Posted on 02/19/2005 6:07:18 PM PST by Starve The Beast
Once again it falls to a lowly columnist to explain something that has apparently flown over the heads of almost everyone else in this university town. I am speaking of course of State Senate Bill 24, or, rather, what is being called the "Academic Bill of Rights."
The Academic Bill of Rights was first submitted to educators by David Horowitz, a noted author and conservative political advocate who wrote the proposal, and only when it was stonewalled by universities did Horowitz submit it to legislatures. The bill was introduced to ensure the freedom of ideas and expression in a profession where the overwhelming majority of professors are liberals.
Over the past week or so several articles have been written decrying that the bill will limit free speech in the classroom and seriously hamper students' abilities to learn from a variety of viewpoints. However, the actual intention of the bill is to guarantee these very freedoms, not take them away. The proposal of the bill that I am referring to can be found here.
The very first section of the proposal states that "The institution shall provide its students with a learning environment in which the students have access to a broad range of serious scholarly opinion pertaining to the subjects they study." Isn't that what we are all after as students and faculty? This can't possibly be what people are objecting to.
In section B, the bill states "Students shall be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study and shall not be discriminated against on the basis of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs." Wow, this sounds great to me. God forbid that as students we shouldn't be guaranteed fair and equal treatment. Section B continues on: "Faculty and instructors shall not use their courses or their positions for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or antireligious indoctrination." Is this where the opposition comes from? I'm confused.
Section D of the proposal answers the charge that the bill will limit free speech. "University administrators, student government organizations, and institutional policies, rules, or procedures shall not infringe the freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of conscience of students and student organizations." How could anyone seriously charge that this bill will limit free speech when it sets out to guarantee it in the first place?
The proposal also seeks to ensure the proper treatment of faculty as well as students: "Faculty and instructors shall be hired, fired, promoted, and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in their field of expertise and shall not be hired, fired, promoted, granted tenure, or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs." Now why would faculty oppose this bill except for the fact that they want to be able to talk about topics irrelevant to the class topic?
I know I am not the only one who has sat through a class irrelevant to contemporary politics only to hear how we are screwing things up in Iraq, or how the teacher is fed up with George Bush or, rather, the government in general. I have had to hear how Israel is really the oppressor and the Palestinians are fighting for a just cause in classes unrelated to Middle East politics. I have had teachers tell me that they disagreed with our presence in Iraq but wished me luck as I was deployed.
Should teachers spend class time talking about their personal opinions on things other than those which relate to class material? How at all do these discussions help students learn other than affirming the view that universities are stomping grounds for liberals?
State Senate Bill 24 was proposed to ensure what students pay for: an education -not indoctrination -and should pass in order to do so.
Horowitz notes in an article entitled "A Campaign of Lies" that "Anyone who thought the Academic Bill of Rights might give too much power to legislatures could show their good faith by recommending that universities rather than legislatures adopt the bill. But none of its opponents has."
After reading the bill proposal it seems that anyone with some common sense would realize that the bill seeks to guarantee freedom of speech rather than restrict it. Apparently the comedian Bernie Mack was right when he remarked that the thing about common sense is that it isn't all that common.
bump
May the reformation begin!
So, the Ohio schoolkids are smarter than Barbara Boxer?
Sounds good to me as long as it exempts religious institutions who I believe have a right to fire instructors who change their beliefs after being hired.
My shoe is smarter than Barbara Boxer.
Diva's Husband
Perhaps not "smarter" than Barbara Boxer, but certainly with more common sense. But Boxer, like most liberals, is "common sense challenged."
I'd rather not have laws enacted on this issue. Far better to let the free market work. Provide a forum -- the internet is perfect for this -- where students or others with firsthand experience can point fingers and name names. Parents of students and alumnists ultimately hold all the cards. When the money stops flowing in, things will change in a hurry. U of CO is learning this lesson the hard way.
"David Horowitz daily walks into the nastiest liberal lion's den in this country, the American Academy. That guy needs a Presidential Medal of Freedom more than anyone else I can think of."
David Horowitz is one of my few mortal heros, and one of America's truly brave-citizen heros.
Good point, but I can't help thinking that even under those circumstances, a professor who still taught the material in a competent, appropriate manner would still be OK. After all, you can believe whatever you want to... you just shouldn't be allowed to shove it down your students' throats.
Academic Freedom is only for liberal professors who hate America. Students who think they are full of crap need to be jailed and/or expelled. We can't have our institutions of higher learning corrupted with positive ideas about America.
Heck yeah. It's not the bill's actual facts that matter: it's what misleading soundbites can be twisted out of it.
Translation : "different viewpoints than ours may be expressed and we'll lose our lock on hearts and minds!"
It's a sad commentary on how far into fascism the left has fallen that actual legislation must be introduced to allow freedom of speech in an area that was once considered the bastion of free speech even before there was a United States to guarantee free speech in writing.
It's ironic that the man fighting the left to allow freedom of speech was formerly one of their own. It's also a good thing for everyone and especially the far left. Who better than one of their own to point out and attempt to correct it?
I'm sympathetic to your point - allowing the free market to decide these things is virtually always the best option - but I'm afraid this case may be different. A tight enough monopoly can take decades for the free market to crack, and I question the wisdom of allowing America's higher education system to stay screwed up for that long.
Also, remember that these institutions get a ton of money from state and federal govenrnments, and legislatures are (supposed to be) in charge of how our taxes get spent.
"My shoe is smarter than Barbara Boxer."
And I'm sure it has more sole.
Well, of course in this scenario no one would know you changed your beliefs unless you told them. And if you tell them then by default you would be expressing an opinion not held by the institution. And if you decide to go against what the institution upholds then I think they have a right to fire you. Again, to those just reading we are speaking of religious institutions.
Barabara Boxer is not "smart" - she is a leftist puppet reflexively orating the prescripted "liberal" dogma.
"Smart" people think and mitigate their thoughts in the old fashioned Socratic way. Boxer's extremist viewpoint isn't smart - it's extremism. She's an indoctrinated fool committed to a pro-neoMarxist orthodoxy. It is obvious how rigidly set her reflexive thinking process is.
By contrast, Hillary Clinton is the Hydra with a myriad of duplicities with which to deceive and to conquer.
Boxer is too obvious of a willing fool cloned in some Pavlovian lab. But, Hillary Clinton is self-entitling, ruthlessly ambitious and politically pragmatic. For expediency she will betray any ideology or any commitment to fulfill her powerlust. Boxer is just a low pitch bitch, but Hillary is the prime demagogue. Both are easy studies.
Is it true David and Ann Coulter are dating?
"Is it true David and Ann Coulter are dating?"
The significance of which is...?
Lighten up!
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.