Academic Bill of Rights Sweeps Georgia Senate, 41-5

David Horowitz is the founder of Students for Academic Freedom, a new national initiative dedicated to restoring academic diversity and educational values to America’s institutions of higher learning.

It's nice that he's found something worthwhile to do these days.

Yes thankgoodnees! This is great :-)

This is meaningless!! Why even waste the time??

"The resolution calls for colleges and universities to voluntarily end....."

Voluntary resolution...SO WHAT

My bad. You are right. I just skimmed through it.

I would say that it at least gives some welcome publicity.

(Besides splitting infinitives...;-)

Not a problem....I got burnt on a skim myself just the other day. It's hard to process so much info with so little time. Unfortunately, there are many writers out there that seem to want to take advantage of that.

You're correct, the large boards poking their eyes will keep academia from even reading that this happened.

Brown v Board of Education (II) called on Southern schools to desegregate "with all deliberate speed"... which they, predictably, set to their own Southern pace. That didn't keep Brown from being a landmark case that impacted the entire nation foreverafter.

SPOTREP - EDUCATION - ACADEMIC FREEDOM

Now let's see the State of Georgia try to enforce it.

Prediction........

This will eventually go to congress and the senate in the next two years. Bush will sign it and the ACLU will call it divisive and it will go to the supreme court.

Votes will be along party lines.

Brown vs Board of Edu. is in my opinion one of the worst things to happen to education in my 61 yrs. Along with theacher tenure and nogood frigging unions.

Brown vs Board of Edu. is in my opinion one of the worst things to happen to education in my 61 yrs.

Why?

Because when they started to integrate the schools they started the next year to dumb down the schools.They were to slow or to stupid to keep up and instead of bringing them up they started bringing every one down (teaching to the lowest common demononater). This is stll going on today in public schools. One other thing was affirmative action. Total BS in the education field.

Huh? I don't think they recycle bill numbers that quickly.

HR 318 IH

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 318

To amend title 23, United States Code, to require consideration under the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program of the extent to which a proposed project or program reduces sulfur or atmospheric carbon emissions, to make renewable fuel projects eligible under that program, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 8, 2003

Mr. SHIMKUS (for himself, Ms. MCCARTHY of Missouri, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. KIRK, and Mr. MANZULLO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To amend title 23, United States Code, to require consideration under the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program of the extent to which a proposed project or program reduces sulfur or atmospheric carbon emissions, to make renewable fuel projects eligible under that program, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Biofuels Air Quality Act'.

Oh, a concurrent resolution, not a bill that would actually do something like H.R.3311 [Affordability in Higher Education Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)]. Kingston's resolution follows:

Expressing the sense of the Congress that American colleges and universities should adopt an Academic Bill of Rights to secure the intellectual independence of faculty members and students... (Introduced in House)

HCON 318 IH

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. CON. RES. 318

Expressing the sense of the Congress that American colleges and universities should adopt an Academic Bill of Rights to secure the intellectual independence of faculty members and students and to protect the principle of intellectual diversity.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 30, 2003

Mr. KINGSTON (for himself, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. WICKER, Mr. ISTOOK, Mr. COX, Mr. PITTS, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. HERGER, Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. OSBORNE, and Mr. POMBO) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that American colleges and universities should adopt an Academic Bill of Rights to secure the intellectual independence of faculty members and students and to protect the principle of intellectual diversity.

Whereas the central purposes of a university are the pursuit of truth, the discovery of new knowledge through scholarship and research, the study and reasoned criticism of intellectual and cultural traditions, the teaching and general development of students to help them become creative individuals and productive citizens of a pluralistic democracy, and the transmission of knowledge and learning to a society at large;

Whereas free inquiry and free speech within the academic community are indispensable to the achievement of the central purposes of a university, the freedoms to teach and to learn depend upon the creation of appropriate conditions and opportunities on the campus as a whole as well as in the classrooms and lecture halls, and these purposes reflect the values of pluralism, diversity, opportunity, critical intelligence, openness, and fairness that are the cornerstones of American society;

Whereas academic freedom and intellectual diversity are values indispensable to an American university;

Whereas from its first formulation in the General Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure of the American Association of University Professors, the concept of academic freedom has been premised on the ideas that human knowledge is a never-ending pursuit of the truth, that there is no humanly accessible truth that is not in principle open to challenge, and that no party or intellectual faction has a monopoly on wisdom;

Whereas academic freedom is most likely to thrive in an environment of intellectual diversity that protects and fosters independence of thought and speech;

Whereas in the words of the general report, it is vital to protect `as the first condition of progress, [a] complete and unlimited freedom to pursue inquiry and publish its results';

Whereas free inquiry and its fruits are crucial to the democratic enterprise, and academic freedom is a national value;

Whereas in Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York, a historic 1967 decision, the Supreme Court overturned a New York State loyalty provision for teachers with these words: `Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, [a] transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned';

Whereas in Sweezy v. New Hampshire in 1957, the Supreme Court observed that the `essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities [was] almost self-evident';

Whereas academic freedom consists of protecting the intellectual independence of professors, researchers, and students in the pursuit of knowledge and the expression of ideas from interference by legislators or authorities within the institution itself, meaning that no political, ideological, or religious orthodoxy should be imposed on professors and researchers through the hiring, tenure, or termination process, nor through any other administrative means by the academic institution, nor should the legislature impose any such orthodoxy through its control of the university budget;

Whereas it has long been recognized that intellectual independence means the protection of students and faculty members from the imposition of any orthodoxy of a political, ideological, or religious nature;

Whereas the 1915 Declaration of Principles of the American Association of University Professors admonished faculty members to avoid `taking unfair advantage of the student's immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher's own opinions before the student has had an opportunity fairly to examine other opinions upon the matters in question, and before he has sufficient knowledge and ripeness of judgment to be entitled to form any definitive opinion of his own';

Whereas in 1967, the American Association of University Professors' Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students reinforced and amplified this injunction by affirming the inseparability of `the freedom to teach and freedom to learn'; and

Whereas in the words of the joint statement, `[s]tudents should be free to take reasoned exception to the data or views offered in any course of study and to reserve judgment about matters of opinion': Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That, to secure the intellectual independence of faculty members and students and to protect the principle of intellectual diversity--

(1) the Congress encourages all public and private colleges and universities in the United States to adopt an Academic Bill of Rights and to observe the following principles and procedures--

(A) all faculty members will be hired, fired, promoted, and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise and, in the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives;

(B) no faculty member will be hired, fired, or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of his or her political, ideological, or religious beliefs;

(C) no faculty member will be excluded from tenure, search, and hiring committees on the basis of his or her political, ideological, or religious beliefs;

(D) students will be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study, not on the basis of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs;

(E) curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences will respect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas and provide students with dissenting sources and viewpoints;

(F) while teachers are and should be free to pursue their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views, they should consider and make their students aware of other viewpoints;

(G) academic disciplines should welcome a diversity of approaches to unsettled questions;

(H) exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty members;

(I) faculty members will not use their courses or their positions for the purpose of political, ideological, religious, or antireligious indoctrination;

(J) selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speakers' programs, and other student activities will observe the principles of academic freedom and promote intellectual pluralism;

(K) because an environment conducive to the civil exchange of ideas is an essential component of a free university, the obstruction of invited campus speakers, the destruction of campus literature, and other efforts to obstruct this exchange will not be tolerated;

(L) academic institutions and professional societies should maintain a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements that divide researchers on questions within, or outside, their fields of inquiry, recognizing that--

(i) knowledge advances when individual scholars are left free to reach their own conclusions about which methods, facts, and theories have been validated by research; and

(ii) academic institutions and professional societies formed to advance knowledge within an area of research, maintain the integrity of the research process, and organize the professional lives of related researchers serve as indispensable venues within which scholars circulate research findings and debate their interpretation; and

(2) the Congress recognizes that the principles and procedures described in paragraph (1) fully apply only to public universities and to private universities that present themselves as bound by the canons of academic freedom; and

(3) it is the sense of the Congress that private institutions choosing to restrict academic freedom on the basis of creed have an obligation to be as explicit as is possible about the scope and nature of these restrictions.

I think it is a great start - can't wait for it to roll over to our side of the country.