FRN Columnists'Corner - "Horowitz’s Academic Freedom: It Sounds Good, But . . ." by Cathryn Crawford

Free Republic Network ^ | 9-4-03 | Cathryn Crawford

[Bob J]

FRN Columnists' Corner

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

by Cathryn Crawford

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.

(c) 2003 Cathryn Crawford. All rights reserved.

Cathryn Crawford is a student at the University of Texas. She can be reached for questions and comments at feedback@washingtondispatch.com.

[Bob J]

Please address comments to the author.

[jokar]

This was posted last week.

[Bob J]

Yes, Cathryn posts her stuff as soon as she writes it. We were out of town last week so we didn't get the last couple days of FRNCC posts up on the Forum, but they were posted on the FRN website as well as at Townhall.com. We're catching up.

[jokar]

Is there some reason you didn't search for her then bump her column ?
Just asking, its a good column for a kid her age.

[Rabid Dog]

Big Bump for CC!!

[fly_so_free]

I agree with Cathryn's criticism of David Horowitz's solution. But his analysis of the problem is good.

I was thinking it might be solved with standardized testing of students for basic historical knowledge. Give guidelines as to what students must know. Then test them to see if they were taught the concepts.- Example:

America's political system is best described as:

a. A Democracy

b. A Representative Republic

c. bourgeoisie- run by Yankee Imperialist dogs

2.Founding Fathers refers to:

a. People who founded America

b. Men who set up the political system of America- i.e. The Constitution, Declaration of Independence exc..

c. Sexist , Racist, Homophobes who owned slaves and opressed everyone.

If many students in a given class pick the "c" answers , that would be a clear indication the "Proffessor/Instructor " is not teaching , but propagandizing.

Also, students should be allowed to evaluate the class annonymously (as is done in some college classes now).

A question could be included as to weather the students thought the class was "Fair and Balanced" or not. If a teacher gets too many "no" answers to that question then his/her class could be audited and they could be given a warning to present both sides and mostly keep their personal opinions out of the classroom.

I think something should be included as to how much freedom we have compared to other countries and how much better our standard of living is compared to other countries exc...I mean , if we don't teach our children to value what we have here in the great U.S.A, they will give it all up, without a fight. That would be tragic.

It would also be good to let the public know when a school is particularly biased. Perhaps a guide could be made letting parents know wich schools are most leftist and wich are closer to the middle. I can imagine that alot of parents don't want to empty their bank accounts to send "Suzy or Johhny " off to school, only to have them come home Christmas holiday, covered in tattoos and nose rings, spouting off about what an awful country America is and how "oppressed" they are.

If parents were better informed about what goes on in college and high school classrooms , they wouldn't keep supporting the radical leftists who hate our country.

[Sabertooth]

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."

Got a link? How does Horowitz propose that state legislatures amend Title IX, which is federal law?

On another note - does Horowitz really buy into the popular notion that the solution to all problems is a new law?

Depends on whether the new law is a protection an old, unenumerated right.

[fly_so_free]

Definately more Republican's should be "allowed" to speak at colleges. What David Horowitz has related about his experiences in speaking, or, trying to speak, on college campuses is awful.

All the shouting-down and harassment of Republicans is disgusting and should not be tolerated by anyone on the left or the right.

Everyone should be given a chance to express themselves without being interrupted/ heckled. I mean, if you hate what the person is saying-leave the room . Don't sit there and scream and yell so that no one else can hear him/her.

[Bob J]

CC prefers to post her stuff as soon as she writes them which is fine...they're hers. We (FRNCC) can't always get articles up they day after we receive them as we try to keep 3-4 days ahead, but, we will repost them when they do got up on the FRN website and at Townhall.com.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[jokar]

Well then between the two of us, we managed to bump it 4 times. Have a great week. Thanks for all your hard work at FR.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Just asking, its a good column for a kid her age.

Thanks...I think.

[zacyak]

“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

This is not conservatism; Horowitz just wants to add political and religious affiliation to the quota system of race and sex. Further government intervention is never the answer, something neocons like Horowitz fail to understand.

[MinuteGal]

I have a relative that works for a big state university. The sheeples' fur would stand on end if they knew what communist/socialist/anti-American cells their taxes are supporting. Not only on the student campuses and in the professorial corps, but in the administrative and business offices as well. The fifth-columnists are in complete control. Any conservatives employed there keep their mouths shut and just do their jobs.

I''m generally an admirer of David Horowitz's work and ideas, but he's totally off-base in his proposed solution to this horrifying problem. His "cure" is worse than the disease.

Leni

[Verginius Rufus]

Agreed--Horowitz's cure would be worse than the disease. In any case it is totally unworkable. How does he ensure that there is a sufficient number of conservative applicants for the jobs that are advertised? People go to graduate school because they choose to, and not everyone has the ability or the stamina to make it through to receive the Ph.D. How do you get the right number of entering conservative graduate students, and prevent their minds from being messed up by liberal professors in graduate school?

On the other hand, graduate students and professors sometimes grow out of their liberal phase.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

“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"

This is not conservatism; Horowitz just wants to add political and religious affiliation to the quota system of race and sex.

Never mind figuring out what abuses are causing the objectional result, and ameliorating the causes--THAT would be conservative!

Why do that when we can just "solve the problem" with more regulations. Something isn't right--so let's pass a law against it.

Works every time perfectly on paper and hardly at all in the real world.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

What is the problem?

An establishment, not of religion, but of political orthodoxy.

What are the causes of the problem?

Government schools.
Government (FCC) journalism.

What are the possible solutions to the problem?

Disestablish education at all levels.
Disestablish "mainstream" journalism.

What solution do you recommend?

[Reactionary]

"How does he ensure that there is a sufficient number of conservative applicants for the jobs that are advertised?"

Name one institution in America that is allowed to discriminate in the way that universities do.

Let's face it: Liberals at our universities get a pass on rampant discrimination because no one has filled a billion dollar class action lawsuit against them. Yet.

[Cacique]

btt

[WaterDragon]

Catherine....here's what you say Horowitz advocates...

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.

That is not true...here's what the Academic Bill of Rights says....

No faculty shall be hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of his or her political or religious beliefs.

You also say....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…”

But there is political bias in the hiring process, and that is wrong, and such politicization of the hiring process should be investigated. Horowitz says nothing about inquiring into the political views of candidates for teaching or tenure, as you suggest.

Far from demanding affirmative action for conservative professors, Horowitz is demanding an end to all academic hiring based on political views.