Minnesota bill seeks to prevent public-college teachers from pushing ideologies

A national movement that supporters say protects college students from indoctrination by college professors but opponents say stifles debate made its way to Minnesota on Wednesday when two legislators proposed legislation that they call the "Academic Bill of Rights."

Sen. Michele Bachmann, R-Stillwater, and Rep. Ray Vandeveer, R-Forest Lake, said their bill would require the state's publicly funded colleges and universities to adopt policies that would mandate that professors not use their classrooms to promote their personal political or ideological beliefs. It also says that students would not be punished for disagreeing with their instructors' politics.

Lawmakers in 21 other states have introduced similar bills, part of a national movement spearheaded by Students for Academic Freedom, a Washington-based student network founded by conservative activist David Horowitz.

Horowitz spoke at the news conference, saying it was unprofessional for professors to impose their political ideologies on their students.

"You don't go into a doctor's office and expect to get a political lecture or see on his office door cartoons bashing John Kerry or bashing George Bush," he said.

Michael Livingston, president of the Minnesota Chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said he has heard the classroom horror stories anecdotally but believes they are rare occurrences at best.

"I find this very puzzling because it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist," Livingston said. "The purpose of college professors is to help students think. We help them by presenting divergent perspectives. Sometimes we believe those perspectives, but a lot of times we don't. We just need to present our students with perspectives so they can think them through and understand them."

A national movement that supporters say protects college students from indoctrination by college professors but opponents say stifles debate made its way to Minnesota on Wednesday when two legislators proposed legislation that they call the "Academic Bill of Rights."

Oh yeah, liberals are great at open, non antagonistic debate, especially when they're in a position of power over those whom they are debating. (NOT!) Besides, the Academic Bill of Rights is politically neutral, striving to ensure free expression of opinion for liberals just as much as conservatives (not that that's ever really been an issue).

Contrast this little item to Ward Churchill:

You may remember her from such movies as "A Low Down Dirty Shame" and "Woo." Call Jada Pinkett Smith's latest production "Heteronormative Hell." The Harvard Crimson reports the actress appeared on campus recently as part of the 20th annual Cultural Rhythms show, and what she had to say was quite inflammatory:

"Women, you can have it all--a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career," she said. "They say you gotta choose. Nah, nah, nah. We are a new generation of women. We got to set a new standard of rules around here. You can do whatever it is you want. All you have to do is want it."

"To my men, open your mind, open your eyes to new ideas. Be open," she added.

This didn't quite provoke fainting spells, like Larry Summers's recent remarks, but the Crimson reports that "some students were offended" and that "the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) and the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations have begun working together to increase sensitivity toward issues of sexuality at Harvard."

In case you're one of those backward types who don't understand why what Smith said is so horrible, the Crimson spells it out:

BGLTSA Co-Chair Jordan B. Woods '06 said that, while many BGLTSA members thought Pinkett Smith's speech was "motivational," some were insulted because they thought she narrowly defined the roles of men and women in relationships.

"Some of the content was extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable," he said.

Calling the comments heteronormative, according to Woods, means they implied that standard sexual relationships are only between males and females.

"Our position is that the comments weren't homophobic, but the content was specific to male-female relationships," Woods said.

Now first of all, maybe the BGLTSA guys (and gals, etc.) would feel more comfortable if they had a nice big soft chair instead of one made of "Woods." But seriously, we were glad we'd read about the Cambridge commotion, which sensitized us to the problem of heteronormativity.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006367

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.

Although Minnesota is not congress, and Article 1 of the Bill of Rights states "Congress shall make no law..." I'm certain there are enough lunatics in the Supreme Court to come up with some "creative" argument to shoot this thing down.