by Doug Kingman | Professors mixed ideology and reality at the ExCollege Election Night Extravaganza, and things went very wrong.
The Election Night Extravaganza, hosted by the Experimental College, surely ended in a disappointing manner for the almost exclusively liberal crowd. However, it provided a telling example of how personal political persuasion of faculty often results in an inaccurate evaluation of the facts. The “nonpartisan” extravaganza gave Tufts students the opportunity to watch the excitement of the presidential returns in an interactive setting, complete with multiple projectors streaming the results from the major news networks, internet sites, and other key sources. A panel was set up to allow several Tufts professors to lend their political science expertise and students of varying political opinions to provide their reactions to developments.
Each panel seat was designed to offer a unique perspective about how the election night was progressing. The students representing the Democratic and Republican parties each provided energy for their candidate’s bid while professors were present to provide scientific explanations and analysis. However, it was soon apparent that political scientists such as Professor Glaser were projecting optimism for John Kerry rather than making scientific predictions based on sound data. The election results showed that there was going to be some contention over three key states in the east—Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. Nonetheless, with his enthusiasm and hope, political science professor Glaser did something extraordinary: he decided to call the election for John Kerry early in the evening. He did so somewhat tentatively, but only because, according to him, he didn’t want to see a repeat of the 2000 election during which his prediction turned out to be inaccurate. Nonetheless, his call amounted to a vote of confidence for the Kerry camp. He had a diverse array of resources at his disposal that included his own expertise, exit polls, vote tallies, trends, and commentators from a host of news networks. Yet he chose to selectively interpret the data, neglecting precinct tallies and voter turnout trends that showed good news for the Republicans, in favor of sticking to exit poll data—the only indicator that showed Kerry well on his way to the White House. Commentators across the board recognized that Republicans seemed to be coming to the polls in numbers much greater than predicted by exit polls, leading to discussions by network anchors of what ramifications this would have for the candidates. But Professor Glaser instead chose to downplay data he didn’t like by asserting that the exit polls couldn’t be flawed and that it was simply a last ditch effort of Republican-leaning analysts to try to convince viewers that Bush still had a chance. This manipulative interpretation of data to suit the whims of particular professors led to students being misinformed.
What is most troubling is that this type of incident in which faculty sympathize with a political position in an inappropriate setting occurs often at Tufts. It is effectively a lens through which all data is filtered before reaching students. Unfortunately, this is the way of life at Tufts. Nationally, there is rightfully great distrust for PACs and other groups that conduct studies with the intent of achieving a particular outcome. Yet, in academia as well as here at Tufts, selective analysis goes unchecked. There is no doubt that scientific principles apply to the study of politics; the problem arises when, in the name of science, lines are blurred with partisanship.
The question of how deeply this problem is rooted is an important one for Tufts, where many faculty members align themselves with a particular political persuasion. The teaching in class that is molded to suit professors’ beliefs is a frightening and undesirable trend. Professors are happy to claim their data compilations indicate the defeat of a sitting president; the downfall of the economy; or the ineffectiveness of the war in Iraq. The former claim was decisively proven wrong, something to be considered in arguments for the latter. Interpretation of data always includes an element of judgment and extrapolation, but the professors need to take precautions to prevent ideology from driving the conclusions they draw. Students must learn to think and reason for themselves, but will not do so until they are allowed to fairly explore different sides of issues.
Certainly, the election had a disappointing outcome for many Tufts students, but it was astonishing to see the degree of surprise at the result. Many students could not comprehend that the Bush victory was even possible, intellectually boxed by the partisan culture that exists on campus. The Election Night Extravaganza showed once again how optimism and hope can influence the way individuals portray events. It highlights the broader problem of ideological bias that exists here at Tufts. Now is the time to take action to correct this problem. Instead of writing off the rest of the country as stupid and the election results as a fluke, it would serve the Tufts community well to consider the diversity and forcefulness of views that are held in this great country. It is time to strengthen the academic community of Tufts by ending the partisanship in education.
Mr. Kingman is a sophomore majoring in Chemical Engineering.
Comments