USC will hold to ideals of expression, civil discourse
It has been quite a month for our College of Social Work, as a discussion over the content of a textbook plays out in newspapers, on radio and on primetime television—not just within the borders of our community or state, but across this great country.
Throughout this debate, the university has held steadfast to four positions in defense of free speech, freedom of expression and civil discourse:
1. Our faculty and academic departments have the right to select the texts they use in classes;
2. Our students have the right and are encouraged to ask questions, challenge convention and form their own opinions;
3. Our university is committed to the development of critical thinking skills;
4. Our campus is a community, a protective environment that enables us to debate and even disagree with respect and civility, and in so doing, we are all enriched.
Further, we have declined invitations from those outside of our family who have attempted to draw our institution of higher learning into an argument of political ideology. In doing so, we have also maintained a high level of respect for one of America’s most revered presidents — a chief executive who held true to his ideals but maintained open lines of communication with his opponents to advance the fortunes of our nation. Our university continues to honor President Ronald Reagan, to whom we presented an honorary doctor of laws in September of 1983 — an event memorialized on the walls of the Osborne Administration Building.
However, recent letters to the editor published in The Daily Gamecock have included some statements that should be addressed.
First, the instructor of the class at the center of this debate is an adjunct professor. As such, she did not select the textbook used in this class. It was selected by a faculty committee in the College of Social Work.
Second, as far as we are aware, no student involved in this course has accused the instructor of bias or punitive actions of any sort. In fact, on national television, one of our students specifically stated that her objections and arguments were not about the instructor, but about the text itself — despite the implications uttered by the host and a representative of a national political organization.
Third, while family background, upbringing and socioeconomic status may play a role in forming our social, ethical and political principles, they are not the only factors. Respectful discussion of these principles and their contexts is important for critical thinking and productive dialogue. Simply reducing an individual’s complex ideology to generic labels of race, ethnicity or income can be hurtful and violate the principles of the Carolinian Creed that we all hold dear.
There is little doubt that this conversation is not over. In fact, of the tens of thousands of books used in classrooms across our campus, more than one will offend, create discussion, take us outside of our comfort zone, have an ideological bias — from either side — or contain statements presented as fact with which some or many will disagree. As we continue this discussion or as new ones arise, we ask all involved to stay true to the Carolinian Creed. After all, this process of enlightenment and learning is what makes our community such a special place.