Debunking Charlie Kirk (and Turning Point) on Teaching While Politically Biased
Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA have made their name off “pushing back” against professors being politically biased in the classroom. In 2015 they wrote a book on how to fight back.
Turning Point called it “How to Debate Your Teacher (And Win!)” I have previously debunked Kirk’s starring role in this book.
Its second edition came out in 2017. It is not clear what the differences are in the two editions as the first is no longer on the Turning Point website. But Turning Point does link to the 2017 edition. It is here.
Fact-checking this particular publication — outside the “facts” presented by Kirk — is difficult because it is mostly filled with advice. Bad advice and sometimes not even followed by its own students in the publication, but still advice.
Yet the book is worthy of an analysis for two reasons. One, it is filled with premises that can debunked, and two, the personal stories included within it. Kirk’s story is by far the most detailed and given over to statements that can be checked. But the others play an interesting role in the book.
What role? This book claims to “highlight real life success stories of students who stood up to their teachers and successfully prevented outward anti-free enterprise aggression from occurring in their classrooms.”
The basic fact-check of my post is: does this actually happen? I have shown how it did not happen with Kirk because of his numerous fact errors and bad logic. Outside Kirk, only one even comes close to being about “standing up” to aggressive political bias in a teacher.
And in that story, the student does the exact opposite of the advice offered in that section of the book on how to respond. And then praises herself for doing it.
Before getting to the stories, I want to address the basic premise of the book, stated in the book’s first paragraph: “Today, teachers and professors
all across the country are training young minds to believe that capitalism is
immoral.”
This is more than a blanket statement. It is an unverifiable one — and so, of course, comes with no evidence. None of the stories in the book support this claim. In fact, none of the stories are about capitalism.
The book also claims to give its readers advice on how enlighten fellow students on “history, civics, and economics.” None of the stories, except Kirk’s, tackle any of those subjects. Unless one considers NSA spying part of “civics.”
What can be said in terms of a fact-check on the overall claim of political bias in teachers and professors?
Consider a 2006 study by political science professors that tried to gauge political bias in the classroom from students and professors. The study found that “students are the ones with bias, attributing characteristics to their professors based on the students’ perceptions of their faculty members’ politics and how much they differ from their own.”
The study surveyed 1,385 students in political science courses at a variety of public and private institutions, asking them a series of questions about their views of the politics of their professors, their own politics, and various other qualities that they attributed to the professors, as reported by Inside Higher Ed.
Two particular conclusions from the study are important: 1) Professors who students think are conservative are generally rated more favorably by students on whether they present material objectively. And 2) Professors who students think are liberal are generally rated more favorably by students on whether students are encouraged to present their own viewpoints, whether grading is fair, whether the learning environment is comfortable, and whether they care about the success of students.
Or consider a 2008 survey done by Georgia’s university system (in which I am employed) that questioned students “regarding individual attitudes on academic quality, free speech, and discussion.”
Two important results: 1) 70 percent reported being able to freely discuss important public issues in class. And 2) 13 percent of students agreed that professors had inappropriately presented their own political views. And on that last point, 62 percent of students felt free to argue with the professor in cases of political disagreement.
Among those students who felt professors had inappropriately presented their political views in class, 8.5 percent reported that this had occurred one time or less, 50.4 percent two to four times, 27.9 percent 5 to 10 times, and 13.2 percent more than 10 times.
And it is important to note what is not debated here — whether the presentation was indeed inappropriate (as deemed by colleagues, a faculty panel, or something like that).
There are also actual responses from the questions asked. For example, the question of “why you feel students aren’t respectful of the political beliefs of others at your institution?” A non-traditional student (40 years old) said this: “Many of [my professors] are evangelical Christians. While I am a Christian as well, I do not believe they should wear their thoughts on their sleeves.”
Another, apparently referring to my school, which has military cadets, wrote: “Most [cadets] are strict republican Christians and will fight to death to anyone who has a conflicting opinion. Not a lot of people here are open to new ideas. I’m transferring…”
While 23 percent of students reported having a class where they felt they had to agree with the professor’s views to get a good grade, only 12% of the reporting group said those views were political. And again, what politics is unknown.
There are actual responses to this part of the survey as well. For example, “In what ways have professors presented their own political views in class?” Many responses don’t mention the political “side” the professor is on, but some do. In 2008, there were comments for and against President Bush.
Demographics of that survey are also important. 28.4% identified on some level as “Republican” (strong, moderate, and weak were choices). 34.1% identified as Democrat, about 20% as Independent, and 11% “other.” A strong balance.
This survey shows college classrooms are not free from charges that a group like Turning Point can make. But the survey also shows the exaggeration of such cases is key to Turning Point’s premise in its book. In other words, “all across the country” is a sweeping generalization.
But then there is this 2017 report from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank often cited by Kirk. Among other questions asked of the general public, it asked how college students perceive the political views of their professor. According to the survey, a majority (59%) of Republican college students believe that most faculty members are liberal. In contrast, only 35% of Democratic college students agree most professors are liberal.
One might assume that many of the Republican students think their liberal professor is biased against them, or in some manner, creating a climate where their views are not welcome for debate.
There is both a factual problem and a perception problem. And both give Turning Point an opening.
Onto the analysis, starting with the stories that don’t amount to political bias.
Caleb’s story is a fairly good story of education as it should work, not political bias denigrating it. His senior English in high school was a course where debating was welcome: “Our English teacher would always provoke us to get into arguments with one another to see what each of us thought about certain
issues in society.”
One day the debate turned to Obamacare and the teacher asked for Caleb’s opinion. He shared his points against it, the teacher shared hers for it, and then Caleb wrote: “By the time we had finished debating, the whole class was fully intrigued by not only the arguments I was presenting, but how I was presenting them in a constructive manner…”
Amazing story. But not one that is about a liberal bias in teaching. And used as evidence in the “your teacher won’t change” section, instead of promoting the goodness of free speech, Turning Point implicitly chides the teacher for not being persuaded by the “constructive” points.
Austin doesn’t have a story but only platitudes based on bad premises. Here is his premise: “ I know firsthand what it is like to use textbooks and listen to teachers that put forward an inaccurate and often partisan view of subjects like history, economics, and government.” He does not offer any details or evidence.
By the way, textbooks errors happen more than one would like to admit — and many errors are basic facts, not political opinions that are debatable. See for example here.
But bias against minorities is often the case. See here for an example concerning Hispanics. See here for one where textbooks “mystify” the causes of the Civil War in order to keep Southern states buying the book. And in general “How Texas Inflicts Bad Textbooks on Us.”
Marko writes: “But in this relationship with the teacher, it is also the students’ duty to respectfully push the boundaries, to ask the penetrating questions that do not necessarily conflict with what we are taught but how we are taught about our history, politics and government, especially when there is disagreement.”
It is great when students ask questions, but to see the questions as “pushing” boundaries when those boundaries imply the teacher is keeping students from them is craven and only makes teacher-student relationship adversarial.
Caroline Stout says she got a “rude awakening to the liberal bias of the theatre community” in high school, noting her “peers” (not teachers) told her to “shut up” about her conservative values. This was in a high school in Texas.
Then for some reason as a senior she found herself in a freshman debate class. She chides her debate teammates for attacking and teasing her.
But then she writes that “what stunned me was how open the debate coach was about her political ideology.” “A devout liberal,” the coach was not only opined during class debates, but her opinions seemed to impact the “ill-informed and highly impressionable students.”
This is a common rhetorical move by Turning Point — saying students are both ignorant and stupid. Yet they have thousands of followers who claim to have seen the “light.”
Let me point out that Caroline is suggesting she freed herself from the powerful impression of her coach though the powerful impression of her childhood: “Growing up hearing that only specific ideas were right, I learned from a young age the correct social, moral, and political answers for my setting; therefore I never had to question why I believed what I did.”
As a professor, I see this a lot — a student now facing beliefs she always knew to be wrong but with no training or education in thinking to help. This is a statement about her poor religious education as much as anything else.
Before getting to the actual opinion the debate coach shared, let’s digest the moment. A debate coach sharing her opinion about an issue within a debate class on a topic, it seems, appropriate for the classroom. And Caroline is “stunned” that this has happened.
I am not.
And let’s be clear about what Caroline is stunned about. Not the presence of the ideology but how “open” the coach was. It seems Caroline might have been more agreeable if the coach only moderately shared her ideology. Caroline’s expectations were one thing and the class was another. This also happens a lot.
But this is not an indoctrination or inappropriate or any charge of bias Turning Point can muster merely because, in Caroline’s opinion, the students were “highly impressionable” and “ill-informed.” If teachers can’t share their opinion on a subject pertinent to the course or topic at hand because of the presence of “ill-informed” and impressionable students, we would have to end all education.
And what was the one example of the coach’s opinion? “How the polar bear population was severely endangered.” [It should be clear that this is a “devout liberal” opinion because, it seems, Caroline, as a conservative, does not believe in climate change.]
This single opinion so flustered Caroline she didn’t speak. She didn’t speak but wanted to say, “Really it depends on which polar bear subpopulation you are looking at. According to recent studies, some groups have actually doubled in population while others have slightly declined.”
We can fact-check Caroline here. According to the World Wildlife Fund, there are 19 sub-populations of polar bear and “Of those, the latest data from the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group show that three sub-populations are in decline and that there is a high estimated risk of future decline due to climate change.” Slate say eight are in decline.
According to the Endangered Species Coalition, “the United States is home to two distinct (sub)populations, of which, both are in decline.” And “the possible demise of the polar bear is tied directly to the effects of global warming,” one effect of climate change.
According to the Department of State, in 2008, the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service listed the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The loss of habitat due to loss of polar ice “puts polar bears at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future…” The IUCN group labels the polar bear “vulnerable.”
Finally, on Caroline’s claim that groups have doubled and some declined, the IUCN group notes after conceding it is very hard to get an accurate number, “some of those subpopulations are declining, others are stable, and some may be increasing.”
Factcheck.org checked Alaskan Sen. Ted Stevens’ 2008 claim that the overall global population of polar bears had tripled. Noting most counts are based on educated guesses, FactCheck.org writes “Some of these populations are growing; others are relatively stable. The status of certain populations is unknown. But studies by the United States Geological Survey show that some populations may, in fact, be shrinking.”
Finally the World Wildlife Fund has a 2017 map that notes of the sub-populations, six are stable, two increasing, one declining, and seven are unknown.
It is perhaps reasonable to conclude based on the adjective “severely” that the debate coach meant endangered in a holistic sense, not a legal definition as required by the government. And in general, the facts bear that out — the polar bear is facing survival issues based on loss of habitat due to climate change.
Caroline overstates her own case, as the numbers don’t give her the confidence she asserts.
And she notes she kept quiet lest she be “being proven wrong or ridiculed by a debate coach who was actually a former debate champion.” She says directly it was not political bias: “While I enjoyed our conversations and looked up to her as a person, I was intimidated by her as a teacher and coach.”
While the coach apparently had “blatant disdain for anything conservative,” still Caroline “idolized her as a fellow debater” and “was terrified of ever having to defend my values to her.” [Evidence of this disdain: she makes jokes about George Bush and thought the town her school was in had too many Republicans for her to live there. [Let me add that Caroline seems surprised there are liberals in Texas and in a theater group.]
This makes clear Caroline was intimated not merely because of the political ideology, but also because of the status of the coach and her ability to win debates. The opinion itself wasn’t the only impetus for the intimation and it is hard to know what impact it might have had if one removed the debate aspect.
The political aspect serves as a part of the story, but the story as an example of inappropriate political bias in the classroom falls short.
Caroline states she was “belittled and personally victimized” because the teacher knew of Caroline’s political beliefs. There is no evidence the teacher made comments about Caroline herself. But Caroline’s identity being so strongly tied to GOP beliefs would suggest she is sensitive to generalizations of that group. There is no evidence she talked to the teacher about her concerns.
As an aside, there are 8 reviews on ratemyteacher.com for the person I believe is the debate coach. They all are extremely positive.
Caroline says the debate coach in one of her biased “lectures” raged against patriarchy. Caroline called this “indoctrination” mainly because the students were impressionable and ill-informed. Again, Caroline didn’t speak up.
Finally, Caroline started a Young Republicans club at school and took to politics, aiding in Texas races. And she became “a debate captain and district champion,” no longer the “black sheep of the debate team.”
It’s hard to know how such a team that ostracized her before for her political beliefs — which only strengthened — now took her in as a leader. But that is the story told by her. There is no mention of the debate coach after the incidents about Bush and Caroline’s victimization. And according to the school’s website, the coach remains.
The one story that actually names an inappropriate political bias in teaching — and in a college classroom no less — is the one by Leena. She attended Aurora University, a private liberal arts college near Chicago. While founded in connection with the Advent Christian Church, in 1971 it separated from the church. It’s 64% female, 50% white (with 30% Hispanic), and nearly 9 out of 10 students come from Illinois. It has several Christian student groups, a small Greek system, and a Young American for Freedom group, the organization associated with Ben Shapiro, a person who agrees very much with Charlie Kirk.
I say all this to give context to Leena’s story. She tells the story of her “Humans and the Environment” course where “my professor was just about as liberal as they come, and was determined to let us all know.”
The teacher would begin class by lecturing for a few minutes but “then he would go into how everything that happens is ‘the conservatives’ fault.’”
She states that one time the professor started in on NSA spying, saying “The NSA should spy on Americans. Patriots and Republicans are the real threat to America. Not al Qaeda.”
It is an erratic and perhaps unbelievable transition from a biology lecture to the NSA. First, it’s a particularly odd way of framing a “liberal” argument. Liberals are generally against more NSA power. And to use “patriots” is odd coming from a “liberal.”
In fact, the phrase “patriots are the real threat” comes from far right blogs. These sites try to tag liberals with it. One in 2016 writes that the Cliven Bundy arrest shows how the federal government is out to prove that “patriots are the real threat to domestic security, not ISIS.” [I’m not linking to it, but if you google the quote you will find it.]
[The other claim “Republicans are the real threat…” apparently originated in a speech given by former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo at the 1996 Democratic National Convention and has become a favorite quote used by conservative ideologue David Horowitz. See here.]
Despite that, I’ll give Leena some leeway in telling her own story. Next, Leena does not follow the advice of the publication she writing in and aims her ire at the professor in a very aggressive, disrespectful manner:
“At this point I had enough of his liberal ideals being shoved down our throats. I knew it was time to say something… That was when I said, ‘So you believe that the NSA should be infringing upon American citizens constitutional right to privacy? Giving the government this amount of power for collecting information takes away our freedom of speech as well as our liberty granted to us by the US constitution. And the fact that you say that al Qaeda is not a threat to America shows just how politically uneducated you truly are.’”
Again, it is an odd set of claims. Conservatives — though not necessarily libertarians — created and approved the spying mentioned here. And “originalists” (legal conservatives) often state that a “constitutional right to privacy” is not in the Constitution. And “liberal” pro-choice people often want such a right used in abortion laws.
Of course it was most likely the last line that Leena said that “captured everyone’s attention, even the ones who were basically sleeping before.”
Leena then goes against the advice directly above her story in the book:
“Never interrupt your professor or continue on if the conversation is over.
Ultimately if your professor says, ‘We’re moving on’ or ‘The conversation is
over,’ you need to respect that. It is important to defend your beliefs, but there is a proper way to do it.”
The professor tries to go back to his Powerpoint but Leena calls the professor “rude” and nods to the Constitution. She snaps that he is not a political science professor: “Why don’t you just stick to teaching us how the environment works, and leave the politics to the professors who have PhDs in Political Science?”
At that, she silenced him because “he had nothing to say, but to just stare at me with a scowl on his face.”
Leena’s final words reveal something ironic about Turning Point and its bias claim. They attack “liberal” professors for inappropriately sharing political beliefs. But Leena seems to give an OK for a “liberal” professor to share those beliefs if they have a PhD in political science. Yet, time and time again, expertise is attacked by Charlie Kirk. See my analysis of his role in this book.
Next, Leena claims some students not only nodded in agreement with her but clapped. She ends her story with a claim of empowerment: “By speaking up to my professor, I realized that I gave other students the feeling of empowerment, and that they too could make a difference.”
As a final note, using Leena’s LinkedIn profile and the college’s website, I believe I have narrowed the name of the instructor for that course to three people. Their profiles on ratemyprofessor.com are filled with glowing reviews, with a total of three negative reviews out of more than 150 total between the three. And the negative ones did not match Leena’s tenure at Aurora or are from another school.
Another resource: Professors and Politics: What the Research Says
