The DCU's open letter to President Keohane seeking redress for the lack of political diversity among Duke University faculty has sparked a flurry of debate over what constitutes a politically diverse, and thus--so goes the association--an intellectually rigorous academic climate.
Lost in the argument from both sides, however, is a recognition that a more equitable number of Democratic and Republican faculty would hardly achieve this objective, as reflected by our national two-party system.
When we speak of debating an issue, we think of reaching a more informed position on that issue by considering different viewpoints, ideally more than two. Unfortunately, our society has moved dangerously far from the original purpose of debate as espoused by Aristotle and Plato, or even of 30 years ago. Today's "debates," broadcast on programs like Crossfire and The O'Reilly Factor, have become little more than sensationalist shouting matches between Democrats and Republicans, that sacrifice our useful understanding of the issues for commercial entertainment and a deepening of the entrenched political establishment.
To understand this phenomenon, we must recognize that both political parties and the private media organizations that report on them are self-interested entities. The Republican National Committee and its counterpart, the Democratic National Committe, have the same goal of maintaining a broad-based constituency. Similarly, the major media corporations, such as Viacom, Vivendi, GE, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., AT&T, and AOL/Time Warner, own the lion's share of our nation's thousands of media outlets, and also have a vested interest in attracting a wide audience base.
The result of such conglomeration in both politics and journalism is a constant and nauseating reinforcement of the status quo beneath the veneer of "debate" that effectively shuts out third parties that challenge accepted views.
In his personal account of his 2000 presidential run, Crashing the Party, Ralph Nader describes the collaboration between the major political parties to prevent any rocking of the boat from outside the beltway. The Commission on Presidential Debates, which first handled the 1988 debates, is headed by the former chairmen of the RNC and DNC, with an equal number of representatives from each party sitting on the board. But instead of fostering thoughtful debate on the issues, the CPD serves to reinforce the two-party status quo.
The CPD was forced to make an exception in 1992 for Ross Perot, who, with his immense wealth and widespread polling support, could not be discarded as a "non-viable" candidate. After he captured 17 percent of the vote, however, the CPD found a way to bar him from the 1996 debate based on vague concerns over his electibility. In 2000, the commission further entrenched the two party system by requiring that third-party candidates poll at least 15 percent before being allowed into the debate, an incredible feat considering that third-party candidates rarely attract the media's attention.
A similar squeeze is happening in the media. Last summer, the FCC voted to allow media conglomerates to buy out the now dwindling locally owned outlets. Ted Turner, founder of CNN, wrote an op-ed to the New York Times in the midst of the imbroglio contending that the new rules deregulating the media industry posed a threat not only to a competitive media marketplace, but to real (democratic) debate.
When a private corporation like CNN grows to such a scale that it reaches a broad range of the electorate--and when it is not challenged to conduct vigorous investigative reporting by small upstarts--it will do everything it can not to upset anyone to maintain its profit margin. In the context of political debate, this means having heated arguments between a Democrat and a Republican on emotional issues like abortion or gun control or Janet Jackson's breast-exposure, that safely reinforce Americans' already strong opinions on these issues and so merely strengthen a status quo of perpetual disagreement. As a general rule, it is safer to debate issues so divisive that they leave little hope for resolution because the argument will result in a stalemate whereby little will change and no one will have to sacrifice anything.
It is time for us as students, scholars and American citizens to demand more than an entrenched, self-interested system that uses orchestrated political cat-fights as a substitute for real, intellectual debate. The CPD has clearly illustrated that having an equal number of Democrats and Republicans sitting on any board could not be further from realizing the goal of critical discussion. Duke should focus on the erosion of public debate, not its faculty's political affiliations.
Jared Fish is a Trinity sophomore. His column appears every other Friday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.