Political Diversity for English-Speaking PSIR Students: A Missed Opportunity?

Political neutrality is critical for encouraging students’ academic growth. As authority figures in the classroom, professors hold particular influence over students and can easily influence students by expressing political bias. Hence, it is important for professors to remain objective in the classroom to allow students to manifest their own ideas and mitigate political polarization. Currently, when viewing Yonsei University’s course catalog, there are 25 courses listed under Underwood Division’s Political Science and International Relations (PSIR) major—only 10 of which are taught in English, limiting the choices for international students and creating a heightened risk of political polarization and a lack of political diversity. The natural question, then, is how do the limited options of political science courses affect English-speaking PSIR students.

I interviewed two PSIR seniors—Ghina Grigoryan and Alisha Dhanani—about their impression of the department’s political diversity, especially regarding the limited course options’ impact on their educational experience and their personal experience of openness in the classroom. The following questions were asked: What is your impression of the department’s political diversity? Do you feel free to state your opinions in class? Have you ever received a negative response to your statements? How do limited English-taught PSIR courses impact your educational experience? What do you think the role of a professor should be in teaching politics and arranging political debates?

Ghina answered that her initial impression was that both the students and the faculty leaned to the left politically, but with more face-to-face classes, she realized that this was not necessarily correct. Alisha also agreed that the PSIR department has a leftist tilt but argued that it was more apparent in the students than professors. Regarding the limited availability of English-speaking classes, they believe that this limitation is detrimental as classes are often composed of the same students, creating little diversity in thought. Both students also brought up the divide between foreign students, exchange students, and Korean students as they felt foreign students were more likely to speak up during class—which might account for the perceived left-leaning dominance. For example, Alisha argued that Korean students tend to be more conservative but remained fairly silent in voicing their opinions. In support of this, Ghina brought up an anonymous poll conducted in Professor Song Kyung Ho’s Contemporary Political Thought class, which revealed that the class was divided 50-50 between left and right political leanings, indicating that moderate and right-leaning students might not communicate as openly about their opinions as left-leaning students. 

Ghina and Alisha reported that they felt free to speak their minds in PSIR classes but acknowledged the need to censor themselves in case other students misinterpret or twist their words. Therefore, Ghina concluded that students who have a hard time speaking up in class might find the atmosphere difficult. However, Alisha reportedly noticed some strange and exaggerated reactions by other students—largely tied to exchange students—during the past two semesters that might encourage confidence in other left-leaning students within UIC. For example, Alisha describes how she received private messages ranting about her perceived insensitivity after asking a question about gender but did not receive a response, only condemnation.

The students also brought up the current online format’s impact on the political discussions in the classroom as both students felt that some students were more likely to be informal, use slang, or use passive-aggressive language in the online format. Although informal language can create a familiar and approachable atmosphere, from Alisha and Ghina’s experience—the use of “slang” often creates a divisive and immature atmosphere unsuitable for serious political discussions. Having spent the majority of their academic careers in PSIR online, the informal and disruptive atmosphere even caused one of the interviewees to rethink her decision to major in PSIR. The students acknowledge that PSIR suffers in contrast with other majors due to the lack of variety in both professors and class themes—as the available English-speaking classes often revolve around the same topics and perspectives. 

Concerning the role of the professor, both Ghina and Alisha expressed a desire for professors to “guide students through political discussions while allowing political diversity” and to emphasize respectful language and conduct. However, most importantly, professors should not “disclose their political opinions'' or “insult political actors” as it might have a negative impact on students of that political persuasion. If the political leanings of a course professor are known, then it is likely that individual students will alter their own political views to cater to the professor. To avoid the development of mass consensus—as students are unwittingly influenced into changing their views to match a professor’s political views and said professor fails to promote political neutrality—professors should not judge students’ opinions unless they are logically incoherent. Alisha cites a recent example of a professor dismissing her as “insensitive” for referring to the current Ukraine-Russia war as a “security issue.” According to the students, the ideal role of a PSIR professor would be to take a more neutral stance and present issues in nuanced ways to teach students how to analyze political issues and view the world through multiple perspectives. 

In the spirit of political diversity, I hope that the views of these students are taken into consideration, so that a more respectful and diverse learning environment in PSIR classrooms can come to fruition.