End Academic Ostpolitik

Good for Todd Hartch. The professor of history at Eastern Kentucky University decided to go public, writing a letter opposing the decision by the university president to extend benefits to domestic partners akin to those available to married couples.

On Public Discourse, he gives an account of his move to the center of campus controversy . It’s not an easy place to be, but Hartch didn’t want to spend his academic career in the closet, so to speak.

By his analysis, professors who entertain more traditional or conservative points of view tend to adopt what he calls an Ostpolitik, a term that originally referred to the strategy of accommodation to the Soviet Union put forward by German chancellor Willy Brandt as the best hope for peace.

In an academic setting, Ostpolitik involves, as Hartch says, keeping your head down, teaching your classes, publishing articles, and getting tenure—all without unsettling the placid waters of political correctness. But to what end? One’s career may go forward, but the moral and spiritual atmosphere of higher education continues to decline.

So Hartch decided to speak out. Good for him. It didn’t turn out too badly. Sure, it’s hard to have lots of people tell you that you’re a moral cretin. But Hartch found that quite a few people really did want to think about the meaning of marriage, and they appreciated his courage.

Moreover—and I think this is a very important point—Hartch draws attention to the fact that the PC atmosphere of higher education disguises what is actually a fragile and weak educational culture, one much more amenable to change than most conservatives realize.

Here’s how he puts it:

Soviet Communism had the KGB, the Red Army, millions of party members, and a system of gulags to enforce its nefarious designs, yet it utterly dissolved during the course of a few years. Do not assume that the regime now dominating our campuses is any more substantial, any more permanent than the Soviet regime. Structures built on faulty foundations may look solid but are inherently unstable. The contemporary university, resting on relativism, multiculturalism, and rationalism, does not have a coherent account of its purpose because its most cherished notions are mutually contradictory. Despite the fears of many conservatives that it is unredeemable, the university is in fact ripe for criticism and reform.

The Soviet analogy may be a bit over the top, but his insights are correct. Most professors are careerists with moderate, liberal sensibilities. The shrill multiculturalists aren’t very powerful, tending to cow administrators rather than commanding much respect among faculty and students. In other words, our academic cultures could change—more quickly and more dramatically than we often imagine possible. We tend to see the hard patina of progressive ideologies rather than the soft inner core that lacks conviction.

The idea of changing academic culture isn’t wishful thinking. It’s not going to be easy, of course. But I’m quite struck by the way in which a few courageous, articulate professors can make a big difference. Todd Hartch at Eastern Kentucky is certainly courageous and articulate. Here’s hoping that the time is ripe and he’s a catalyst for change.