David Horowitz and his so called “Academic Bill of Rights" has crept into the Ward Churchill thread. This proposal has been around for a while. Without much looking, I found a link from 2003. The Churchill controversy seems to have brought Horowitz and his proposal front and center. This, however, is debate in itself.

Last night on Scarborough Country there was a debate between Horowitz and Roger Bowen, of the American Association of University Professors on the matter.



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

In an effort not to skew my own thread, I’m attaching links to two webpages. One of them operated by Horowitz himself and the other critical of the proposal.

Link to David Horowitz Front Page Magazine

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Content/read.asp?ID=5

Link to Reason a Source Critical of the Proposal

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

QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE

1. What is David Horowitz’s Academic Bill of Rights?

2. Is it a necessary or desirable step to take in academia?

3. What are the pros and cons of the proposal?

After reading the Academic Bill of Rights and the reasonable critique you provided...i have come to the conclusion that while the proposal may have its flaws...the reasoning and intent is sound. There is no doubt that the college campuses are "infected" (for the lack of a better word) with ideology and such. As a prospective college student... i find it disheartening to see that professors want to ingrain their OWN beliefs on me. I do not care if it is right-wing, left-wing or whatever...you go to school to learn...not be brainwashed.

If you haven't seen the documentary Brainwashing 101, then i suggest you check it out to see the extent of what is happening. My junior year AP English teacher was a vietnam vet, and well a Democrat. I had great respect for him. Politics would come up sometimes in the class and he always told us one thing..."I am not teaching you WHAT to think, but HOW to think." ---That is what professors should be doing. Like many of my teachers, he warned us about the bombardment of ideology and methods by some college professors to make us think their way.

As i said in the beginning, the idea is sound...allow for political and religious freedom on our college campuses. College is supposed to lead to intellectual diversity and is supposed to respect the beliefs of everyone. Obviously there IS a problem when so many complaints and conflicts are made public about professors and their students.

I do not think an Academic Bill of Rights is necessary at this time...i think some professors are reasonable enough to know what the right thing to do is. However, if things continue down the current road where people like Ward Churchill are allowed to teach our nation's future...then somethign will need to be done.

You can find the text of this 'academic bill of rights' at this link.

Not to detract from this debate, but there is another Academic Bill of Rights Thread.

With that said I'll be using some of my quotes from that debate on this thread.

1. What is David Horowitz’s Academic Bill of Rights?

As near as I can tell, Horowitz is a big advocate of equality, which is fine. The problem is, when it comes to academia I think he's missing a key point: teachers aren't hired on the basis of their views. This means that if there is a majority of liberal teachers in the college setting, there must be more liberals/democrats applying for jobs. Unless there's some huge conspiracy to keep the right out of teaching positions. My advice to angry republicans/conservatives would be to get some Ph. D.'s and go into teaching if they're really that worried about it. I'm sure if they show some of that hard work work and gumption they're always talking about, then they'll be able to pull themselves up by their proverbial bootstraps into some good academia positions.

2. Is it a necessary or desirable step to take in academia?

I personally don't think this is necessary. Yes, I agree more with the left's ideas more than the right's, but I don't find myself in class hearing about liberal ideas or the liberal agenda. What one has to remember is that a disproportionant number of people are liberal when they're younger and get more conservative when they age. Perhaps people that tout this proposal are more worried about the general atmosphere of liberal thinking, which is obvious and prevalent, but that's alright because everything presented goes back to that first amendment thing in the constitution. Everyone has, within limits, the ability to express their views in any number of ways at college. Join clubs, start clubs, bring in speakers; I remember when I was at Univ. of Colorado at Boulder they had Ann Coulter come speak, I didn't attend.

3. What are the pros and cons of the proposal?

Pros: More "diversity"
Cons: Giving preference to conservative teachers, meeting quotas.



Leder, I've attended two colleges (Univ. of Colorado at Boulder, Purdue) in my time as an undergrad., and am gonna go to at least one more (med school); and I have never, in either school, felt that any professor has tried to ingrain any of their own beliefs. Now, that's not to say there aren't professors out there who do, or try, but what you have to remember is that the professors are mainly there to do research and teach, not brainwash. Many times professors will add a disclaimer at the beginning of the semester that they will not inject their personal beliefs into the class room. Now talking to them one-on-one, or going to see them speak/reading their book(s) may be different. The professors know that their students come from different backgrounds and don't want to offend anyone, but they do want to push the limits of thinking, challenging students to think about their own ideas and whatnot. Also, the professors' raises are, in part, determined by student evaluations (at least here at Purdue they are, I can't remember how it worked at UCB, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was similar). This means that the professors would rather have an atmosphere conducive to learning instead of preaching/ranting about their political ideologies. Now it is always possible that something slips out, or the professor says something for the sake of the argument, but almost always they keep their ideas to themselves.



Could you please offer some examples? Or are you refereing to the Boulder guy and Harvard guy? I think if you compare the whole population of professors to the amount of complaints it would be a very small percentage of professors getting complaints.

From a previous thread:



Here's another quote from Mr. Mumper, showing his ignorance again:



Note: I just realized that I do have a professor that does let us know his political ideas, but when he does he always says it in jest (he likes to poke fun at the College Republicans). He NEVER says it in a way that could be construed as condescending (because everyone's always laughing), and if a student has a problem I'm sure he'd be sensitive to the concerns raised. So that's one professor out out of the 30 or so I've had at two opposites institutions (one liberal, one more conservative).

I think you are only considering half the picture. Professors may not be hired based on their political views. However, the hiring is not what is so crucial-- It is the grant of tenure. When a faculty votes to grant tenure, it is in part, a somewhat subjective decision. Ostensibly it is based on publications. However, I think a lot of other considerations come into play. It is kind of like when a law firm votes to make an associate a partner. Part of the decision is based on whether the person will fit in with the group. If academia is entrenched with Liberals, I would suspect that it is more difficult for a professor with publications that are conservative or worse, someone who is vocally very conservative, to be granted tenure. He/she just wouldn't fit with the "club".