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.
I guess this is the beginning of the end for "Religious Studies" programs.
I wish this had happened before I graduated AND in Florida too.
I'll sign the petition if you start it. :-)
"Lighten up!"
I never take orders from anyone. Speaking of dating,
"Prince Charles first met Camilla at a polo match in the early '70s when he mistakenly tried to mount her." -Leno
My boxer shorts are smarter than Barbara Boxer.
Thanks for the informative post!
"...the meantime, before shipping your teenagers off to college, have them read Eric Hoffer's THE TRUE BELIEVER. If your teenager reads this brilliant book, you're much less likely to welcome home a Marxist or Moonie at semester's end...If your conservative teen is frustrated by the Marxism and courageous enough to speak out, there is hilarious and devestating intellectual ammunition to be found in Paul Johnson's book INTELLECTUALS.
Also, Ben Shapiro's BRAINWASHED (ref: Town Hall net site.)
This is a great website; today is my first encounter.
I believe this bill, S.B. No. 24, is a great piece of work that makes logical sense and addresses issues of vital importance to all Americans. It has to be extremely difficult for highly-educated professors to hold their opinions and teach without any expression of those opinions. But, if unable to bite one’s tongue, opposing viewpoints must be presented.
I’m in complete agreement that this is not a legislative issue. It’s best for the people to demand proper education because it is they who are paying for it, one way or another. All schools should be subject to the people they are serving and the people can bring about change without legislation. It isn’t that legislatures can’t get things right, it’s just a temptation that should be avoided, in my humble opinion. Who will decide what is acceptable and what is not in curriculum presentation, the courts?
Wouldn’t it be more effective and logical for students, parents, and citizens in general to cause changes at their educational institutions? Besides, getting together with fellow citizens, community leaders, local media outlets, etc to draft, present, and promote demands to educational institutions for balanced education and being active in bringing about such changes is truly American. I’d certainly march in the streets if it came to it for such an important issue.
Please forgive my verbosity.
Welcome aboard!!! You're going to enjoy the intellectual stimulation, the expertise of folks in all lines of work and the assurance that there are many, many people who think like you do (as well as many who don't and give convincing reasons why).
Youw eren't verbose. You presented your thoughts well and I agree with them. Perhaps this bill is not so much intended to become a law as it is intended to raise awareness of the issue and urge those who do hold the purse strings that they can and should demand accountability.
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.