The University is one of many across the nation committed to the values of a liberal arts model. Where some institutions seek to mold future employees, our University holds itself to a bold and distinct vision of exposing students to a wide array of perspectives and disciplines. Nearly 200 years later, that vision is being threatened on all sides. In a political climate marred by a visceral hostility to free expression and rampant self-censorship among both students and professors, it is worth reflecting on the true purpose and foundation of a liberal arts education — an engaged and informed citizenry. The Engagements, while imperfect, prove themselves as a vital aspect of the University’s curricular emphasis on exploratory dialogue.
The University, for its part, facilitates student discourse through a series of four short seminar-style discussion classes required for all first-year undergraduates in the College of Arts and Sciences. Ranging from science to aesthetics and ethics to differences, the Engagements provide students with a critical opportunity that is often overlooked — the opportunity to delve into contentious social and political issues in a familiar classroom setting with other students. Furthermore, Engagements allow students to experience the University in ways distinct from traditional pre-professional pathways that prioritize resume-building and networking. Where many institutions have turned towards solely preparing students for the workforce, our University builds more well-rounded citizens in these short courses.
In recent years, the Engagements program has become a controversial element of the undergraduate experience on Grounds. The discussion-based seminar class was designed to deepen students’ understanding of diverse perspectives. However, the classroom experience has in practice sometimes faltered due to languid student enthusiasm. Marred by, at times, either irrelevant or superfluous curriculum and a laundry list of out-of-classroom activities required to complete the course, Engagements are routinely castigated by first-years as simply a waste of time.
Certainly, the Engagements are built to be smaller, unique pedagogical experiences — encouraging active student discussion rather than the typical lecture-style presentation in a room of 200. Nevertheless, the failure of first-year students to acknowledge the value of these courses is ultimately an issue which impacts the entire University community. If first-years do not actualize the potential of the Engagements and immerse themselves in that experience, then their academic participation and exploration is conclusively hindered to the detriment of a community that thrives on viewpoint diversity.
Unfortunately, the Engagements program has recently come under fire from outside groups, who filed an avalanche of Freedom of Information Act requests pertaining to its course syllabi last year. Although framed under the guise of transparency, the targeting of the Engagements program specifically represents a potentially concerning attempt to undermine a bedrock pillar of the University’s mission — to hone leadership skills through intellectual pluralism and build well-rounded individuals. Interrogating course syllabi engages with little more than fearmongering about the viewpoint diversity of professors. Whatever the motivation behind these investigations, the University should not be dissuaded by outside pressure to abandon its noble, albeit imperfect, commitment to civil discourse.
The principle behind the Engagements program is more relevant today than ever. In an increasingly tempestuous political climate, the ability to actively discuss controversial issues in a seminar setting with classmates is an indispensable skill. Without rigorous debate, ideological tolerance dissipates, and the marketplace of ideas becomes a confrontational shooting range. Pervasive self-censorship has reared its ugly head across college campuses in the United States. Fearing formal or informal retaliation, students and faculty alike have become more hesitant to meaningfully contribute to political discussions. Not only does this culture of fear silence students and faculty, but it also deprives the entire community of ideas that would otherwise see the light of day. No society can survive such a stifling of perspectives.
The only way to preserve what is under assault is to create a culture where discussion is allowed and encouraged. In a society where segmented echo chambers and parallel institutions are commonplace, the University should function as a town square. This is the role that the Engagements were designed to fulfill — a role which is only buttressed by genuine engagement from its first-year participants. Furthermore, pushing students to engage with ideas outside of their background or major is necessary to improve tolerance and is critical in preparing the next generation of leaders to carry the torch of American democracy.
The Engagements program represents an attempt to preserve that function in an era increasingly defined by polarization and silence. Understanding the wealth of value that this series brings to both students and faculty, the University should strengthen its commitment to the program by selecting high-stakes topics worth discussing and training faculty to facilitate student engagement, not simply to lecture in front of a classroom. This would foster genuine intellectual diversity and a generation of students capable not only of defending their own beliefs but of listening seriously to others. In doing so, the University would remain faithful to the ideal of a liberal arts university — not merely as a place where ideas are taught, but as a forum where democracy thrives.
The Cavalier Daily Editorial Board is composed of the Executive Editor, the Editor-in-Chief, the two Opinion Editors, two Senior Associates and an Opinion Columnist. The board can be reached at eb@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: U.Va.’s everyday fees undermine affordable student access
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoStruggles to keep up with these everyday items have become even more relevant amidst federal actions that raise the costs of University education.
COHEN: In response to the 191 faculty concerned with Beardsley’s legitimacy
By Ryan Cohen | 2 days agoA truly unbiased presidential appointment process is something of a catch-22 in that there will always be political values in play from one side or another.
KING: Self-governance for me, but not for thee
By Michael King | 3 days agoFor their part, student leaders such as Student Council President Clay Dickerson have done an admirable job of maturely standing up for students in a way that a select group of faculty cannot accept.
