By Matt Thacker

Any teacher who finds it impossible to give a neutral analysis of a situation may be better suited as a politician than an educator.

Professors should not shy away from contentious issues or fear offending a student with a politically slanted comment, but a balance must exist. The best professors give thought-provoking arguments for both sides of a controversial subject and trust that students will reach a logical conclusion. After all, teaching students to think is the point of college.

A strong majority of Americans now oppose the war and resistance grows louder by the week. Some professors want to make life even tougher for the dwindling pro-Bush students. It should be no surprise that some educators imprudently believe they have a duty to teach the immorality of wars like the one in Iraq.

“The war in Iraq is, above all, an act of injustice,” stated Oliver Belcher, Michael Marchman and Tommy Wilson, three teaching assistants from the geography department at the University of Kentucky, in an online petition they created in March. The petition, where the three TA’s pledge to “refuse to give the pretense of moral neutrality with regard to the war in Iraq,” appears to have garnered more criticism than support.

This inspired the student government at U of K to create a 10-point Student Bill of Rights which they sought to become state law. The document would guarantee the students’ freedom of expression and stop professors from using their courses to promote their political or ideological beliefs.

Upon review and media scrutiny, it became obvious that the bill had serious flaws. Under the U of K plan, any idea would require equal time in the course, but realistically not all ideas are equal. Segregation or totalitarianism arguments should not receive the same consideration as the arguments against.

The only thought scarier than giving equal time to teaching all theories is allowing professors to use their position of influence to present complex arguments, such as the debate over a particular war, as incontrovertible fact. According to University of Louisville SGA President Darrell Messer, the Board of Student Body Presidents is now leaning toward creating a non-binding resolution with some changes in wording but the same principle. Messer will present the proposal at the Aug. 26 session. He said even if the U of L senate decides to pass the resolution, they could amend it. Whether amended or not, the senate would be making a mistake not to pass the resolution.

Kevin Barrett, a lecturer on Islam at the University of Wisconsin, has publicly discussed his beliefs that the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were orchestrated by the American government. He reportedly will teach his theory during one week of his course this semester, while also including opposing viewpoints.

In an essay written by Ward Churchill, an Ethnic Studies Professor at the University of Colorado, victims of Sept. 11 were compared to Nazis. Elsewhere, Arthur Butz, an Engineering Professor at Northwestern University, recently claimed in a press release that the Holocaust is a myth. While eccentric professors may not be a problem at the University of Louisville now, they might be someday.

U of L Student Government Association President Darrell Messer, a fifth-year Engineering student, acknowledges that any resolution would most likely not affect the way professors teach. Though a non-binding resolution can’t legally stop a professor, it does send a clear message about student values. Students are taking a stand against professors using the classroom to teach their personal views on controversial subjects as fact. All free-thinking students and professors should welcome this preventative measure.

Matt Thacker is a senior majoring in English. E-Mail him at opinion@louisvillecardinal.com