Paul Sracic, professor at Youngstown State University, has an interesting essay on Inside Higher Ed today. He made a nuanced case against talking about liberal or conservative values in the classroom, and argues that endorsements of a candidate are not only inappropriate, they actually discourage students from deciding themselves. He called such discussion of political views a "sin."

The core of his argument says:

More to the point, however, is that I am not qualified to teach students about who should be elected. In fact, I am no more qualified to tell people who they should vote for than I am to teach a class in quantum mechanics. I have colleagues over in the physics department who are qualified to offer a course in the latter subject; none of us has the same credibility when it comes to the former. Indeed, in an important way, this blanket incompetence is a part of the class lesson — particularly, though not exclusively, in a class on American government. It is an implicit argument for democracy, or at least democratic equality. It is also, however, an argument about education.

If professors, or anybody else for that matter, actually “knew” who the president should be, then voting, especially by those who did not know, would be unnecessary, and probably counterproductive. ... When we are all equally ignorant, we might as well vote.

What he's assuming, however, is that students might blindly follow the views of a political science professor if that professor endorses a candidate. But these 18-22 year-olds have the power and intelligence to disagree.

I can see Sracic's view that a professor is allowed to decline to answer the "Who are you supporting for president?" question, but to call such discussions for those that choose to engage in them a "sin" is condemning them in a harsh way. Furthermore, by Sracic refusing to talk of political views in the classroom, it might make him a worse teacher, in a way.

A political science classroom that doesn't discuss a presidential election or the merits of each candidate or campaign would surely be doing a disservice to those interested in pursuing politics. Furthermore, it may even cause students to be further disengaged--by pretending college is a bubble far away from the real world.

This is a different version of the discussion than I've seen so far. Part of it is seeing whether professors identify as liberal or conservative, but now, we're talking about whether professors' political views should be discussed in the classroom. I would argue that this is not only almost impossible to enforce, but actually causes further disengagement among young people.