Subtle is More Effective

The other day, a local talk show host asked listeners with college kids to call in if they were concerned about blatant political ranting by professors in class. If I had called, I would have tried to make the point that the ranting isn't the concern. Obvious political speech isn't likely to persuade a reasonably intelligent college student. The potent stuff is the subtle, seemingly reasonable indoctrination which comes in the guise of normal, non-political class work.

A history, political science or economic discussion of FDR presents him as an economic savior. His construction of a social welfare system is praised. The extremely radical nature of some of the programs which prolonged the depression for many years is ignored. Students don't learn of all the food that was destroyed by the federal government while people went hungry. They don't learn of the owner of a dry cleaning shop who went to jail for offering to work for less than the government mandated price.

In the guise of simply learning history, students really get a powerful argument in favor of social welfare programs. Thousands of other examples could be illustrated on topics as diverse as environmental science, business, communication, art, education and sociology.

It isn't the anti-Bush rant that persuades. It is the one-sided presentation of evidence while posing as a friendly, honest, reasonable professor. To paraphrase, Irving Younger, a noted law lecturer on the rules of evidence, a good advocate doesn't call Republicans dirty, evil, rotten SOBs -- he simply presents evidence of how they oppose and obstruct Democrats' efforts to rid the world of war, racism, sexism, pollution, and economic exploitation. And than let's students (the jury) reach the obvious conclusion for themselves.