Would you skew a paper’s thesis to match your professor’s political views if you thought it would earn you a good grade? Would you stick to your own beliefs if you thought it would negatively affect your grade?

An entry by Stanley Fish on his NYT blog, “Think Again,” is what got me thinking (again) about politics and the classroom.

Fish is talking about whether there is a correlation between a professor’s political affiliation and his or her teaching ability (he argues there is none). I’m been thinking about a more simple, but related, topic — how a professor who makes his or her political views very apparent in the classroom can create a detrimental learning environment for students.

I haven’t taken a poll, but I would guess that the majority of the faculty at the University of Hawai‘i lean in the liberal direction. In the few classes I have taken at UH, including a Hawaiian history class and a political science class, it was not difficult to figure out the instructors’ political viewpoints, and they made little effort to conceal their personal opinions about the subject matter. But I don’t know whether a couple of professors are indicative of the entire university.

I don’t mean to say this is only a problem at the University of Hawai‘i. I majored in Political Science at a tiny, liberal arts college in Massachusetts where there were of course concerns about some classroom lectures. Politically biased professors have also been the subject of many articles about higher education. A site called “Politics in the Classroom” has even been set up for students to “out” teachers whom they believe have a political agenda in the classroom.

Certainly, there is no problem with a professor holding strong political opinions. That kind of passion for your subject compels one to delve into the issues and often leads to better instruction. The problem starts when an instructor begins to use lessons as a platform for his or her political views. Then, the class ceases to be about academic learning and starts to be about political advocacy.

The worst is when this turns the classroom into an uncomfortable environment for any person who does not agree with the instructor’s personal politics.

True story: A friend once described a class with some of the most interesting reading material he had encountered in college. But the person teaching the class was so opinionated about the texts, he said, that he felt the only way to get an A was to skew his papers toward the instructor’s viewpoint.

In my opinion, that’s a dangerous situation. College should be about learning to think independently and creatively, because high school so often is not. And a college classroom is the last place in the world where a person should be made to feel uncomfortable about his or her views on any issue.

It wasn’t a happy ending for some who were watching the full-length film that was this year’s Democratic primary.

As Sen. Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination yesterday (we’re pretty sure this time), there was no shortage of Sen. Hillary Clinton supporters crying “sexism!”

Many are now vowing to vote for presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain in November.

For these women, Clinton is a symbol of their struggles against the glass ceiling, and Tuesday’s events only served to intensify that image. Her presumed loss to Obama now reinforces the idea for them that there’s only so far a woman can go in a male-dominated world.

I’d venture to say that the younger generation is perhaps not taking it so personally. I greatly admire Clinton. But when sizing her up as a candidate for president, the mere fact that she is female doesn’t occupy so much space on my Positive Qualities pie chart as it might for, say, someone who lived through the women’s rights movement. I relate to her, but I do not feel that her success is my success; her bitter defeat is my bitter defeat. Having seen how women my age can succeed in the workplace, I’m more optimistic.

As Jonathan Chait, 36, wrote in an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times two weeks ago: “People of my generation tend to have a less personal view of Clinton. She’s not us, she’s not our ex-wife, she’s just a politician.”

At the same time, I also agree with Chait when he writes: “If I spent years being disrespected and discriminated against in my household chores and my workplace, though, maybe I’d see it differently.”

Whether or not her campaign was ultimately done in in by sexism, strategy, media coverage or simply a very formidable opponent, Clinton had a very difficult line to walk during the primary. Whereas Obama has had to find that balance between being too black and too white, Clinton struggled between expressing femininity and showing that she can play hardball with the guys.

What I find upsetting is the millions of Americans, many of them men, who were turned off at the outset simply by the idea of a “strong woman,” a female who exhibits qualities traditionally thought of as masculine traits: aggressiveness, assertiveness, a fighting spirit.

That’s opposed to feminine qualities: emotional, intuitive, nurturing. But God knows how much criticism and ridicule Clinton drew for BOTH that beer chugging AND those tears. You can’t win.

It will be a great day when a White Woman running for president and a Half-Black Man running for president will simply be Two Candidates running for president.

The bigger question will be how the Democratic Party plans to reconcile hard feelings lingering after the protracted primary battle, and whether it can regain a hold on its ideals, including overcoming both sexism and racism, when all is said and done.

photo: AP

Filed under MSNBC’s “Weird News” on Friday … voters in Muskogee, Okla. reacted to politics as usual in their town by electing 19-year-old John Tyler Hammons as mayor.

The college freshman, who will be sworn in today, was elected with 70 percent of the vote in a runoff election. Residents say he represents a “fresh start” for Muskogee, population: 38,000.

Hammons will be one of the youngest mayors in the United States, but he is not without political experience: he was president of his senior class at Muskogee High School in 2007 (Yes, 2007. We are all old.) and president of BOTH the Young Republicans and Young Democrats clubs, although he now considers himself a Republican.

AND he’s a political science major at the University of Oklahoma. Although, he was moving out of the dorms and back in with the ‘rents this week as he prepared to be sworn in.

Does this qualify as “weird news”? It’s actually so rare to see young people interested in politics, let alone running for office that — unfortunately — yes, this is a little weird. It’s bizarre because it’s so rare.

As a very young mayor, Hammons is always going to face challenges and stigmas because of his age and lack of experience. Check out this video of an interview with Hammons from The Oklahoman. As the interviewer puts it in one of her first questions: “You’re 19. You should be in college or tuning up a truck or something.”

Ouch. But true?

At the same time, his youth could very well be an advantage. The image of aged politicians scheming in smoke-filled back rooms has long been notorious for turning people off from politics. Hammons’ opponent was a 70-year-old, former three-term mayor. I admit that I know very little about the issues at stake in the Muskogee race … but there’s something to be said for that.

I think Hammons’ story is interesting and inspiring, and I hope he does good things for the city of Muskogee. He has the opportunity to set an example for other aspiring young leaders looking to make a difference and prove to everyone else that the under-30 crowd isn’t just about iPods and reality TV. Let’s hope his heart is in the right place.

(Mahalos to JMAW for the link.)

Photo: AP/Sue Ogrocki

I’ve been feeling a bit under the weather the last few days, so going to bed by midnight is my attempt at getting to sleep early. Here are a few things that caught my eye today:

Mark Bowden’s ‘The Point’. I had the opportunity to meet Black Hawk Down author and journalist Mark Bowden and interview him for an article while working at my college newspaper five years ago. Black Hawk Down is one of my favorite books and a masterpiece of journalistic work, which Bowden researched partially in Mogadishu (he flew there in 1997 with a photographer sitting on sacks of khat). A national correspondent for The Atlantic magazine, he also has a column that appears in The Philadelphia Inquirer’s Currents section and has written about US policies at Guantanamo, gangs in Columbia and a shield law for journalists.

His June 2007 column about the future of print journalism is particularly interesting … he predicts about newspaper web sites:

I suspect news sites will open with a bang, displaying the most powerful video image of the day in the way editors have long chosen the day’s most dramatic or informative still images to anchor Page One. In that sense, they will look more like TV news than a newspaper - with this difference: All these production values will lead into detailed written stories.

Unlike with TV and radio, which are stuck with people reading out loud, customers of digital journalism will get the best of all media forms. They can wade into any story that attracts them as deeply as they wish. Readers will gravitate toward prose, while those who prefer sounds and images can simply watch and listen.

But do they vote? Young people are among four groups of voters The Wall Street Journal’s Gerald Seib believes will be key to the election in November. Although this election has generated amounts of interest among the 18 to 30 crowd not seen in years, the question remains: will young voters show up on Election Day?

Seib writes:

The rise in both registrations and primary-election turnout by young voters certainly suggests the possibility of a big showing this year. In a sign of that potential, turnout by voters under age 30 four years ago rose faster than among any other voting group, according to data compiled by the nonpartisan group Rock the Vote.

Yet even with that uptick, young voters turned out in lower proportions than any other age group. Turnout among those under 30 was 49%, compared with 73% of those age 60 to 74, the Rock the Vote data show.

The Quinnipiac survey of Pennsylvania shows Sen. Obama leading among Democratic voters under the age of 45 by a 57%-to-41% margin. But the real turnout test will come in November.

The other three groups that matter? Working-class white males, rural voters and Hispanics.

A measure of racism in America? Roger Simon of Politico writes about an issue that’s been on my mind about the general election: How much will race count in November if it comes down to Sen. Barack Obama vs. Sen. John McCain? Simon tries to quantify just how much the race vote will matter:

There is a percentage of the American electorate who will simply not vote for a black person no matter what his qualities or qualifications.

How big is that percentage? An AP-Yahoo poll conducted April 2-14 found that “about 8 percent of whites would be uncomfortable voting for a black for president.”

I don’t know if 8 percent sounds high or low to you, but I was amazed that 8 percent of respondents were willing to admit this to a pollster. And I figure that the true figure is much higher.

The same poll also found that 15 percent of voters believe Hawaii-born Obama is a Muslim (he’s actually a Christian). I am not sure how that matched up with the people who said they would not vote for him because he is black, but I’m sure whatever rumors are circulating about Obama being a Muslim are not working in his favor.

Yes, she can! Sen. Hillary Clinton emerged victorious in the important Pennsylvania primary today, besting Obama by 10 percentage points (55-45). Good news if you can’t get enough of the excitement swirling around this primary race. Bad news if November is six months away and you already feel like you’re getting sick of election coverage.

Revisiting the question of whether journalists should vote, whether it matters and whom it might matter to …

Is journalistic neutrality a sham?

James Poniewozik recently made “The Case for Full Disclosure” in TIME Magazine:

The biggest reason to go open kimono is that the present system does what journalism should never do: it perpetuates a lie. Modern political journalism is based on the bogus concept of neutrality (that people can be steeped in campaigns yet not care who wins) and the legitimate ideal of fairness (that people can place intellectual integrity and rigor over their rooting interests). Voting and disclosing would expose the sham of neutrality—which few believe anyway—and compel opinion and news writers alike to prove, story by story, that fairness is possible anyway. Partisans, bloggers and media critics are toxically obsessed with ferreting out reporters’ preferences; treating them as shameful secrets only makes matters worse.

Disclosure: Poniewozik is TIME’s TV critic, not a regular political writer.

It seems we’re becoming more and more paranoid about this, especially in this election year. Even I admit it — when I read certain articles in certain publications or online sites, I’m always trying to keep in mind what kind of reputation the site has, and the writer has. That’s part of the reason why I can’t watch Fox News anymore. I’m sorry. I just can’t.

The way I see it, there is no way to absolutely-100-percent eliminate personal biases when you write a story, although the best in the business do an extremely thorough job. First of all, whether that story is about the 2008 election or a school recycling project, each individual approaches and views the situation through the lens of his or her own experiences. Which is great, in many ways, because you might get several variations on the same story with different angles and different details in each.

Which is why, even though I do not watch it, I can see the need for Fox News. And, yes, I do realize that my thoughts on this come from — tada! — my own personal biases.

Now, there are different ways to tell a story, but readers love to point out when it’s the WRONG way. Again, this is going to depend on your background and your personal opinion. We get this all the time at the Advertiser. Just ask the guys who answer the phones.

For a reporter, if you are covering a story, there should be no shred of doubt in your heart about your ability to write about that topic objectively IF you are trying to pass the story off as truly objective, which newspapers are supposed to be. But that assumes that anyone and everyone reading the story believes it to be truly 100-percent objective and without bias. Is this really the case?

So, back to the original question: reporting and voting.

For myself personally, I haven’t decided whom I’m going to vote for yet. I did not vote in the Hawaii’s caucuses, but I do plan to vote in the general election. I was a Political Science major, I’m interested in politics, government and the process, and I definitely want to have a stake in who will be America’s president for the next four years. So I admit that, yeah, I do care. I will eventually vote, which indicates that I will eventually come to the conclusion that one candidate is better than another.

At that point, should I cease writing about anything having to do with the election? In articles? In this blog?

Where do you draw the line?