good if you love SJP, bad if you like Israel.

3. This isn't a class about 'discussion' but a consolidation of a viewpoint. Remember: it takes the occupation as a 'starting point.' What's left to discuss? Tactics to push Israel out?

4. The problem isn't that 'No Dogs or Conservatives need apply' is too honest, but that it's discriminatory and spiteful. This is a public University, and a group of students are being told to Stay Away from a class.

5. McManis' thoughts aside, University Professors are strongly left-wing. Perhaps if equivalent classes were offered on a regular basis, no one would care. But since ideological classes are only offered for one ideology, there's a strong element of bias.

I swear to be a better columnist next semester than McManis is.

Email This Post!