(1) Murphy divides his article into 4 sections. For each section, select a passage to quote, set up/contextualize that passage, put it into your own words, and comment on or respond to it. Does it make you raise a question? Can you extend it by connecting to another reading or personal experience? Do you want to challenge it?
- Version 1/Version 2
Under the Version 2 section, Murphy focuses on Donald Trump’s authoritarian characteristics, such as not participating in a congressional impeachment inquiry. The uniqueness of a democracy is that the citizens ultimately decide who will lead the country through the voting process. This is why Murphy argues that it is crucial for voters to be informed, and currently, we are not up to par when it comes to being educated voters: “Only a third of American adults can name a branch of government, only one in six Americans now believe military rule are is acceptable, only a bare majority vote” (Murphy, “Democracy under Siege”). In a nutshell, what Murphy is saying is that Americans are not politically educated enough, and therefore are prone to making prone decisions. Only a third of American adults can name a branch of government, a scary statistic. What this means is that only a third of American adults know the branches that work to aid in governing our country. But I cannot be a hypocrite. I have not done enough to educate myself in our politics either. I have always denied it, because up until this year I did not have the power to vote yet. I cannot help but wonder what high school history classes are doing right. It seems as though there are so many wrongs in the curriculum that there would be too many answers if I inquired about what history classes are not doing right. Should we devote more time to these political affairs? If so, how can we make students care if they are not yet eligible to vote? How do we do this without pinning the student body against each other prematurely? I do not know, but I do know that something must be done before students are eligible to vote, which helps them become informed, educated and productive citizens before they are participating in large decisions.
- A struggle between worldviews
Brian Murphy is a political scientist. It is not difficult to notice that he is a passionate advocate for the democratic party. It is also easy to realize that he holds a very small opinion of the Republican party and its values. At multiple points throughout this text, Murphy’s bias becomes very apparent. The closing statement of this paragraph captures this bias well:
“One party depends on expanding the franchise and widening democratic engagement; the other depends on narrowing it. One embraces the demography of the new America; the other appeals to resentful nativism.”
Murphy
While I read through this, it immediately caused me to feel some discredit towards Murphy. It is this type of close-minded mindset that gets the country absolutely nowhere politically. This quote says that the democratic party depends on expanding civilian engagement in politics, while the republican party is for narrowing this engagement; that the democratic party promotes a diverse America, while the other favors ignorant patriotism and nativism. This generalization is exactly what causes people to be less educated in politics than they should be. If children are raised in families whose views are so narrow as to favor the ideals of one party and leave out crucial facts from both sides, they will grow up with one-sided, biased, and close-minded views. Some may argue that the democratic party is more open-minded, which is true – generally, democrats advocate for human rights. Then they turn around and say that Republicans as a whole party are racist and misogynistic. So, yes. They appeal to the rights of every single American regardless of race, gender, and religion. However, they do not respect Republicans and generalize them in a way that doesn’t give them a chance to say that yes, they are for human rights. Debates are so close-minded because this mindset goes both ways. The republicans have terrible names for the democrats and the democrats have awful names for the republicans. This is why most conversations of politics are quickly cut short, so that these generalizations do not manifest and cause heated debates over who is the better party, rather than a merge of their logical ideals. This is where the liberal arts is useful; if students are exposed to different ways of learning to communicate and different ways of thinking, they will be more open to the opinions of others and be respectful of diverse opinions. An individual cannot be open-minded if they have not examined the other side and considered all facts, rather than the ones that are easiest to believe or that agree with their personal beliefs.
- Facing the crisis
In this Facing the Crisis section of Murphy’s passage, he speaks on the importance of colleges getting involved with political matters, especially in the weeks approaching the election. He encourages faculty who care about matters such as the climate crisis to become involved in them on campus, participating in presentations and speaking out their opinions and stances in our democracy. He stresses that one of the most important factors is educating the student body as much as possible:
“There will be roughly six to ten weeks between the start of classes and the election this fall. The election ought to be the centerpiece of campus life for all those weeks: public forums and debates, local candidate and referendum events, massive voter-registration drives, and the establishment of polling places where it’s legal to do so.”
Murphy
In other words, Murphy is suggesting that colleges and universities educate their students about the upcoming debate, campaign, and allow students to voice their opinions in debates and educate themselves through forums. He is also suggesting these colleges and universities ensure that students have the ability to exercise their voting rights. I believe that this is a great idea, and of course Brian Murphy – a political scientist and former college president – would advocate for an environment like this. However, it makes me question how many students would be comfortable participating in these debates. If a college or university has a predominantly democratic party, will republican students feel afraid to express their views and vice versa? I used to support republican views, even though I am now non-partisan. I found it often difficult to express my views, as I was afraid of being immediately mislabeled with the negative ideals of other members of the party. I also met other people that shared my views who mislabeled people who believed in democratic views. My worry in Murphy’s idea is that if there are forums, facts will only be provided from one political perspective, which only promotes the close-mindedness that I spoke on before.
- Protecting a democratic future:
In this section, Murphy explains the importance of protecting democracy in the future, and that today’s students are on the frontlines of defense if they exercise their right to vote. He declares, “This time around, the stakes could not be higher. Can you imagine four more years of relentless attacks on equity, diversity, the rule of law, the climate, and the institutions of democratic governance themselves?” (Murphy). Here, he is utilizing strong political rhetoric to evoke the pathos appeal in his – likely democratic – audience. I agree that it is true that students should receive a liberal education in which they are taught about climate change and other environmental issues. Students should also be educated in diverse perspectives through readings and documentaries; about environmental injustice, poverty, racial injustice, etc. However, this rhetoric was a bit too strong. Looking at the past four years, has the President been relentlessly attacking the institutions of democratic governance and diversity? Or has it, rather, been ignored? Malicious attacking is much different than ignorance. Many people will react to this differently, which further increases the divide of the American people. If Murphy is such a strong advocate for liberal education, his position should not infuriate people with opposing ideologies. What would be more effective is handing the facts, while considering both sides and explaining the advantages of democratic ideals.
(2) Murphy’s main question concerns the role higher education–institutions and people– ought to take in respect of what he sees as multiple threats to democracy. (See his questions pp. 2-3). His main answer is “[A]ct as if we actually believe there is a crisis” (p.3). Which of his various recommendations would you consider most useful?
- I think that the most useful recommendation of Murphys, besides the reminder of the commitment to nonpartisanship, is to “find ways to make clear our policy preferences: we support DACA, we oppose deportations of undocumented students, we believe in science and support initiatives to address the climate crisis…” (Murphy). He lists many more policy preferences, including lower tuition causes and higher accessibility to postsecondary education, voting rights of students and the opposition of white supremacy, misogyny, and hatred, all while supporting free speech. I think that if both parties discussed their policy preferences and presented solid, factual evidence for each, more progress would proceed. Generalizations get us nowhere, but setting out what we want is extremely important in establishing a position and being a productive democratic government.
(3) More specifically, Murphy issues a call to action to individuals working in higher education:
“We should not be silent or passive on issues that matter to us personally. Our moral obligation to speak out for social justice and equity, the rule of law and democracy itself, may come into tension without institutional commitment to nonpartisanship. But during this political passage, we must err on the side of expression and principle” (4).
Do you agree? What are some pros/cons of this approach?
- I believe that it is important for professors to speak on important issues and present factual information to their students. For example, if a faculty member is an advocate for reducing the impacts of climate change, they should speak on the science and its effects on the environment. This will allow students to be educated on the realness of the subject, and invoke a passion in them to find a solution. This solution, especially this year (2020) in a highly political environment, will likely be found by students in political ideals, and then in advocates for these ideals. In this case, the democratic party will provide these students with the solution they have been seeking. So yes, I believe it is important for professors to advocate for principles that they believe in and that they can base factual information upon, and express themselves in this way. This allows students to decipher what they want for the country and for their peers without pushing one ideal on a student body. Although these are advantageous aspects of this approach, expression can always lead to negative effects. Every student comes from a unique background. It is crucial that professors do not offend students whose very ideals are based on sensitive subjects such as strictly practiced faith. Although these students should be educated with the methods I discussed, it is unwise for professors to declare one party to be wrong and one to be right. Doing this will alienate students and only leave them angry, sad and confused. This also discredits their professor. Professors should encourage facilitated discussions and open-mindedness, but not push so much bias on their students that certain individuals begin to resent them. This does not promote debate nor independent research based on facts.
(4) Look at Murphy’s recommendations for what universities should do after the election (4). Which of these do you think UNE is already or ought to be doing?
- Murphy states that “we must use the post-election moment to reflect on what we wish we had done better long before we reached this difficult moment.” UNE held an Election Recovery Group via Zoom, allowing students who wished to attend to come together and examine the past, very complex, year. Therefore, I believe that UNE met this recommendation of allowing students to reflect on the past year and all that came with it. I have not had many conversations in classrooms about the election, but the Dean did send out a recommendation to faculty to remind them to be mindful of their students on Wednesday, when the results were in. Although this did help, students were stuck in limbo since the results weren’t announced for another few days. I think UNE took appropriate action without causing conflict between the student body. I also believe that it was wise to leave decisions up to the professors who know their students.
