The list of course evaluations at NoIndoctrination.org continues to grow. Here are some choice excerpts.

On "Modernizing America," a History course at Brown:

The professor displayed his political opinions with great passion. While this is certainly not a crime in itself, the sheer frequency and fervor of his partisan proclamations eventually crossed the boundaries of appropriateness. When a professor openly refers to certain political parties as ìidioticî on a regular basis, he effectively censors that particular viewpoint from the class. No student should ever be expected to voice his ideological convictions if he knows that the professor holds an emotional, hostile reaction to such views. This professor absolutely hated a certain political affiliation, and he was quite happy to admit it. The history of labor conflict comprises a very specific area where I feel that the course failed to allow open discourse. The lectures unabashedly encouraged students to take a specific ìsideî and assign a very specific blame. The detailed policies and interpretations that were advocated are not of paramount concern in my complaint. The indoctrination came from the fact that these options were rigidly imposed on the students as absolute truth, without opportunity for real ideological criticism. Another bizarre moment in this course came when the professor decided to embark on a lengthy lecture about how students need to protest the administration more often. He did not advocate an issue to protest, rather he simply felt that a necessary component of any good student was the desire to actively oppose the establishment. Perhaps I am overreacting, but there seems to be something quite devious about using class time to recruit students for apparent acts of disobedience against their own university.

On "City Politics," a Political Science course at Brown:

This course is one of the most popular classes in our entire university, likely due to the professorís dynamic, energetic, interesting lecture style. Yet, his popularity and charisma made it all the more frustrating as his lectures appeared to use disingenuous tactics to subtly endorse a specific political agenda. The professorís favorite tactic is to provide an incomplete factual description of certain policy situations, then subtly lead the class to his preferred solution. Since the class is so large, there is rarely an opportunity to debate or question his opinions. For example, in the very first class alone he tries to shape the studentsí views of the drug war, the prison system, socialized education, socialized medicine, taxes, and much more. Expressing opinions on these subjects is very reasonable, but there is a fine line between articulating opinions and promoting agendas. He has very specific solutions to policy questions, and the format of the class never allows for debate or contrasting views. Fortunately, (or perhaps unfortunately,) the class is so big that teaching assistants grade all assignments, and make all evaluations.

On "Introduction to the Justice System," which fulfills a diversity requirement at the University of Idaho:

[This professor] Would teach liberal research findings as fact, while tearing apart conservative findings. Would also constantly teach her own opinion as fact (once even declaring in class something like, "Ronald Reagan has done more harm to the American working class than any other president in history"). ... If any student presented an idea contrary to her own, he was either "brainwashed by the media" or the product of a "middle-class" upbringing, and unaware of the problems faced by those less fortunate than himself.

I watch this web site closely. Even though it takes the form of anonymous course evaluations (which every college teacher knows from personal experience do not always accurately describe a course and do always invite vindictive attack), the information on this web site is, I believe, a telling testament to the sort of thing that routinely takes place in college classrooms across the country. What compels me to trust the evaluations, one-sided as they necessarily are, is the quality and consistency of the commentary students are submitting. The specific complaints they make about individual courses at a variety of schools in a range of departments work together to describe a pattern. That pattern is one of systematic political bias built into the form and content of courses as diverse as freshman composition and American history, of lectures that tell one side of the story, of readings that support one interpretation, of professors who will not tolerate challenging questions or debate, of grades hinging on one's willingness to regurgitate as truth the propaganda served up by professors and teaching assistants. It rings true, not least because one can watch young adults struggling to be fair in their evaluations even as they pinpoint over and over the precise nature of the problem that is corrupting higher education in America today. It's damning as can be--not least because NoIndoctrination.org shows that students who use their brains can see right past--and through--the cheap attempts at indoctrination that their less canny, less intelligent teachers try to pass off as quality education.