For all classes outside the realm of political science and economics, there are 17.4 trillion perfectly adequate examples that support their point that have nothing to do with the Bush administration (now don't go challenging that number, I've consulted with SEAS students and the TI-89 is omnipotent). With the rare exception, every CC student, every month has an intellectual discussion utterly ruined by needless references to President Bush. Whether or not you enjoy these barbs is a different story altogether, just don't deny their regularity.

Generally, they fall into two categories: blatantly antagonistic and unintentionally, nay unnecessarily, divisive. The first consists of overtly hostile remarks directed toward the President and the administration. They are habitually premeditated and typify a wanton disregard for a student's right to an impartial education. The professor who compared President Bush to a monkey in a Frontiers lecture not only made the slide, had the time to consider the repercussions of his cheap, dirty politics, but had the nerve to post it on Courseworks. Similarly, there's the oft-repeated tale of teachers incorporating their political views into something as inappropriate as language studies. Interesting, who would have thought a linguist could become a foreign policy expert during a lesson on the imperative? Making controversial sentences, or worse, using anti-war, anti-Bush examples to "practice" defies all established conventions of academic ethics. Worse, I personally had to watch Fahrenheit 9/11 in a civil engineering class. Did I enjoy the class, the professor? Indeed, but ask yourself, did that movie belong in that class?

The second example, the off-the-cuff remark regarding the topic at hand, is the most common. Despite the sheer gravity of the first category of offenses, those who commit such flagrant acts are simply partisan hacks: no more can be expected from them. These 'in the moment' comments, on the other hand, often come from academia's greatest minds, brilliant individuals who may not even comprehend that their remarks cause some of their students discomfort. In an environment where some (read liberal) ideas are accepted as the norm, there's little preventing the seemingly innocent tendency for the occasional political jab (especially when met with laughter). The problem, and it's quite worrying that I actually have to lay this out, is twofold. It doesn't matter if it's a history class or an archeology seminar, the professor (or TA) is not an expert in political theory, or economics, or policy analysis. If a student were interested in a scholarly interpretation of Bush Doctrine, they can walk over to IAB, not Philosophy, not Mudd.

In their given field of study, these great minds can easily think of hundreds of examples to support their argument; there's no need to resort to bringing up Hurricane Katrina and Iraq. Does it connect with the students? Possibly, but consider which students would most relate to these jabs. Does a conservative student have the right not to have his beliefs belittled though needless political banter in something as neutral as a creative writing class?

Some, however, will try to downplay the effect of a "trivial" comment on the students, arguing that it doesn't inhibit their right to express their beliefs. I'll only buy that argument after they put themselves in my shoes and those of my peers. It's quite disheartening to be in class, engaged in discussion, truly interested in the subject matter (for once considering yourself an intellectual equal), to have the discussion leader remind you that your beliefs aren't welcome. It's rare that someone will actively argue points early in the semester (you know who you are, I tip my hat to you) and offer themselves to extemporaneous tokenism. If I may build off my prior notions of political peer pressure, what happens to those afraid of open conflict? These cheap shots reveal the political inclinations of authority figures, i.e. those with a say in your GPA. Those hovering around the proverbial line will recede into the de facto ideology, while others will have their partisan tendencies reaffirmed in the most inappropriate of circumstances; thus the famous 'Columbia has made me 10 times more liberal than I was before!' I cringe every time I hear it.

Call me old fashioned, but I'd like to keep politics out of my education. Not just, dare I say it, in the liberal arts, but in political science and economics as well. To paraphrase one of my favorite professors, "I don't talk about things that have happened within the last 10 years." More than a rule of thumb, such a notion should once again become the foundation of academia. Anything from the last decade, the present included, is unresolved, or our understanding is certainly incomplete if not wholly inadequate.

While students may wander in discussion, the faculty must, to the best of their ability, adhere to such standards and keep objectivity in the classroom and politics out.