Posted on 08/29/2003 8:56:41 AM PDT by Sparta
In an article entitled “The Problem With America’s Colleges and The Solution”, published on September 3, 2002, David Horowitz outlined the problems that he sees with college and university campuses across America. In a fairly detailed manner, he discussed the lack of diversity concerning political ideologies and viewpoints among faculty members. He correctly said that universities and colleges have an overload of generally liberal professors, and, quite often, only have one or two token conservatives, if that.
In the article, he went on to discuss his ideas for a solution to this problem. His ideas, which are condensed into an Academic Bill of Rights, focus on assuring that there will be an equal number of conservative and liberal professors on any given campus, public and private alike. In his list of solutions, he gives this as an action to take in ensuring academic freedom: “Conduct an inquiry into political bias in the hiring process for faculty and administrators…”
Horowitz is pushing for state legislatures to become involved in this so called Bill of Rights, and Colorado, Georgia, and Missouri are on the verge of doing so. To quote Horowitz’s article again: “By adding the categories of political and religious affiliation to Title IX and other existing legislation, the means are readily available…to redress an intolerable situation involving illegal and unconstitutional hiring methods along with teaching practices that are an abuse of academic freedom.”
I agree with Horowitz’s premise – that having less liberal campuses is ideal and necessary. However, I disagree with his way of doing it. His solution gives the government deep and powerful control of the leadership of colleges and universities. Imagine making it a law that the governments “investigate” the politics of every professor or administrator on every campus in America. Far from freedom, this is a system that would not only allow for the hiring and firing of professionals based on their political beliefs; it is also giving the government too much power and control.
On another note – does Horowitz really buy into the popular notion that the solution to all problems is a new law? This seems not only foolish, but scary. There is the precedent that this sets to consider. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, isn’t it possible, if this becomes a full fledged law that it will expand to other markets? Isn’t it foreseeable that one day we’ll have to check a little box on our job applications - Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Green Party - it would make for a long application.
Yet another question is - how could this be effectively implemented? Would it be limited to voting records, or would interviews be conducted? How far back would they go? How deep would they dig? What about professors who effectively covered up their ideology or simply didn’t want to discuss it? Would there be lie detector tests?
Who would decide whether or not a professor was “conservative” or “liberal” enough to teach a specific course? The government? The school? Would the level of ideology required change from department to department?
I thought that a professor was supposed to be a professor, not a political theorist. I thought David Horowitz wanted to take politics out of the classroom. Instead, however, this solution pushes it to the very forefront of everything that professors do. Instead of freeing the campuses from dirty politics, it makes dirty politics the name of the game from the moment a potential faculty member sets foot on a campus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cathryn Crawford is a student at the University of Texas. She can be reached for questions and comments at feedback@washingtondispatch.com.
For example, there used to be a measure to determine "blackness" based on geneological lineage. This was a bad thing because it was used to discriminate against you.
We now do the same thing, it's just we use it so we can discriminate in your favor and against someone else, for some reason this is now a good thing for the PC folks, I think it's just as immoral.
So, shall we have a test for conservativeness so we can decide how to discriminate? What really ticks me off is a Prof's ideology has no place in most classrooms - math, physics, computer science, any engineering curriculum, etc. It seldom came up in my experience, but when it did I was very quick to ask what a Prof's views had to do with learning how to integrate a curve, calculate signal flow in a circuit, or whatever.
It never came up again that I can remember. The problem is the liberal arts curriculums, where perception can't be proven or disproven as easily.
Another question that I didn't include due to length - what about a professor who is fiscally conservative, but socially liberal? Would that make him okay to teach economics, but not okay to teach history? Or vis-versa?
What a shame that you're not really free to speak your mind like that just yet. Don't be like me - Mr. Snappy Comeback's grades definitely took a small hit ;)
True, but in something like Con law or history, the professor may weave their own prejudices in as truth, and it becomes a problem.
I do try to curb the snappy comebacks, but it is tough. :-)
Avoid being snot-nosed but have no fear to rhetorically destroy a dunderhead prof who tries to indoctrinate everyone.
Back in the day, I even confronted a professor with his bias privately and told him that he was being really quite unprofessional by injecting his personal views into things. He didn't like me afterward but I got an A in the class.
I know one professor that was conservative was run out of UVA based on his beliefs. MSU hired him, and it's known to the lefties as a 'conservative school' because of this one man.
But Horowitz doesn't have much of a mind so it's no wonder he came up with such a tynrannical idea.
IMHO, Horowitz still hasn't shed many of ex-Marxist beliefs.
I think you're right. He's still got some of his old attitudes left. Particularly the continual whoring for free media. He's not really an effective conservative spokesman. His autobiography was pretty nice, though.
Turn it into a positive. You want to contribute without being confrontational. You want to put your ideas in front of the class without challenging the Professor's position at the lecturne. You're unlikely to change his mind, so winning isn't the point - contributing is. Being an intelligent, non-controversial conservative can actually get you bonus points with some Professors who appreciate academic/intellectual exchange - as long as he thinks he won (or at least tied) in front of the class.
I agree. I'd like to see absolutely no government involvement in education.
See, now that's clearly the mark of someone who has abandoned any pretense at objective scholarship. Agree with him or disagree with him if you like, but only dilettantes and fools can deny the intellect of Antonin Scalia. And I don't agree with Scalia on everything, but I can make a very good case that in terms of pure intellectual firepower, there is Scalia and Oliver Wendell Holmes in one camp, and everyone else in the other. And honest liberals who are serious students of the court cannot help but also admit that he is brilliant - as opposed to your professor, who is either a fool, a fraud, or not a serious scholar. Either way, that sort of attitude is the attitude of someone who does not belong in academia.
In seven years of teaching college, that attitude is all I saw.
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.