Ohio Mulls Academic "Bill of Rights"



I acknowledge that the ratio of liberals-to-conservatives in academia is higher than that in the general public (just as, for example, the ratio is lower in the military and law enforcement.) I also acknowledge that there have been abuses of academic freedom. (I am no fan of "speech codes," for example.) But I am not convinced that setting the government as a watchdog is a good idea.

Who decides which concepts are "opinion" or "fact"? (I have a vision of debates about evolution suddenly bursting out in biology departments.) Who decides what material is "controversial" and "unrelated to the course"? I'd prefer that abuses of free inquiry be dealt with swiftly and strongly within the academic world itself.

To be debated: Is an Academic Bill of Rights of this kind a good idea?

I have a problem with this. I mean, I can see where the impetus comes from. For example, there is a distinct bias toward Hayekian models in most economics departments. Pull out some Belo, Korten, Krugman, or even some Steigleitz, and you will most likely be shot down. But economics is all about theories.

What about history? It is a fact that the US has invaded more countries than any other nation. It is a fact that we spend more on our military than most other nations combined. It is a fact that we killed over 1 million people in Southeast Asia. It is a fact that we are the only nation to use nuclear weapons. I get the feeling from reading about this so called Bill of Rights, that were I to teach these facts, people might see it as pressing a liberal agenda. So what would "balancing" out the subject entail? Omitting facts? Teaching some whitewashed version of history?

In many cases, the problem is not separating the opinions from the facts; the problem is some people are uncomfortable with certain facts. On all sides of the political spectrum. When it comes to American history, I think many conservatives don't like the facts about the negative aspects of our story. And that's why ideas like this bill scare me. Instead of promoting a diversity of ideas, it might easily lead to stifling unpleasant or provocative facts.

With all the hoopla about liberal bias in the universities, I wonder if those raising this issue ever stop to really ponder it. Isn't it possible that hearing the facts makes people more liberal, rather than liberally biased professors mold young adults into being liberal? It's not that I'm saying this is necessarily correct; just that I don't think most people who complain about this sort of thing stop to even ask that question.

I'm all for presenting the facts and letting young adults come to their own conclusions. I just want to make sure those facts get out there, regardless of whether or not they support someone's political ideology.

There is a real problem here. This is an issue that needs to be looked at and more professors should keep their politics out of the classroom. There is need for reform here, but the goal of any law should be scrutinized carefully so that it maintains academic freedom for academic faculty.

If the left has been indoctrinating the right for the past 40 years it has been doing an extremely poor job of it.


I am not a Horowitz supporter but this is an ideal I can easily support.


Until I read something like this



This truly frightens me. Its state money so professors should send students out in the world to vote for the party in power? The whole concept of indoctrination is a little silly. If parents in Ohio or other places are concerned that colleges are turning their early 20-something children against them, I suspect we also better study the public schools. As students enter their teens, there are widespread reports of rebelliousness and disrespect among "kids these days."

Universities don't send graduates out in the world to vote a certain way. However college students should feel that they can test out their ideas and philosophies in a university classroom without having to face reprisal in the way of grades and lost opportunities. I believe their are already mechanisms in place on universities to complain about such behavior.

There is something valid here, but let's not support bills that point at something valid and actually do something else.

Academic freedom is important for our scholars. Yet those podiums should not be used to spout out unrelated political agendas and social commentary. I've seen it before, and professors to abuse this ethical rule. (What ethical rule doesn't get abused today?) I remember being a grad assistant in a department where a professor claimed support or commiseration with the Oklahoma City bombing.

Yet had a formal complaint been filed against him, I bet back then disciplinary action would have been taken.

I would think that this type of thing would be better handled at the university adminstration level. And I suspect this is a law to try to score political points and beat liberal academia like a pinata.

This sort of Academic Bill of Rights is clearly created to attack the liberals, not to end indoctrination. If it's intent were to end indoctrination, then it would impose the same regulations on churches.

However, there is really no distinction between indoctrination and free speech. Any form of speech can be labeled as indoctrination. Church preachings, classroom discussions, even chats in a restaurant. If this "bill of rights" is passed, "indoctrinator!" will replace "witch!" in the next witch-hunts.

Yes, one of the books my son is compelled to read this semester is " Nickle and Dimed" an anti-corporate rag. If this was a political science class it would be OK. It isn't, it is English 101. It seems like Twain, Dostoevsky or heck, if you want to indoctrinate in English 101, Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath would have both literary and indoctrinary value. I mean in my English classes we were exposed to great literature.

Majored in Economics. It may have changed since I was a student but to label neo-classical economics as Hayekian is completely wrong. The gold standard anti federal reserve theories of Hayek were pretty much ignored. My education consisted primarily of a mixture of neo-classical, which included a bit of the Chicago school, and the liberal theories of Keynes. No, they don't have time to study every economist with a crackpot theory.

Of course there was a definite liberal bias throughout the rest of the university. I had a drama teacher who was a communist. I remember writing a paper on "The Cherry Orchard" where I reflected his communist ideology (what a grade whore I was). Got an A, he read most of the paper in class.

Having said all that I think the government should leave the universities alone. Yes, universities have a liberal bias. Talk radio has a conservative one. I believe most people do leave a university with the power to observe and form their own ideas. Liberals indoctrination of students from grade K to an undergraduate degree starts wearing off once kids are exposed to the real world.

Here is a link to the bill.
S. B. No. 24

Much of it is worded well or in langauge that seems intended to be just.

If have minor concerns about a few sections.



Where would the burden of proof be here? But as long a appropriate knowledge is left in combination with reasoned answers then it probably wouldn't create unwelcomed loopholes for students receiving lower grades than they want.



America's debate would not be able to pass this test I don't think. The Universities will need to address issues such as hate speech. I don't think the hate speech issue is handled perfectly right now, but this seems a little too open-ended to me. An open environment should be maintained where possible but some people's freedom of conscience starts acting up when other's freedom of speech is working. I would hope that the balance between these freedoms as established in the Constitution of the country and Ohio would already protect Ohioans on a public university.

And how do private schools that are for a particular denomination or creed fit into this? Don't these schools tend to have discriminatory hiring and admitting policies in preference to those of the denomination of the school?



How is this to be determined? The term "serious scholarly viewpoint" to me is a vague and bothersome term.

And my final concerns about the bill is in the text below.



The first sentence sounds good, but don't foundations of knowledge need the ability to move forward by accepting generally accepted ideas and philosophies and keeping an open mind about changing that perspective at a later date?

Who is do define substantive disagreements? This to me would be like giving all candidates on the presidential ticket equal time during debates. It might lead to a system of advocacy for more discredited positions. Would a theology class have to present the theory of evolution when discussing origins of humanity? Would a biology class have to hand out origin stories from religions to teach evolution?

The references to research bother me too. I can do some research to validate any idea in the world. The research methods need to be sound and follow academic integrity by allowing for all possible results and highlighting possible contradictions that arise.

In our present system of advocacy we tend to find expert witnesses from one side or the other and set them opposed to each other in a courtroom or on Crossfire.

A major cause of this is bad research. Students and intellectuals pursuing bad research should not be rewarded but refuted.

So I would not support this particular bill but I agree that students need to be protected from idealogues with podiums. But I don't think all research and reasoned theories are equal. Some have major flaws and they are not equal. The question begins and ends with, who is to decide?

The student? parents? the professor? the department? the university? politicians?

Making legislation is a poor means to achieving the objectives. Courts and lawyers are a ridge system which will not have the flexibility needed. All of these objective can be reached via the marketplace. Students will select universities which champion the ideals. This bill is a can of worms which is more likely to create problems than solve any.

Is an Academic Bill of Rights of this kind a good idea?

To me this idea is just plain ridiculous. I understand the idea behind it and that there should be an environment of equality (regarding personal philosophies or political ideas) in the classroom, but I think the criterion for chastising a professor might be too subjective. Looking at quarkhead's example:



it's obvious that one could see this as a "liberal agenda."

Also, I have a problem with this statement:



This is incredibly ignorant. What 18 year old has no ideological leanings? Whether or not those leanings are well founded doesn't matter, the fact is that by the time people are 18 they have views and opinions about what should be done (and in most cases think they're right 100% of the time, I know I did). Also, this bill treats legal adults like children. How long do we have to protect people from ideologies before they can make decisions for themselves? If Mr. Mumper thinks that an 18 yr. old can't look at an argument and make an informed decision, then I would feel quite insulted if I were 18.

Another point I'd like to make is that most (and as far as I can remember, all) of my professors have kept their political ideologies out of the classroom, or if they do interject something it is only for the sake of continuing the discussion, not endorsing their point of view. In fact I know that most state explicitly at the beginning of the semester that they will try to keep their personal ideologies out of the classroom. The professor and teaching assistants are more moderators of discussion, and clarify class material in the discussion from my experience

I don't like this statement either:



They might? She doesn't say they have, she says they might, which means she doesn't know if they will. She sounds like she's just scared to offer her opinion because she's part of the minority. She sounds like she's scared of having to defend her ideas. I'll admit that it is hard, and can be scarry when you're the only one with a certain view point, but this sounds more like a personal problem for her than anything else.

The bottom line is, if one attends a college or university where there is a stifling atmosphere for discussion, then that institution is below average. Another point is: if conservatives are so worried about this "liberal majority" in academia, why don't more of them go into teaching, that might help balance out what I see as a small problem. Also, it's not that college professors are espousing so much "liberal propaganda", it's that the whole college environment is very liberal. Young people are usually more liberal than older people(GVU Political Affiliation Survey).



Again, another ignorant statement. Does he not understand that first of all, the majority changes over the coarse of time, and secondly that this "majority" is about 52%? Now that there is a majority, all institutions much change to protect that I suppose. How else is the conservative party going to keep its "mandate"? Ridiculous.

Is an Academic Bill of Rights of this kind a good idea?

It’s going to take me a while to directly address this question, so be patient while I preface my answer with some background.

I started as a freshman at Texas Christian University (TCU) in 1961 finished my last degree in 1970 at what is now the University of North Texas and my last post-master’s course work at the University of Wisconsin Stout in 1984. In all I attended six universities--TCU, Arlington State College, now the University of Texas at Arlington, North Texas State University, now the University of North Texas (UNT), Texas Woman’s University (they accepte men in the graduate division), Lamar University in Beaumont ,Texas and finally UW Stout. I did extensive work in education, political science and history and a little early on in journalism and at the end in vocational rehab at UW Stout. In none of these schools or departments did I sense any attempt to brainwash me and those professors who did open discussion type classes did indeed encourage independent thinking.

Now let’s look a little closer at Horowitz himself. Horowitz was once a “leftist” leader and received a Masters degree from University of California Berkley when it was a supposed center of radicalism.



http://www.salon.com/col/bios/horo/default.html

So, Horowitz does a flip-flop and has become what Reason Online calls a



http://www.reason.com/links/links091703.shtml

The switch isn’t necessarily unique. David Brock a one time self-described right-winger attacked Anita Hill in 1994 in The Real Anita Hill which he denounced in 2003 in Blinded by the Right. He continued as a liberal in his 2004 book called the Republican Noise Machine. As is often the casw with political as well as religious converts, nothing is quite so demonic as what they left and nothing quite so wonderful as what they have become.

In a recent interview on Scarborough Country Horowitz had this to say:



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7030833/

Could Horowitz’s words be more of an attempt to outrun the devils of his past than an honest appraisal of what currently exists on college campuses? I think so. Although I haven’t been a student in twenty years, Devils Advocate’s post # 4 on this duplicate thread parallels my experience on six different campuses over a span of 23 years.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...=0&#entry142708

So, now to answer Victoria’s question directly. I do not think Horowitz’s proposal is a good idea. In fact, I see this as both a right-wing power grab and a right word catch phrase—something to be hammered as propaganda on shows like Scarborough Country and the Factor on FNC. Conservatives control the Presidency, both houses of Congress, a majority of state legislatures and governorships. If Bush gets two or three Supreme Court nominations in the next four years, then my guess is that the phrase judicial activism will wander off into oblivion, while the right attempts to gain control of the media through hammering red herrings like the ”liberal” or “elite” media and academic through nonsense like David Horowitz’s Academic Bill of Rights. In short I have no patience, resapect or sympathy for what I see as just another attempted conservative power grab.

Now to address your words hayleyanne. To refresh your memory I have quoted Devils Advocate’s words and your response. My rebuttal is below the quotes.






Hayleyanne you are the one who doesn’t have the whole picture. In addition to having an earned Ph.D.,--teaching, research and community service are three commonly used requirements for tenure. Collegiality is important, for the reasons given by the CLI Newsletter below. Collegiality does not preclude diversity anymore than it sets up some sort of “club” as you mention.



http://www.collegelegal.com/lccolleg.htm

I would suspect that what you suspect is dead wrong. It might be helpful to do a little research rather than base arguments on supposition. As you well know supposition doesn’t hold up in court nor in debate.

I’ll start with a little research I’ve done into requirements for a college professor gaining tenure at three universities. It’s more complicated than the conspiracy theory you have given us.

Potter College (Western Kentucky University)

http://www.wku.edu/Dept/Academic/AHSS/tenure1.htm

College of Education Texas Tech University

http://www.educ.ttu.edu/docs/facultyhandbook/appendix_A.htm

The University off West Alabama

http://academicaffairs.uwa.edu/pt/P&TCritCOB.htm

P.S. My apology to Victoria for stepping on her thread by starting another on the same general subject. I didn't realize there was already a thread on the topic.

Although I love Horowitz, the Academic Bill of Rights is a horrible idea! This is the collegiate version of the Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives, true conservatives that is.......are supposed to be self reliant and not run to government to 'level the playing field'.
Academia has been co-opted by liberals. Fine. After the turbulent 60's, liberals ran to Berkeley and conservatives ran to Wall Street. We wouldn't want a 'Brokerage Bill of Rights' if too many liberals found political bias in the people who handle our money would we?

If a conservative student is adept enough to spot bias in the classroom, then he or she is smart enough to play the game until grades are out, and can then be an activist for more diversity on campus. Dear god, don't let the government get involved in manufacturing a quota system for professors. They're harmless for the most part, and many self destruct on their own, much like the famed Mr. Churchill.