Posted on 12/25/2004 9:34:35 AM PST by NormsRevenge
Traditionally, clashes over academic freedom have pitted politicians or administrators against instructors who wanted to express their opinions and teach as they saw fit. But increasingly, it is students who are invoking academic freedom, claiming biased professors are violating their right to a classroom free from indoctrination.
For example, at the University of North Carolina, three incoming freshmen sued over a reading assignment they said offended their Christian beliefs.
In Colorado and Indiana, a national conservative group publicized student allegations of left-wing bias by professors. Faculty received hate mail and were pictured in mock "wanted" posters; at least one college said teacher received a death threat.
And at Columbia University in New York, a documentary film alleging that teachers intimidate students who support Israel drew the attention of administrators.
The three episodes differ in important ways, but all touch on an issue of growing prominence on college campuses.
In many ways, the trend echoes past campus conflicts - but turns them around. Once, it was liberal campus activists who cited the importance of "diversity" in pressing their agendas for curriculum change. Now, conservatives have adopted much of the same language in calling for a greater openness to their viewpoints.
Similarly, academic freedom guidelines have traditionally been cited to protect left-leaning students from punishment for disagreeing with teachers about such issues as American neutrality before World War II and U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Now, those same guidelines are being invoked by conservative students who support the war in Iraq.
To many professors, there's a new and deeply troubling aspect to this latest chapter in the debate over academic freedom: students trying to dictate what they don't want to be taught.
"Even the most contentious or disaffected of students in the '60s or early '70s never really pressed this kind of issue," said Robert O'Neil, former president of the University of Virginia and now director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression.
Those behind the trend call it an antidote to the overwhelming liberal dominance of university faculties. But many educators, while agreeing students should never feel bullied, worry that they just want to avoid exposure to ideas that challenge their core beliefs - an essential part of education.
Some also fear teachers will shy away from sensitive topics, or fend off criticism by "balancing" their syllabuses with opposing viewpoints, even if they represent inferior scholarship.
"Faculty retrench. They are less willing to discuss contemporary problems and I think everyone loses out," said Joe Losco, a professor of political science at Ball State University in Indiana who has supported two colleagues targeted for alleged bias. "It puts a chill in the air."
Conservatives say a chill is in order.
A recent study by Santa Clara University researcher Daniel Klein estimated that among social science and humanities faculty members nationwide, Democrats outnumber Republicans by at least seven to one; in some fields it's as high as 30 to one. And in the last election, the two employers whose workers contributed the most to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign were the University of California system and Harvard University.
Many teachers insist personal politics don't affect teaching. But in a recent survey of students at 50 top schools by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a group that has argued there is too little intellectual diversity on campuses, 49 percent reported at least some professors frequently commented on politics in class even if it was outside the subject matter.
Thirty-one percent said they felt there were some courses in which they needed to agree with a professor's political or social views to get a good grade.
Leading the movement is the group Students for Academic Freedom, with chapters on 135 campuses and close ties to David Horowitz, a one-time liberal campus activist turned conservative commentator. The group posts student complaints on its Web site about alleged episodes of grading bias and unbalanced, anti-American propaganda by professors - often in classes, such as literature, in which it's off-topic.
Instructors "need to make students aware of the spectrum of scholarly opinion," Horowitz said. "You can't get a good education if you're only getting half the story."
Conservatives claim they are discouraged from expressing their views in class, and are even blackballed from graduate school slots and jobs.
"I feel like (faculty) are so disconnected from students that they do these things and they can just get away with them," said Kris Wampler, who recently publicly identified himself as one of the students who sued the University of North Carolina. Now a junior, he objected when all incoming students were assigned to read a book about the Quran before they got to campus.
"A lot of students feel like they're being discriminated against," he said.
So far, his and other efforts are having mixed results. At UNC, the students lost their legal case, but the university no longer uses the word "required" in describing the reading program for incoming students (the plaintiffs' main objection).
In Colorado, conservatives withdrew a legislative proposal for an "academic bill of rights" backed by Horowitz, but only after state universities agreed to adopt its principles.
At Ball State, the school's provost sided with Professor George Wolfe after a student published complaints about Wolfe's peace studies course, but the episode has attracted local attention. Horowitz and backers of the academic bill of rights plan to introduce it in the Indiana legislature - as well as in up to 20 other states.
At Columbia, anguished debate followed the screening of a film by an advocacy group called The David Project that alleges some faculty violate students' rights by using the classroom as a platform for anti-Israeli political propaganda (one Israeli student claims a professor taunted him by asking, "How many Palestinians did you kill?"). Administrators responded this month by setting up a new committee to investigate students complaints.
In the wider debate, both sides cite the guidelines on academic freedom first set out in 1915 by the American Association of University Professors.
The objecting students emphasize the portion calling on teachers to "set forth justly ... the divergent opinions of other investigators." But many teachers note the guidelines also say instructors need not "hide (their) own opinions under a mountain of equivocal verbiage," and that their job is teaching students "to think for themselves."
Horowitz believes the AAUP, which opposes his bill of rights, and liberals in general are now the establishment and have abandoned their commitment to real diversity and student rights.
But critics say Horowitz is pushing a political agenda, not an academic one.
"It's often phrased in the language of academic freedom. That's what's so strange about it," said Ellen Schrecker, a Yeshiva University historian who has written about academic freedom during the McCarthy area. "What they're saying is, 'We want people to reflect our point of view.'"
Horowitz's critics also insist his campaign is getting more attention than it deserves, riling conservative bloggers but attracting little alarm from most students. They insist even most liberal professors give fair grades to conservative students who work hard and support their arguments.
Often, the facts of particular cases are disputed. At Ball State, senior Brett Mock published a detailed account accusing Wolfe of anti-Americanism in a peace studies class and of refusing to tolerate the view that the U.S. invasion of Iraq might have been justified. In a telephone interview, Wolfe vigorously disputed Mock's allegations. He provided copies of a letter of support from other students in the class, and from the provost saying she had found nothing wrong with the course.
Horowitz, who has also criticized Ball State's program, had little sympathy when asked if Wolfe deserved to get hate e-mails from strangers.
"These people are such sissies," he said. "I get hate mail every single day. What can I do about it? It's called the Internet."
LoL... Thats a bit radical, and damned mean....
I like it...
If they really believed that, they would also challenge their liberal students. LOL!
"It's often phrased in the language of academic freedom. That's what's so strange about it," said Ellen Schrecker, a Yeshiva University historian who has written about academic freedom during the McCarthy area. "What they're saying is, 'We want people to reflect our point of view.'"
The liberals have been doing that for years
what comes around goes around
You mean you took what I wrote as nastiness? (!!) Try reading DU some time for actual nastiness towards dissenters. :-)
If you re-read my posting a little more carefully, you will see that I said you reminded me of the ACLU types, and went on a diatribe against them. My issue is with those who attack religion and then claim to be "tolerant".
And since one of the bug-a-bears of that group seems to be the "separation of Church and State" I included the hint about Jefferson.
It wasn't your post alone that led me to this conclusion, but looking at your "About" page, which seemed to be somewhat inflammatory and/or condescending to public religion in general and Christianity in particular. It was because of that, in conjunction with your earlier post about "do the rules only apply to Christians?" that I went on to contrast current behavior of Christians to the current behavior of (say, Sudanese Muslims) towards Christians; for what is worse, suing to keep from being stepped on, or going on a pillaging spree?
My point is, and remains that lawsuits to PREVENT a topic from being discussed is the anti-thesis to learning. No one has the 'right' to forbid a entire class from discussing a aspect of the class, simply because it offends his moral compass; my response is to either withdraw from the class, or actually take the time to read the material. The college courses do not require your belief, only your understanding.
In general, this is true; however, there is a line to be crossed, when a particular political bent or spin is de facto enforced (you can find examples from time to time on David Horowitz' website (www.frontpagemagazine.com); and Horowitz is (literally) an ex-60's radical, not a Christian, who finally came to his senses.
Since I did not take the time to examine the substance of the Christian students' suit mentioned at the top of the thread, I do not know whether they were trying--as you imply--to quash scientific inquiry, or whether (say) they were sick of getting traditional values mocked by a feminazi.
I do not have to agree with Renold's rules regarding electo-magnetics, I don't have to believe in them at all, but one must understand them. That is called learning. I can learn about Islam, without being a Muslum; much as you can learn about Christianity without understanding the basic precepts.
I hope this was inadvertent on your part. At first blush it seems like you are saying you must understand science in order to learn it, but you do not have to understand Christianity in order to learn it. (!!??)
To paraphrase C.S. Lews, do you know the significance of calling it "Mass" vs. calling it "Holy Communion", and can you state the difference between, say, Hooker's doctrine and Aquinas's, in any form that can hold water for more than five minutes?
In other words, one can actually learn theology, too, and not just blindly follow it, as you seem to imply.
You see, I attended and graduated from college. Judging from your spew of hate and sewage, you did not.
You see, I don't care whether you went to college. I don't judge a person's intrinsic worth by their educational level; even though I have an doctorate in molecular physics and you don't.
Hate is not inversely related to educational level, as public-service ads seem to imply; for a counter-example please read the work of some Feminist and Black Studies Professors. The proof is left as an exercise to the interested reader ;-)
What is it about opposing human slavery and rape that you consider "hate and sewage"? Or was it that I hit a nerve by my sarcasm in the last paragraph, that "open minded" types only seem to attack Christians in the US?
You must have "issues" of your own if you seek to play one-upmanship with your educational level just because you are subjected to sarcasm--or because apparent inconsistencies between your beliefs and practices are pointed out in an internet discussion. Ad hominem attacks are not a legitimate form of logical dispute. Apparently you are too angry at the moment to resort to more than condescension and non sequiturs...although I am legitimately glad to know that you have little use for the ACLU, we do have that in common!
Again, Merry Christmas!
(I take back the troll part, you lovable rascal, you!)
"You sound like one of these ACLU types who sues for the right of the Nazis to march in Skokie, on free-speech grounds, and then turns around to remove Christian plaques or displays which have been around for decades,..."
Exceptional response to that pinhead.
Ah, thank you for reminding me of the title. 'Twas many years ago I read it, hehehe.
I agree it was a good book. However, Voltaire's agenda in writing it was to refute the Christian dogma that all things work out for good, to those who love and trust in God.
Voltaire died an unbeliever, after a lifetime of trying to destroy religion. Reports stated that he was in despair on his deathbed, having seen a vision of hell to which he realized, too late, that's where he was headed. After his death, his home was converted into the home base of a missionary society. Serves him right!
From re-reading the entire article, it seems most of the students are sick of being force-fed a liberal worldview, and to at least pretend to endorse it, before being allowed to graduate.
I'd love to get your take on the recent columns of Dr. Mike S. Adams, within the University of North Carolina system, as published on www.townhall.com...
In particular, try this one:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/ma20041115.shtml
He is being sued for the same kind of grandstanding pronouncements the liberals have specialized in for years.
That seems more like a extra-curricular issue where someone is being sued for something outside of the classroom. And yes I do think its a waste of time and resources by a humorless and common sense deprived litigant. My sore spot is the idea that students will sue for being disturbed by reading material. The implictions of that are absolutley frightening. And It's actually very much based on a liberal impulse (Feeling good is more important then learning). I have an English Prof. friend who has been accused of sexism by oversensitive Allred-ites for completely innocuous remarks in class. All in the same pot. I wish more conservatives would go into the Humanities and provide the balance that's sorely needed instead of this sort of thing.
However what does one do when (as is too often in academia) you as a conservative are consigned to a combination of a Star Chamber and a Kafka-esque Trial, merely for questioning the orthodoxy, by those who then turn around and masturbate over their own "open-mindedness?"
The root problem as far as I can judge, is this:
Liberals typically abuse the system, including their position, to advance their cause. They then whine and scream about how they are the ones discriminated against.
This means (read some of David Horowitz' accounts on www.frontpagemagazine.com, or other Mike S. Adams columns) that conservatives typically don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting into academia, let alone forming a "loyal opposition" clique within humanities departments (or even, God forbid, women's studies) within foreseeable geologic time.
It it therefore necessary to "bring things to a head."
The 60's radicals did this by force; even if there are some who endorse this hypothetically (and I do not!!), such tactics would only be used by liberals as the perfect pretext to further suppress conservatives, and lend credence to their stereotype of conservatives as Einsatzgruppen. (WW II Eastern front reference...)
Hence the necessity of resorting to the courts, since all of the normal cultural institutions which would otherwise provide a check on liberalism, have likewise been co-opted.
And in addition, there is the delicious emotional aftertaste of besting the liberals with their own methods...
Of course, another approach is to eschew the liberals' institutions altogether, much as Rush Limbaugh led the formation of alternatives to the MSM (and Free Republic and the blogosphere extended the approach to the internet).
There, have I brought up enough buzz-word topics ? ;-)
Thank you for that.
I do enjoy a good spirited debate, and you exceeded my expectations. I have but a lowly BS in Electrical Engineering; was raised Luthern, but have been exposed to many differing Christian points of view. And yes, you certainly can study Christianity.
But as a doctorate in molecular physics, if some student filed a lawsuit against .... oh, crystaline structures in metals .... stating that "Only Allah can create perfection", and thus prevented your class from discussing this topic, this would be a travesty. Granted, this is an extreme case, but the point remains that the student is supposed to be challenged on things they assume as absolute truths.
I have no harp against Christians (pardon the pun), my case boils down to logic. By law, no one religion is entitled to a priviledged status. Thus, if some Christians file lawsuits willy-nilly about some class assignments, and these lawsuits are upheld; then every other religion also gets to dictate what is and is not permissable study material in our schools. That leads to chaos.
An observation of mine is that when a gov't treats people differently, based upon their religious beliefs; you will create civil unrest. Consider New York; we have Jews living next to Buddists, next to Muslims, next to Christians, next to Satanists and the athiests; all living in relative peace. Why? Because they all know that the laws apply equally to them all. This is not the case in the Middle East, this they enjoy the turmoil that is created; while we enjoy relative peace and prosperity.
There are threads elsewhere on Free Republic about problems some of the Muslim Student Associations are causing on (IIRC) University of California campuses--sorry I can't find the thread for you at the moment--advocated bigotry against Jews, and then hiding behind multi-culturalism.
I have yet to see hate-crimes charges being preferred against them.
But as a doctorate in molecular physics, if some student filed a lawsuit against .... oh, crystaline structures in metals .... stating that "Only Allah can create perfection", and thus prevented your class from discussing this topic, this would be a travesty.
I recall a story of a freshman physics exam where one of the students had written in answer to a question "God Only Knows!"--and the exam came back marked in red, "God PASSES. You fail."
Granted, this is an extreme case, but the point remains that the student is supposed to be challenged on things they assume as absolute truths.
Yeah, but no-one challenges the professors on their absolute truths--such as the alleged rampant homophobia and racism in Red States, and the absolute open-mindedness of liberals.
Try discussing abortion with a feminist, and you'll see what I mean. :-(
Liberals want to have any disagreement with them classified as a hate crime, but to get away with vile calumnies against conservatives--witness the late Abbie Hoffman's remark that "Jerry Falwell is a great guy, but he won't let me come in his mouth." Try addressing a remark like that about The Reverend Jesse Jackson in public! (They're both politically active Christians, you know...)
Please read some of my other posts on this thread--I think most of these lawsuits are not challenges to science but within the humanities; again, seek out Dr. Mike S. Adams on townhall.com or David Horowitz on www.frontpagemagazine.com for more examples; or even Rush Limbaugh on "Affirmative Action Bake Sales" and the response of the powers-that-be.
Living in a Glass House But Throwing Stones Response: you might want to invest in a better spellchecker. (Just as I type with atrocious grammar when I get excited...)
Why? Because they all know that the laws apply equally to them all. This is not the case in the Middle East, this they enjoy the turmoil that is created;
And this is why I suggest so much that those who attack Christians for their suppression of contraversial viewpoints, try to go to Abu Dhabi or whatever, and try half of their politically correct stunts over there, before whining over how they are maltreated. Or try posting conservative ideas on Democratic Underground ;-)
It brings to mind the declarations of spoiled Hollywood types that they are being "persecuted" when they get booed for PC speeches on stage. We paid to hear you sing, dang it! Just as I came to English class to hear about Shakespeare, not deconstruction of late 19-th century imperialism in relation to gender norms as considered in lesser minority mid-late Victorian left-handed cross-dressing...(ZZZZZZ!)
Merry Christmas, you lovable apostate you ;-)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1308460/posts?page=40
...oh, and Merry Christmas, you sun-worshipper, you.
I do get a chuckle out of the fact that I have yet to hear a Dixie Chicks song on the radio since thier little 'incident' during the start of hostilities.
There is little doubt that there is an extreme double-standard when it comes to universities and thier paranoia of anything resembling conservative debate. Christians are automatically labeled as closed minded; despite the willingness of Christians to listen and debate.
I do hope you and yours have had a great Christmas. It's time I joined my wife and head off ot bed. Merrry Christmas Mr. Smartypants.
Good post!
Too many of the rad/libs of the 60's are now tenured profs. Even in classes where analysis of situations are supposed to help students form their opinions, the profs are much too taken with their OWN opinions and like to try to flavor the "mush" with their own personal bias.
The vain hope of a previous poster that it should just all go away will not happen without some serious shoving to adjust the situation.
This order to read the Quran/Koran before coming to class is suggestive of trying to "understand" why the Muslims hate us, the way they think, etc. I am projecting here, but I have a senior in journalism at a GA Univ and the brainwashing is just unbelievable.
I give him books to read and try to counteract the baloney all I can.
Was in Las Vegas during the election and talked to several college students working at the resort. One admitted the LV Univ. campus was overrun with lib profs who didn't want to hear a conservaive thought and were openly canvassing for Kerry. A couple just spouted the lib anti-war theme--never any reason to go to war and they would not fight because there is NO justificatiion for war.
vaudine
I believe it was the Black Panthers at Yale, and Hillary and friends helped them shut down the school. They were protesting one of their own being tried for murder.
vaudine
Nice try, but this was no lawsuit over Evolution or Physics. The lawsuit in this case related to homosexual indoctrination of incoming freshman students. Perhaps you consider teaching anal sex and fisting right up there with the Magna Carta and Relativity.
Yep. I attended the relatively non-political Arizona State U. from 1968-1972, and even there the ROTC building was set on fire.
Revoke all tenured positions.
Where did you get this? The article says nothing of the sort.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.