Horowitz’s Academic Freedom: It Sounds Good, But . . .

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.

It is a violation of my rights (including my First Amendment rights) for the government to seize my property through force (i.e. taxation) and use it to teach and promote ideas and philosophies with which I disagree.

I agree. I'd like to see absolutely no government involvement in education.

BS.

If it weren't for scholarships, grants, and student loans, I would never have been able to afford to go to college. I work and go to school full time, and I still need the student loans to help me with my living expenses. For those of us whom our parents didn't contribute in any way to our college education, student loans are a literal lifesaver.

Shortsighted view. It is the scholarship system that cause the price inflations that has now put nearly EVERYONE in the position of needing a scholarship/loan to go to on to post-secondary schools. An aggravating factor is the economics of increased arrogance where everyone thinks they have to go to college (particularly a top 10 school in US News) that further drives up the tuitions.

There was a time, not too long ago, where you could go to the state school and work your way through with part-time work in the Fall/Spring and full-time in the Summer. And I'm not talking about the financial aid jobs the school offers.

You wrote, "I don't belive the solution to everything is to make a law; I don't want the government choosing my professors." Agree with the first but that doesn't mean the second is accurate. Actually, it is the responsibility of the state education system to pick teachers and have oversight ... for pre, elementary, and secondary schools. The power of the NEA has restricted the exercise of the taxpayers' representatives options to such a degree that lousy teachers stay on, filling space, slopping at the public trough, without doing what is required for a good educational system.

As to 'higher edumacation', private colleges and universities ought have the right to fashion their faculty politi, but those universities and college funded with taxpayer monies should be regulated to the max, to insure quality beyond politi and a predictable level of competence (excellence is the extra a student decides to put in) required to obtain a degree.. [With ideas like that, it's probably why I've never been on an education board. LOL And you basic rejection of David's 'hare'-brained idea is sound, CC.]

Are the loans discounted? Guaranteed? By whom? Where is the scholarship money coming from, private or public funding (most likely both even if is seems private because of the tax benefits)?

Posted: 11/1/1997 Student Loans and the High Cost of College

What is your opinion of government student loan programs? Aren’t they helpful to students who can’t afford the high costs of college?

According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, the federal government has been guaranteeing bank loans for college tuition since 1965. The default rate on those student loans is more than 15 percent, three and one-half times the rate of default on mortgages and nine times the rate of default on auto loans. In fiscal year 1994 alone, defaulted student loans cost American taxpayers $2.7 billion.

One of the effects of these billions in federal loans and grants for college aid has been to boost the price (tuition) of college, in much the same way that billions in federal expenditures for Medicaid and Medicare have boosted the costs of medical care. In that sense, by artificially boosting the demand and cost of college, the federal government's policy has actually worked against one of its intended purposes--to enable more of the poor to go to college.

There is at least one other way in which federal involvement has worked against the poor. To the extent that most Americans are aware of federal programs for college aid, they support private efforts less. In other words, government aid "crowds out" private aid. It also diverts scarce capital from otherwise going to where it would be more highly valued (as evidenced by the fact that government must subsidize the interest cost on student loans to get capital to go there). This crowding-out effect has been observed with many federal initiatives. For example, people take less care of their elderly parents these days because they assume the government will handle it.

In a free market, capital for student loans would have to compete with other uses to which capital can be put. A prospective college student would undoubtedly have to sign a contract to pay a student loan back at a competitive, market rate that also reflected the chances of default. If a student was not willing to pay a market rate to get someone (a bank, let's say) to lend him money for college, he might well seek assistance from friends, family, future employers, private college aid funds that would spring up to fill the gap, etc. Or, he might simply not get the loan.

In the case of a student not being able to afford a market-rate loan in a free market, some would say that outcome is harsh and uncaring. But that involves a dangerous value judgment. Since capital is scarce and valuable, it will be used in other ways, perhaps for someone to afford an automobile or to pay a doctor bill or to build a home. If someone wants to say categorically that using those funds for a student loan is better use of the money, I'm not sure how they would justify that other than through some emotional attachment to the "cause" of college loans.

Finally, those of us who believe in freedom and free markets recognize that there are a great many worthy causes out there, including sending worthy students to college. Many of us would do more ourselves to assist, if it weren't for the fact that after government at all levels takes its 41% of what we earn, there isn't much left to give. Nonetheless, we are working for a revival of a truly civil society, in which people accept responsibility for their own goals in life and, to the extent they can, give time and resources to help others less fortunate so they can reach their goals too. It just isn't true that the only people with compassion or the foresight to see the value of education are politicians spending other people's money. Have faith that a free and responsible people will take care of worthy things; there is little reason to believe that politicians and their bureaucracies care more, or solve problems better.

Let me suggest a couple other sources of information that may be helpful to you:

1. Citizens for a Sound Economy, 1250 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20005. Phone: (202) 783-3870. Ask for their "Issues and Answers No. 14," entitled, "Direct Student Loans: Putting Taxpayers at Risk."

2. Cato Institute, Washington, D.C. Phone: (202) 842-0200. Check out their web page at www.cato.org for possible information on this topic. I have reason to believe they have produced material on student loans because one of their scholars, Stephen Moore, authored an article in the April 10, 1996 Washington Times entitled, "Student Loan Boondoggle?"

3. National Center for Policy Analysis, Dallas, Texas. Check out its web page at www.public-policy.org/~ncpa

What, if anything, do you think the government should do to encourage education in this country?

Well, that's a great question, but I'd like to clarify, or perhaps qualify, my answer slightly.

I think government is doing more than encouraging education. Obviously I would be against a socialized "fully funded" post-secondary system, and I am opposed to emulating it with a sizeable subidized loan/grant system. I am not against government funding post-secondary education in programs where they benefit, i.e. ROTC scholarship programs, GI Bill, and the like. I am also not opposed to a limited, very competitive (and substantially means tested) scholarship grant program to send our brightest low/mid income kids.

So, what if you're bright, motivated, but unfunded? Cato proffers human capital contracts, where a student receives funding in exchange for a percentage of his or her income during a fixed period of time. I like this idea. I would also like to see high school students lobbying/interviewing businesses in their junior/senior year for either funded, or financial assistance, with a post-graduation contract for employment (including co-operative work/education programs).

My personal opinion is the post-secondary system is inflated in both cost and numbers. Getting smart secondary school graduates involved in both work/study earlier would be smart IMHO, and I also think it would to put more of the financial burden/liability on the student's employment. Currently it is either on the parent or future earnings.

Just a small answer to your excellent, albeit larger than I've addressed, question.

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.