


































Communication, Society and Media 
ISSN 2576-5388 (Print) ISSN 2576-5396 (Online) 

Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm 

15 

 

Original Paper 

What I Have Learned from Conservative Students Teaching 

American Politics at a Predominantly White Institution (PWIs):  

Reflections of a Minority College Professor 

Earnest N. Bracey
1* 

1 
Social Sciences Department, College of Southern Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA  

* 
Earnest N. Bracey, Social Sciences Department, College of Southern Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA  

 

Received: September 5, 2018    Accepted: January 14, 2019    Online Published: January 24, 2019 

doi:10.22158/csm.v 2n1p15                     URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/csm.v2n1p15 

 

Abstract 

Disruptive, conservative college students are a symptom of a larger problem that we have in higher 

education today. Also, many of our students are unprepared academically, but some think that they 

should pass American politics—and other controversial courses—anyway, without doing the necessary 

work. Of course, this higher education issue has taken on new gravity, given that liberal college 

professors are being verbally attacked and threatened by these conservative, college students, 

especially if they are from a minority group, or if they are African Americans at Predominantly White 

Institutions (PWIs). Their major complaint is always about there being a liberal bent in academia, but 

many are tricked into thinking in a certain, conservative way. These are carefully crafted, politically 

motivated attacks, because some of these students don’t respect or believe in the veracity of anything 

told by minority professors, particularly their diversity of ideas about current political issues. As we 

might imagine, for example, the social injustices and racial terrorism of the past toward minorities, in 

the United States, just doesn’t register with some of these conservative students, with latent prejudices, 

because they mostly want to just rail against liberal professors of all stripes, ratcheting up the divisions 

we have at the higher education level. Moreover, these conservative students also applaud the tactics 

and rationale behind their verbal, classroom attacks and threats, as they monitor certain (liberal) 

college professors. Perhaps they have a prevalent belief that most liberal professors are somehow evil. 

Finally, these disruptive students believe what they want to believe, which isn’t the best way to conside r 

important policy matters today. Indeed, these misguided students should think more critically about the 

social and political issues, without blindly following someone because they tell the best story, or 

because of their conservative values. In the final analysis, we must wonder if the traditional ways of 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

 

 

16 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

teaching students at Liberal Arts College and Universities are dead. 

Keywords 

diversity, justice, equality of opportunity, academic freedom 

 

1. Reflections 

I am an African American professor at a Predominantly White College in Las Vegas; and I have been 

teaching political science and Black American History for almost twenty -five years. During this entire 

time, I have personally en joyed teaching all these many years —that is, until recently, because of the 

(abrasive) caliber o f some co llege students that are signing up for my American polit ics classes. 

Unfortunately, some conservative students are taking my political science classes for ulterior motives 

or nefarious reasons, which makes my job even harder. In fact, some of my conservative students are 

disruptive and disrespectful, because of who I am and what I represent. In essence, I believe that these 

particular students would like to quash any liberal voice that see the world differently than they do, 

which is beyond rid iculous. They even questioned whether I should be in the classroom at all, because 

of my race. Where did these conservative students get their dyspeptic beliefs? Why can’t they be 

reasoned with? And where do they come from? Paradoxically, many d isagree with the known facts and 

objective truth if it doesn’t conform to their mistaken and narrow -minded attitudes, and far-right views. 

It is hard enough teaching American politics without their lud icrous interferences, and sometimes 

reckless assumptions and disruptions. In other words, these conservative students energetically and 

unapologetically state their right-wing ideologies and positions, with the insouciance that is the 

hallmark of white nationalism and racial tribalism. Speaking the truth is verboten to many of them, as I 

always based my lectures on telling the truth. Unfortunately, some of my previous conservative 

students had closed their minds about the truth in polit ics; or they were not open -minded, because 

many collectively wanted everyone to think about the social and political issues (of the day) in the 

same way that they did. But clearly, we are div ided by ideology in the United States. 

Shockingly, some of my former conservative students were inclined to dislike p rogressive, liberal  

professors, like myself, as they saw me and others as true villains, for whatever reasons, and even 

un-American. Never mind that I served honorably in the U.S. Army for over twenty years. Of course, 

my military  service d idn’t matter to some of these students, nor did  they care about me standing up for 

my liberal and progressive beliefs, as if I was unpatriotic in some way. To  be sure, I recall that some of 

these conservative students tried to stoke fear and loathing against liberal professors who didn’t sh are 

their conservative values, or pretentious and negative ideas. Many were offended even when I told 

them to step back and think critically  about the political issues, or their interpretation of the facts. 

Inevitably, these conservative students made their odd and preposterous positions known in a scripted 

and orchestrated way. They also believed in  speaking their mind, and “out -of-turn”, even when  they 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

 

 

17 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

were totally incorrect about politics and history, and not called on, which stirred their annoyance with 

me. I often cringed from their misperceptions and misinformat ion, as they trafficked in right-wing 

conspiracy theories. Nevertheless, these students thought that their “voice” should be given a platform 

in every classroom, in every situation, no matter what. For example, one conservative student, only 

nineteen years old, didn’t want to believe in our common humanity. To say the least, we became 

completely at odds with each other, because of his perceptions about race. But every educated person 

knows that we (all human beings) have a common ancestor (Crystal, 1994a; Glaude, 2016;  King, 1981; 

Fairbanks, 2015). The particular point this student made was that what I was try ing to impart  was 

“made-up”, as he didn’t want to p lumb the depths of the truth and the evidence, as it  contradicted with 

his misperceptions about racial or ethnic groups. 

As if on cue, this same conservative student, with his political biases, would sit every day on the front 

row in my classroom and loudly fumble with his papers, as I tried to lecture, which was rude and 

unpleasantly distracting. On the surface, these conservative students seemed curious and eager to learn; 

but I quickly realized that nothing could have been further from the truth, as their Modus Operandi 

(MO) was to distract. A lso, this particu lar conservative student only wanted to talk about the Benghazi 

investigation in Congress, which  had nothing to do with the reading assignment and lessons of the day. 

This was not totally unexpected, because we are liv ing in  an academic world  where some professors 

are afraid to speak their minds or the truth. As it turned out, many of my conservative students, as 

mentioned, d idn’t want to think crit ically about the political issues, because their minds were already 

made up, especially in our ideologically conflicted and polarized nation today. Therefore, our capacity 

to teach and agree on historical facts is being threatened by sometimes angry, misguided students in a 

coordinated way. All in all, this situation in the college classroom today is problemat ic, and something 

professors, like myself, haven’t had to deal with in the past—that is, being hassled by lazy thinking 

students, which is certainly damning in regards to higher education and the breakdown of civility in our 

country and politics. Many also use the techniques of whatifisms or whataboutisms, because some don’t 

put a lot of stock into what liberal professors say about mostly anything, especially  the political issues. 

These conservative students also obsequiously asked inconspicuous questions, at awkward times—, 

which almost never related to the various assignments —as a pretext to starting a serious classroom 

dispute and disruption. So they asked about irrelevant things, just for the sake of argument. Moreover, 

many didn’t want to know the incontrovertible facts about American polit ics, especially if it was 

negative toward conservatives. What these conservative students also failed to recognize was that we 

are not a monolithic society. That is, conservatives and liberals don’t think alike, particu larly about 

certain public policy issues. Yet many believed that conservatives should be totally in charge (or control) 

of our governments, without knowing exactly why they felt this way, which was illogical and 

embarrassingly uninformed, considering that we have a two-party, democratic system. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

 

 

18 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Furthermore, many of my conservative students believed that facts were subjective, which was 

absolutely nonsense. In this regard, I told this student that made this equivocal comment that facts are 

facts, and can be checked for accuracy; but this abrasive student didn’t want to believe it. So I asked 

him to g ive me the exact date of h is birth; and he did so. I next told h im that his birthday was not really 

a fact, and that he was born on another date, to prove to him that his birth was not subjective. 

Nonetheless, he still didn’t understand the nuance of what I was exp lain ing or impart ing to him—or the 

truth of my argument. In general, politics can be a dirty business, and it is hard to point out or 

disseminate the truth and facts when  teaching polit ical science (in  the college classroom) today, 

particularly for some conservative students, because some facts don’t fit  their ideological frame of 

reference (Robinson, 2018) (Note 1). Let me exp lain : In one of my classroom lectures about the 

American Revolution, I informed my students that the first person to die for the American Revolution 

was a black man, a patriot named Crispus Attucks, during the Boston Massacre (Stevens, 2000a). 

Another conservative student expressed his misgivings and opined that this fact really didn’t matter. 

After all, he went on to grandstand and argue that no one cared about the first person to die in the 

Vietnam War, either. I told this conservative student that he was mixing apples and oranges, to use the 

metaphor, and that he was making a very specious argument. I went on to let him know that the 

Vietnam War had nothing to do with our fight for independence from Great Britain. But this same 

conservative student, with his confusing beliefs, would brook no crit icis m, main ly because of the 

“Mutability of the Past” theory, where he thought that a black man, sacrificing h is life fo r the founding 

of our nation d idn’t matter; or that this truth should be ignored. It became immediately app arent to me, 

then, why this conservative student was registered for my American politics class in the first place. He 

was there to monitor what I was saying about current social issues, not to listen or to think  and learn 

about the truth of our nation—in  terms of polit ics. I also believed that his mission (this conservative 

student) was to verbally attack me personally, which he did, as he aligned himself with the far -right. 

And he told me so. 

Some of my colleagues also knew before hand when there was a problem with a conservative student, 

because we discussed these matters in faculty, discip line/department meetings; but many failed to call 

these students out, which I thought was an appropriate thing to do. Also, at the start of each semester, I 

made it a  point to tell my students that there was a proper and respectful etiquette in my classroom—or 

any college classroom, for that matter; but they were “put-off” by this comment from me. In addition, 

many of my former conservative students were offended by me addressing other controversial, social 

and political topics, as if I d idn’t have the right or authority to talk about such matters. Some students 

even refused to accept uncomfortable facts, even if the information was retrieved from a reliable news 

sources. They called it “fake news” (Albom, 2018; Stibel, 2018)  (Note 2). Many of these same students 

also claimed that there was no real evidence to support the political facts that I presented to them, on  a 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

 

 

19 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

“silver platter”, so to speak, and even if everything I imparted to them made absolute sense. Perhaps it 

wasn’t easy for them to think crit ically for themselves. Or it might have been easier for them to be 

“spoon-fed” information from agents of their political socialization, like with family members, where 

they learned their political values. This is to say that many of my conservative students came to my 

classroom with preconceived, sometimes dubious notions about government and polit ics. And their 

faulty logic and warped attitudes about politics, generally, could be breathtakingly wrong. So is this a 

sad commentary on the state of secondary education in the United States today? (Gambescia, 2018) 

(Note 3) Perhaps. Moreover, I was once personally threatened by a female, conservative student in an 

anonymous phone call, as she didn’t believe that I should bring up controversial topics of our political 

past, or inconvenient, ugly truths about our government leaders, like with the knowledge of President 

Andrew Jackson, a slave owner, who was responsible for the “Trail of Tears”, where Nat ive Americans 

were forced marched from their native lands in the 1800s (east of the Mississippi), leading  to the death 

of over 4,000 Cherokee Indians (Stevens, 2000b; Wilkins & Stark, 2018).  

Equally important, many of my older conservative students didn’t believe in the Orthodox, Socrat ic 

Method of teaching, either, as they never wanted to be asked probing questions about the specific, 

political lessons, as they were mostly unprepared, which was totally unacceptable. Some d isrespectful 

students also believed that they were entitled  to good grades, without earning them, and even if they 

didn’t attend any classes. Additionally, some took the truth for granted, or out of context, as one 

conservative student told me, “the truth doesn’t matter”. I know that I couldn’t control these students 

and what they chose to believe, but I was actually  flabbergasted when this conservative student told me 

this. But contrary to the op inion voiced by this student, I tried to let him know that the truth alway s 

corresponds to the facts and reality. In other words, facts are facts, as mentioned, and not in “the 

eyes-of-the-beholder”. This argument had no effect on this student’s thinking, however. When I began a 

lecture about Watergate, this same conservative student opined that we should forget that the Watergate 

scandal even happened in the 1970s, where the illegal activ ities of a conservative administration broke 

into the Democratic Party’s National Headquarters (Crystal, 1994b; Edwards & Lippucci, 1998), to 

steal operational/party secrets. Eventually, President Richard M. Nixon, a conservative, had to resign, 

because he tried  to cover up th is crime, but was later pardoned by Gerald  Ford, who was never elected 

President of the United States by the American people, as he succeeded to the office of the presidency 

(Crystal, 1994b), having previously been given the Vice Presidency by Nixon and the Congress. This 

same conservative student was outraged by this knowledge, and angry that I even brought up Watergate, 

as he only wanted to discuss the second amendment. Indeed, he firmly believed that only liberals 

wanted to take away the rights of the American people to keep and bear arms. However, I informed this 

particular student that nothing could be further from the truth, as he was a member of the National Rifle 

Association (NRA). I added that this was a misperception. Unfortunately, the NRA continues to push or 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

 

 

20 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

espouse this nonsense—that is, when liberals only want our government to address sensible gun control 

laws. Further, the American people should know that many liberals are also members of the NRA, in 

good standing. I also exp lained to my class, and this conservative student, much to h is chagrin, that the 

second amendment says nothing about the rights of individual cit izens to have arms (Stevens, 2000c; 

Volkomer, 2007). College students should always know the truth about this contentious and 

controversial policy issue. 

And more important, I have been tirelessly committed to the truth in politics, like d iscussing t he 

Iran-Contra Scandal of the mid-1980s, involving illegal weapons transactions, by the Reagan 

administration to Iran to secure the release of U.S. hostages held in  Lebanon (Stevens, 2000d). Also, at 

that time our government was supposed to ban any aid to the Contras (an enemy), and “a rebel force” 

that wanted to overthrow Nicaragua’s legit imate government (Stevens, 2000d). These complex facts 

have been largely forgotten by college students, or never really talked about anymore by American 

citizens today. Or the American people have forgotten this politically damaging scandal. Therefore, it  is 

hard to see “eye-to-eye” with someone who refuses to accept the facts, or those who pass off their lies 

as the truth, and verbally attack anyone that disagree with them. But as their political science professor, 

I always tried to understand where my conservative students were coming from, respecting their right 

to express their views, as they are cut from a different political cloth. I tried to let them know that it is 

okay to disagree, without being disagreeable. But their romantic v iews about (the goodness of all) 

conservative ideas, without empathy or compassion, was enough to frustrate anyone. Additionally, 

when it  came to addressing the abortion issue, for example, these unnamed conservative students, who 

infiltrated my classes, argued that women should never have the right to an abortion, no matter the 

circumstances. However, all Americans should know that the right of a woman to have an abortion is 

“settled law”, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling (Weaver & Mascaro, 

2018; Volkomer, 2007;  Edwards & Lipppucci, 1998) (Note 4). Many times, these conservative students 

also brought up Planned Parenthood and how horrible they thought that this  organization was supposed 

to be, but without knowing the complete facts, the history, or much  about this important women’s 

group. Indeed, their weak arguments and distorted opinions could be irritating, to say the least. Yet, I 

felt these students should be allowed to speak out about the abortion issue for the sake of discussion 

and fairness in the classroom. But many were sometimes stressed out by their disagreements, and lack 

of political knowledge, which was often on shaky grounds. Or they looked for un attractive, alternative 

explanations (Krugman, 2018; Kazin, 2018) (Note 5).  

Moreover, many of my conservative students had foul dispositions, as they seemed angry with me 

personally, because I didn’t keep my (so-called) tongue, or sugarcoat anything in my political science 

classes, even when I was threatened by some of them, and especially when I was critical of 

conservative government, which was always based on the objective facts and the truth. Some saw my 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

 

 

21 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

fearlessness in telling the truth about current politics and our political h istory as a threat, or an affront 

to their agenda, whatever that might have been. The bottom line: Many of my conservative students 

were being exp lo ited and manipulated (perhaps without knowing it), and swayed by Herd Poison, 

where they conformed—to conservative notions—without thinking critically, which can be ext remely 

dangerous and disconcerting. Indeed, some of these conservative students seemed to care only  about 

protecting their hate speech, or alternative views of the world, which is slowly tearing our country apart 

from within, especially with the resurgence of white supremacist groups, and the climate of racial 

hatred in American politics today. Perhaps most tellingly, these students wanted to dissuade and 

marg inalize pro fessors like me, or keep me from criticizing our ugly past. They told me (in no 

uncertain terms) that I should focus on our exceptionalism, and nothing else. Furthermore, many of my 

conservative students didn’t want to be reminded of how conservative admin istrations brought us the 

Great Depression, which “was unprecedented in its length and in the wholesale poverty and tragedy it 

inflicted on (American) society” (Harris & Levey, 1975, p. 1132) between 1929 to 1934. Of course, 

Republican Herbert Hoover, a conservative, was the President of the United States during most of this 

time. Conservatives were also responsible for the Wall St reet disaster during the Bush administration, 

where the American people had to bail out the big banks —because they were (so-called) too big to 

fail—with taxpayers’ dollars. To say the least, many of the Wall Street bankers were never held 

accountable. Even more important, we have a tendency to gloss over the unending wars in Iraq and 

Afghanistan, started by a conservative administration. Conservatives also don’t like to address the 2000 

Presidential election fiasco, where unfortunately, the conservatives on “the Supreme Court played a 

decisive role in  determin ing who won the presidency when in  a 5-to-4 ruling it halted the manual 

recounting of ballots in Florida”, and gave conservative George W. Bush the U.S. presidency (Burns et 

al., 2004, p. 392). Because of an inattentive public, American citizens have quickly forgotten these 

important political events. 

Many conservatives only want to hold liberals responsible, in some way, as if they had something to do 

with the second major recession in recent American h istory, starting in the late 2000s, during another 

conservative administration. In this regard, my conservative students distracted from this discussion in 

my American polit ics classes by bringing up the spectacular moral failure of President Bill Clinton, 

who was impeached by Conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives in Congress, 

because he had a consensual affair with Monica Lewinsky, a young intern, and committed perjury by 

initially denying the relationship (Burns et al., 2004; Tomasky, 2017)  (Note 6). I let my conservative 

students know that their interruptions had nothing to do with the 2000 Presidential Elect io n, or the 

recession brought on by a conservative government. But they didn’t want to endure any kind of 

intellectual d isagreement, like their denial of Climate Change, which is negatively affecting our 

environment almost on a daily basis (Albeck-Ripka & Pierre-Louis, 2018; King, 2018; Friedman, 2018; 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

 

 

22 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Masto, 2018), because of the rolling back of environmental regulations. Nor do conservative students 

want to discuss the dismissal of civ il rights cases under the current conservative administration (Green, 

2018), or a stolen Supreme Court seat. In fact, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a 

conservative Republican, has indicated that his greatest political ach ievement was “to stop former 

President Barack Obama from filling the Supreme Court vacancy created by Antonin Scalia’s death in 

2016” (McConnell, 2018, p. 10A) Question: Why did senate conservatives think that it was fair to deny 

federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland even a hearing? Was this uncouth action even 

constitutional? 

I personally believe that some conservative students, as mentioned, didn’t care about these finer points, 

or which polit ical arguments even made the most sense, even if it was based on the real facts. Or they 

disliked the concept of “constructive engagement”, which some thought was nonsense. Surprisingly, 

many of my co lleagues have also been verbally attacked by some of these conservative students, who 

have accused them of harassment or discrimination, especially  those professors who are orig inally 

from other countries, or who are naturalized U.S. citizens. I also firmly believed that some of these 

conservative students would like to d isparage and silence these professors —who often pose 

provocative questions, and tell the earnest truth—at all cost. What is going on at  our respective college 

is “shameful”, and jaw-droppingly wrong. It has certainly been a wake-up call for some of us. 

Unfortunately, some colleagues at my co llege are not even able to teach what they know to be truth, 

without fear or repercussions, which is a famous  adage expressed by Albert Einstein. In the final 

analysis, these conservative students know almost nothing about academic freedom. Why?  

 

2. Conclusions 

Unfortunately, many historians, philosophers, and political scientists today, on college campuses, are 

taking a neutral stance when it comes to teaching history or American politics, because they are 

unwilling to take a (righteous) stand against these disruptive and seemingly d isgruntled, conservative 

students. But to my mind, this capitulation is a very cowardly thing to do. More surprisingly, many of 

these liberal professors are now teaching on-line, because many don’t want to resist the lies, or be 

targets or bothered by these conservative students in a “brick and mortar” classroom setting anymore. 

So are  their actions just a cop-out, because of differences of opinions and viewpoints? Clearly, some of 

these students appear to deliberately provoke certain professors with the lie that their first amendment 

rights are being violated in some way. To be sure, liberal p rofessors are even afraid to confront these 

disruptive, conservative students—to tell them what is acceptable, credible and what is not. But 

professors today must be undeterred and not afraid to teach what is right; nor should they be 

intimidated or bullied by these ill-informed  students, just because they don’t agree with their part icular 

points of view. This is to say that some students see things only from a conservative perspective and 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

 

 

23 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

nothing else, like their dis missal of Affirmat ive Action (Stevens, 2000e), as some kind of inappropriate 

hand-out for minorit ies. What they should know is that Affirmative Action has tried to balance the 

inequality that continues in this country for racial minorit ies. Moreover, many of these conservative 

students dislike being censored, even if their partisan or ideological informat ion is high ly suspect. 

There is also no doubt that these students want to avoid engaging in productive, tolerant, meaningful 

and intellectual discussions. Therefore, I think that what these conservatives say in my classroom is 

deliberate and coordinated, particu larly when they make baseless assumptions about American politics. 

And they present the same unfortunate and tired ideas, almost every semester. But more than that, 

many use “identity polit ics”, to flame racial discord, to justify what they say in  an effort to make other 

young, brilliant students in my classroom see things their way. Equally significant, their ideological 

“orthodoxy” is like a train wreck  waiting to happen. Some conservative students are also dismayed and 

offended by me personally when I ask them to consider important parallels in po lit ical time, like the 

eventual failure of conservative or autocratic governments throughout (organized) human history. 

To further complicate matters, and in an effort to affect what we teach at the higher education levels, 

wealthy Republicans and conservative “big shots”, like the Koch Brothers are spending millions to 

influence professors and students at colleges and universities —that is, what is taught, and what these 

billionaires want people to believe, which is a strict conservative view point (Greenwald, 2012). It 

certainly doesn’t have to be this way. But the United States is in an unhealthy situation (and 

environment) when it comes to higher education, and the negative implicat ions are enormous. In light 

of this, it  is all the more important that polit ical science students consider all the facts and the absolute 

truth, like the real reasons for the American Civil War, which was essent ially to maintain  the cursed 

institution of black slavery, in perpetuity, not some state rights’ issue (Crystal, 1994c;  Jillson, 2005); 

and despite words to the contrary. To  be b lunt, some conservative students, in my American politics 

classes tried to find excuses for some of their slave-owning ancestors, while trying to justify their 

inhumane actions. Historically, we have had to deal with an American, slave-dominated world, but my 

conservative students didn’t want to hear it, as they told me that it was old news. Essentially, I informed 

my students that it is hard to defend the indefensible. But this advice usually went on death ears. It also 

remained unclear if my conservative students would even learn from history, or the truth about our 

political system, and fragile democracy. Or perhaps many see the issues presented in this reflection as 

irrelevant. But contrary to what some students might think, such issues, as presented in this work, are 

more important than ever. To say the least, many of my conservative students wanted everyone to 

respect their values, but felt no need to respect the values of others, with different viewpoints, 

especially liberal students and college professors. This, of course is a serious mistake, as our nation is a 

diverse, multi-racial democracy, and all our opin ions should be respected. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

 

 

24 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Finally, it is difficu lt to teach students anything if their minds are already made up about what they 

think is right, like the issue of creationism over evolution (Crystal, 1994d; Fairbanks, 2015;  Toler, 2012) 

(Note 7). Doubters about evolution should know that one theory is based on faith, and the latter is 

based on scientific facts that can be supported by solid evidence. Many of my conservative students 

could have cared less about the truths of evolution. Toward this end, political science professors must 

continue to repudiate unsophisticated, myopic ways of thinking, because something has to give. Even 

more important, professors must indeed understand the malicious intentions of some of their students, 

while remain ing vigilant, and fighting back against racial tribalism and the conservative politics of 

division and polarization at the highest education levels, as it shows no signs of abating. Professors 

must also be aware of the partisan divide, and MO of intimidation by some conservative students, and 

reject their divisiveness, as it is a dangerous recipe for undermin ing the “teacher-student” relationship at 

the university level. This doesn’t mean that conservative students should be shunned or  banned 

automatically from the college classroom, because of their immaturity, but their d isrespect and 

disruption shouldn’t be tolerated. More broadly, conservative students should never be underestimated, 

either. In my ro le as a teacher, I often tried to tell students that they should strive to do better when it 

comes to understanding American politics and our polit ical spectrum, without shooting from the hip, 

and without knowledge, or making things up. But I was often ignored on this front. Racism, for 

example, continues to raise its ugly  head (in many  ways), in  our nation today; however, my 

conservative students didn’t want to believe it. Obviously, they were not always challenged or intrigued 

by the topics at hand, particularly  with their right-leaning political views. Keep in mind, as mentioned, 

that nothing has prepared some professors for such existential threats to their livelihood and teaching 

profession. 

In the end, professors who are disrespected by these conservative students must never take what is 

happening to them personally in the classroom, or lying down. Further, they must not turn a blind -eye, 

or accept their disgraceful behavior, either, especially if they are from a minority group, like me. 

Conventional wisdom holds that professors should always listen to their students with  respect and 

empathy, but their uncouth behavior must never be normalized. Furthermore, a sense of humor and 

understanding, with patience, is also important too; however, it is also important to remember that 

nothing should be taken for granted at our college and universities, when professors are being personal 

threatened by students. Finally, unflappable professors today must have the stones to push back 

(delicately) in higher education against the unruly, disruptive co llege student, no matter what, because 

ignoring this issue will have serious, negative implicat ions for our long -term education future. 

Unfortunately, many American cit izens are stubbornly ignorant about this higher education issue. 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

 

 

25 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

References 

Burns, J. M. et al. (2004). Government by the People (basic version, 20th ed., p. 392). New Jersey: 

Pearson Prentice Hall. 

Crystal, D. (Ed .). (1994a). Race. The Cambridge Encyclopedia  (2nd ed., p. 915). New York: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Crystal, D. (Ed.). (1994b). Watergate. The Cambridge Encyclopedia  (2nd ed., p. 1177). New York: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Crystal, D. (Ed.). (1994c). American Civil War. The Cambridge Encyclopedia (2nd ed., p. 57). New 

York: Cambridge University Press. 

Crystal, D. (Ed .). (1994d). Evolution. The Cambridge Encyclopedia  (2nd ed., p. 401). New York: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Edwards, D. V., & Lippucci, A. (1998). Practicing American Politics: An Introduction to Government 

(p. 243, p. 600). New York: Worth Publishers, Inc.  

Fairbanks, D. J. (2015). Everyone is African: How Science Explodes the Myth of Race . New York: 

Prometheus Books. 

Glaude, E. S. Jr. (2016). Democracy in Black: How Race Still Enslaves the American Soul . New York: 

Crown Publishers. 

Greenwald, R. (2012). Koch Brothers Exposed (DVD Documentary). Brace New Foundation. 

Harris, W. H., & Levey, J. S. (Eds.). (1975). Great Depression. In The New Columbia Encyclopedia  (p. 

1132). New York: Columbia University Press. 

Jillson, C. (2005). American Government: Political Change and Institutional Development (3rd ed., p. 

362). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.  

King, J. C. (1981). The Biology of Race (revised edition). Los Angeles, CA: University of Californ ia 

Press.  

Stevens, M. A. (Ed.). (2000a). Attucks, Crispus. In Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Encyclopedia  (p. 

110). Massachusetts: Merriam Webster, Inc.  

Stevens, M. A. (2000b). Jackson, Andrew.  In Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Encyclopedia  (p. 831). 

Massachusetts: Merriam Webster, Inc. 

Stevens, M. A. (2000c). Nat ional Rifle Association. In  Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Encyclopedia  (p. 

1132). Massachusetts: Merriam Webster, Inc.  

Stevens, M. A. (2000d). Iran-Contra Affair. In Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Encyclopedia  (p. 818). 

Massachusetts: Merriam Webster, Inc. 

Stevens, M. A. (2000e). Affirmative Action. In Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Encyclopedia  (p. 18). 

Massachusetts: Merriam Webster, Inc. 

Tomasky, M. (2017). Bill Clinton. New York: Times Books. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

 

 

26 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Volkomer, W. E. (2007). Abortion Rights. American Government (11th ed., pp. 317-318). New Jersey: 

Pearson Prentice Hall. 

Wilkins, D. E., & Stark, H. K. (2018). Indian  Removals, Relocations, and Reservations (1830s -1880s). 

American Indian Politics and the American Political System (4th ed., p. 124, pp. 152-154). New 

York: Rowman & Littlefield. 

Albeck-Ripka, L., & Pierre -Louis, K. (2018, April 22). Environmental Laws under Siege. Here’s Why 

We Have Them. The New York Times, 4.  

Green, E. L. (2018, April 23). Civ il rights cases being dismissed as burdensome. Las Vegas Sun, 1-5. 

Stibel, J. (2018, May 16). Fake news: It’s all in your brain. USA Today, 2B. 

McConnell says stopping Garland b iggest decision. (2018, June 10). The Las Vegas Review-Journal, 

10A. 

Gambescia, S. (2018, August 3). Nat ion needs a reset for Civ ics 101. Las Vegas Sun, 3. 

Albom, M. (2018, August 8). The press is not the enemy of the people. USA Today, 5A.  

Friedman, T. (2018, August 18). Will Mother Nature vote in 2020? Las Vegas Sun, 3. 

King, L. (2018, August 22). EPA p lan would pro long life of coal plants. USA Today, 3A.  

Robinson, E. (2018, August 22). Truth can’t be spun from lies. Las Vegas Sun, 4. 

Weaver, D., & Mascaro, L. (2018, August 22). Kavanaugh: Roe v. Wade settled. Las Vegas 

Review-Journal, 4A. 

Krugman, P. (2018, August 24). GOP gripped by a climate of paranoia. Las Vegas Sun, 3.  

Kazin, M. (2018, August 26). America’s Never-Ending Culture War. The New York Times, 4. 

Masto, C. C. (2018, September 1). We cannot afford to ignore climate science. Las Vegas Sun, 1, 5. 

Toler, P. D. (2012). The Story of All of Us: Mankind (pp. 3-17). Ph iladelphia, PA: Running Press. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

 

 

27 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Notes 

Note 1. College students must know that you cannot make up your own facts. Perhaps this conservative 

student had an unconscious bias, and my factual viewpoints were unwelcomed. Of course, ma ny 

conservative students want to shut down liberals with whom they disagree. 

Note 2. It should be pointed out that the truth is not whatever you want or think it should be, especially 

given the egregious way polit icians are misinforming and ly ing to the American people.  

Note 3. It is a “shameful thing” that some college students today don’t know a lot about “some 

founding principles of American government”. Professor Stephen Gambescia goes on to write that such 

“discussions with students are important before we dig deeply into how policymaking occurs in the 

United States”. 

Note 4. Unfortunately, some conservatives try to offer a picturesque view of Republican policies, which 

have been disastrous for American cit izens over the years, as exp lained in this art icle/reflection. 

Note 5. Conservative students are disrupting college and university classes throughout the United 

States.  

Note 6. It should be noted that Clinton was never removed from office, because you need two -thirds 

vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate of Congress.  

Note 7. It should be noted that creationists oppose “the theory of evolution, and some evangelical 

conservative Christians claim there is scientific ev idence to support creationism, though this has not 

been supported by other scientists”. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

 

 

28 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Biographical Sketch 

EARNEST N. BRACEY is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel, with over twenty years of active military 

service. He was commissioned through Reserve Officer Train ing (Distinguished Military Graduate) at 

Jackson State University, where he graduated with honors (Magna Cum Laude), and received his 

Bachelor of Arts degree in political science in 1974. In addition, he received the Masters of Public 

Admin istration in 1979 from Golden Gate University, his Masters of Arts degree in International Affairs 

in 1983 from the Catholic University of America, his Masters of Business Admin istration in 2009 from 

California Coast University, and his doctorate of Public Administration (with emphasis in Public Po licy) 

in 1993 from George Mason University. Dr. Bracey also earned his Ph.D. in  Education from Capella 

University in 1999. 

A recipient of numerous military awards and civilian honors, he is also a graduate of the United States 

Naval War College and the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and 

previously served as Director of Administration at  the prestigious Industrial College of the Armed Forces, 

Washington, D.C. He was also recognized as Who’s Who Among America’s Teachers in 2002, 2003, 

2004, 2005, and 2006. 

Dr. Bracey is professor of political science, and currently teaches American Po lit ics and Black American 

History at the College of Southern Nevada in Las Vegas. He was formerly Chair and Professor of 

Political Science at Jackson State Univers ity and Chairperson of the Political Science and History 

Department at Hampton University. He serves as an editorial board-member for the Nevada Historical 

Society Quarterly. His work has appeared in professional journals and other publications, and he is the 

author of the books, Prophetic Insights: The Higher Education and Pedagogy of African Americans , 

University Press of America, 1999, On Racism: Essays On Black Popular Culture, African American 

Politics, and the New Black Aesthetics, University Press of America, 2003, Daniel “Chappie” James: 

The First African American Four Star General , McFarland & Company, Inc., 2003, Places in  Political 

Time: Voices From the Black Diaspora , University Press of America, 2005, and The Moulin Rouge and 

Black Rights in Las Vegas, McFarland & Company, Inc., 2009. He also co-authored the book, American 

Politics and Culture Wars  (2001). He is also the author of the novels, Choson (1994) and The Black 

Samurai (1998), and the book of short stories, Requiems for Black Folks, 2002. 


