Posted on 08/29/2003 8:56:41 AM PDT by Sparta
In an article entitled The Problem With Americas 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 Horowitzs 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 Horowitzs 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, isnt it possible, if this becomes a full fledged law that it will expand to other markets? Isnt it foreseeable that one day well 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 didnt 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.
I don't think you read O.C. with clear eyes. Attending college will only give you the same "educational opportunity" as high school graduates of your parents' generation, because over 60% of people now attend college. You have to go college, because "everybody else" does. And since so many low-grades are attending and graduating, you need a graduate or professional degree. The fact that everybody is going to school both inflates tuition, and devalues degrees, relative to the previous generation.
It all started with federal involvement in higher ed with the G.I. Bill. A new inflationary cycle was set off in the 1960 with federal financial aid(ca. 1964), which was for racial reasons. Federal aid pumps millions of people into the system who don't have what it takes, and setting off the inflationary spiral.
So are you saying that I shouldn't go? What's your point? How is this relevant?
So are you saying that I shouldn't go? What's your point? How is this relevant?
Actually, I wasn't saying that, but you have succeeded at changing my mind. Anyone as unable to see past her own nose as you are, can neither benefit from, nor contribute to higher education.
Horowitz is empowering govt. to help conservatives? (Pray tell, what could we call this ministry?)
Gimme a break!
Conservatism is naturally antithetical to govt. solutions so caveat emptor when you choose a college. (Hopefully, parents will have done their job guiding their children up to that point.)
What did you do in school today, dear, is getting to be more and more of a loaded question!
OK, let's turn this question around and approach it in the manner you seem more inclined to. Why did you go to college? There are a number of negatives to a 4 year college term, as well as some positives. There are a number of social pressures normally involved that are myths - for example if you don't go to college you'll be flipping burgers or pumping gas the rest of your life. In fact, an easy and enjoyable read on the topic of wealth accumulation and some of the myths involved is The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy. Perhaps you've read it.
So, you decided to go to college, despite the economics that:
It's not that anyone thinks you shouldn't be in college for whatever reason you think, it's that the system of financing post-secondary education is out of whack and there are social, economic and political ways to fix it. Perhaps mrustow was trying to explore the social and economic aspects of "degree inflation" resulting from the ubiquitous college degree, the circular pressure on subsequent generations to get one, and the socialization of post-secondary education through entitlement grants and "student loans."
Ya think?
I'm afraid I agree with Horowitz, Cathryn. The status quo is so bad, his plan would improve it, I think. This could be especially effective in changing things in teachers colleges where it is most needed.
Public subsidies interfer with market forces. In many cases, what occurs is that a particular college able to charge X dollars raises its tuition to compensate for the public assistance with the student still paying X dollars but the state making up the difference. My cynical view is that the money is then used for administrative perks and faculty featherbedding.
That's not a blanket condemnation of the use of public money for higher (or any other kind) of education, but this is not an uncommon occurrance.
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.