Thomas Klingenstein has fixated his attention on Bowdoin's internal academic affairs once again, this time by funding a study through the National Association of Scholars (NAS) that will examine whether the College's lack of intellectual diversity affects the quality of its curriculum. Although Peter Wood, the director of the study, says it will be objective, it is difficult to believe this claim, given that the study is funded by a man who has repeatedly criticized the dearth of conservative viewpoints among the faculty.
It is our view that examining Bowdoin's curriculum could be productive, yet this survey appears to be driven by a clear agenda and cannot result in objective findings.
The NAS has never conducted a study on only a single college before and Klingenstein never expressed an interest in Bowdoin before he was agitated by Mills' convocation address. Based on these facts, it appears that the motive for this study is not genuine intellectual curiosity.
More importantly, the study does not recognize the critical thinking abilities of Bowdoin students. We are not mindless automatons; the NAS should remember that education is not brainwashing, for we are able to form our own opinions of our professors and their perspectives. Bowdoin's proudest asset is its inquisitive student body, and Klingenstein should know from experience that students will question bias wherever it is found.
The editorial represents the majority view of the Bowdoin Orient's editorial board, which is comprised of Nick Daniels, Sam Frizell, Linda Kinstler, Zoë Lescaze and Elizabeth Maybank.