Will vs. Greenblatt

Both authors, George Will and Stephen Greenblatt, give two different sides on one topic. Each stating their own opinions on how politics and ideology are affecting academic studies in literature and more closely related to us, Shakespear and The Tempest. Although, I found it very confusing to first read, then understand, and finally write what both articles were portraying. Very unsure that I understood them correctly, I got that George Will was against the Modern Language Association (MLA). At first it was confusing to figure out why, but I found that Will was actually against the MLA's reasoning for not accepting the nomination of Carol Iannone. Even though the MLA was "shocked.. that people suspect it of politcal motives" Will says right after that "the MLA is saturated with the ideology that politics permeates everything." So, apparantly Will is against having politics involved in literature and doesn't agree with the statement that "all literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political." And thinking that all literature is based off of assumptions that we personally have of class, race, and sex is oppressive. Will says "this ideology radically devalues authors.." which it does. This view on all literature gives no room nor the possibilty that art is free and can be its own pure thing. With this "ideology," since it keeps being repeated, the consequences are becoming more towards this social class type thing where "the result is collective amnesia and deculturation." So, by this point I have been pretty confused, so many words!! But on to Stephen Greenblatt, who is responding to George Will's article, says in response to Will's "nation's social cement" that "the art that matters, is not cement," but rather "mobile, complex, elusive, disturbing." If anything individualism should not be repressed but expressed. Literature is all a form of expression and should not be succumb to politicals views or based off of the views of the ones before us. Greenblatt's resolution would be "to kill our literary inheritance [by turning] it into a decorous liturgical celebration of the new world order." This way people, such as, the poets can have the ability to be free with whatever they wish to expression without having to be tied down to this "social cement."
Not fully conprehending both articles fully is limiting me in writing and choosing which side I personally agree with. From what I understood, I agree with Greenblatt's idea that art should not be tied down and allowed the opportunity to change and fluctuate. But I didn't fully agree with teachers continuously teaching the same thing over and over, thus the social heritage, without tossing in times for students to process things on their own. For instance, students should learn to interpret things on their own accord and come to their own conclusions, not always what is said in the textbooks and/or has been repeated by the teacher.