It’s a sign of the conservative times that during the flap over the e-mails of University of Kansas religion professor Paul Mirecki, so little was said in defense of academic freedom. Instead, legislators’ talk has been of possibly calling hearings over the “hate speech” and docking KU’s funding. As the 2006 session proceeds, it will be interesting to see whether any push to curb liberal bias on Kansas campuses is met by a shove from the other side. Or will Kansas become one of the states in which lawmakers, urged on by commentator David Horowitz, pursue an “Academic Bill of Rights” aimed at officially chilling the expression of liberal views?
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
29 Comments
How is the Academic Bill of Rights chilling Liberal views?
Since I have not heard of this before (the ABoR) I decided to look into it.
Looks like they advocate the freedom of the expression of ideas. So I believe it is quite the opposite. Maybe the ABoR aim is the chill the monopolization of leftist views (if there is such a thing).
Although I don’t think Unversities are actually cess pools of leftist thoughts and expression. If that were the case, the USA would be a 3rd world country. There are plenty of freedom loving people who come out of the Universities to become producers of the means and productions and leaders of our great country. And that doesn’t come from the left and liberal members of our society.
With the ‘academic bill of rights’, reactionaries like Horowitz want to secure intellectual affirmative action for their views.
Funny how they’ll advocate for such mandatory set-asides when someone benefits other than black folks and other minorities.
Under the Academic Bill of Rights, “all knowledge would be reduced to opinion, and education would be rendered superfluous”. The Academic Bill of Rights seeks to transfer responsibility for the evaluation of student competence to college and university administrators or to the courts, apparently on the premise that faculty ought to be stripped of the authority to make such evaluative judgments. The bill justifies this premise by reference to “the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge”. The Academic Bill of Rights also reduces all knowledge to uncertain and unsettled opinion, which proclaims that all opinions are equally valid, negating an essential function of university education.(ref AAUP)
I think I know what it means, but of course it could be my opinion. And being my opinion opens it up to not being knowing. Therefore I know that it is an opinion and open to it not being Knowing. I therefore wait to express my opinion until someone else has stated that they know it is my opinion and then I will know if it is my opinion or that I know it to be fact.
In the case that it is fact and the facts these days seem to be a matter of opinion. I now know that my opinion is fact. Therefore any one stating that my opinion is not fact is expressing their opinion. Since they can not prove nor disprove that my opinion is not fact.
It would only be their opinion that fact is only an opinion. Therefore their opinion may or may not be fact!
Writerdog,If indeed your opinion is fact only to you, and any reference to that fact by another blogger, who may agree or disagree with that fact, can be interpreted by other reader/bloggers as opinion, than it can be considered to be fact, unless Ed disagrees with it, than it becomes strictly opinion.
Some of what Joe wrote I agree with. If ones looks at the makeup of the Academic hierarchy one finds that it is mostly populated by left-leaning individuals. I guess the old adage “Them that can, do; them that can’t, write books; them that can’t write books, teach” has some truth to it. ( Just a little chuckle fer da left there)
Seriously, though, education is just that: education. It should include a wide variety of views, opinions and facts. Many college professors, especially ones teaching political courses, dissuade their students from expressing a view that contradicts the professors teachings. For instance:“California State University 2, Christianity 0By Nathan Burchfiel—CNSNews.com–12/20/05
Some students from Cal State at San Bernardino have been told that forming a Christian group is “not permissible” at the university because it restricts membership based on religious beliefs and sexual orientation.”
That hardly sounds like freedom of religion to me. Since there are Chicano clubs that restrict members to Mexican descent, should those clubs be banned also? I see no problem with either. That is part of what the Academic Bill of Rights tries to do. It in no way tries to stifle liberal teachings or speech, as Rhonda so wrongly points out. It simply tries to level the playing field in order to give college students a more rounded learning experience. And that’s what the educational experience should be all about.
Now, if they would start teaching Libertarian views .
I knew I should have ran it by Ed first. That of course is my opinion as I know it.
Like many things these days, there has been a lack of “balance” in the practice and understanding on the subject of academic freedom. I was hoping to hear from Rage on this subject, since I get the decided impression that he/she has some first hand knowledge that many of us lack.
But I will weigh in with my opinions (regardless of their factual basis). Mirecki, if you look at his academic record, is a brilliant scholar. He discovered an ancient text and translated it. This text was considered to be a missing gospel. Not a bad feat for the totality of one’s academic career (he has done more, however). I respect and admire him for this accomplishment alone — he is a real world Indiana Jones. He is not a theologian, nor do I think he would ever want to be.
His emails and the antics of his atheist/agnostic student club were sophomoric at best, and I think below him. These problems point up a little considered fact by some people — which is that with freedom, comes responsibility. Mirecki’s research, scholarship, I want to see supported — Our state and country are better because of it.
I think he needs some remedial lessons in civility. Some of the photos on Mirecki’s club’s web page are going to be offensive to some (maybe many) Kansans. What is the point of having them there. This is a question, that I wish someone as smart as Mirecki would have grappled with. It could’ve been a class assignment on effectively presenting one’s views. I think the WSU professor who urged Mirecki to attack these subjects through scholarship was right on.See this link for some comments I had on that.http://kansasinfoquartermaster.blogspot.com/2005/12/how-mirecki-could-best-help-cause.html
Is there a left leaning slant to academia. I think it is unmistakable that there is. I have argued that if Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove could have been successful in college (neither have graduated, I believe) then maybe our country might have been a better place. But, I do not think that mandating the Right’s viewpoints is the correct thing to do. If the Right’s ideas are useful, they will gain traction in the free-market of ideas (feels funny arguing that point).
I apologize for blathering on so long. Hope you all are having a good new year. I have a new year’s hope for more balanced thinking.
{If the Right’s ideas are useful, they will gain traction in the free-market of ideas}
Very good, Steven E.
Would I get another pellet in this operant space, if I said free-market solutions are the only answers for all problems?
I hope not. For the above, I should get shock to my feet.
Oh, but, yeah, “we don’t do torture” in the U.S.
Steven E.
Everything is useful, even the useless as an example.
Ed,You’re starting to sound “Zen-like” – I am not sure what to make of that.
Thanks.
“{If the Right’s ideas are useful, they will gain traction in the free-market of ideas}” Can you do that? Put quotes around a parenthetical sentence? Does anybody really care?
The right and left have always had good ideas. Some better than others. (How’s that for a white-bread statement?) However, if college students are given only one side of the debate, what do you think they will become? Let me give you an example: When I first moved to Kansas from California, I noticed a radical difference in the rascist attitudes prevelant in both states.
Racism, as I see it, in Kansas comes from home breeding. (Notice, I didn’t say inbreeding). The racist attitude I see in the south is from hostility passed on from generation to generation. The younger family members get one side if the equation drilled into them at home. They don’t get the other side, that different races are no different from their race.
Had they been given both sides in their unbringing, racism may or may not be as prevenant as it still is today, but they would have been able to make their own choice based on the information given, not drilled into them.
If a college student is given only one side of a political, or religious for that matter, equation, how can that student be given the preparation necessary to make up his or her own mind? They can’t.
College is exactly where you want choice: it is where our future leaders come from. To limit them to some left wing, or right wing, professor’s diatribe is wrong. It cobbles the whole process. I want people who can think for themselves, and that requires they be given the tools to do so. My opinion is that the Academic Bill of Rights does just that.
{If the Right’s ideas are useful, they will gain traction in the free-market of ideas}” Can you do that? Put quotes around a parenthetical sentence?
Since I did, obviously it’s possible. I thought this was a blog. I wasn’t aware we were being graded. So was there a point to be made, JM Walker, or are you just trying to sound superior?
I have googled the “Academic Bill of Rights” and from my limited research on this, it would seem to me that Rhonda is correct. This seems to be a conservative group who is concerned that there is an overwhelming left-leaning emphasis in American academia.
This is a study and a pdf file I found on one ABoR site:
http://www.sofi.su.se/wp/WP05-8.pdf
The study’s title is: _Narrow-tent Democrats and Fringe Others: The Policy Views of Social Science Professors_. While I have only glanced at this work, its title would tend to signal what the author’s biases might be.
So, this seems to be a group of conservatives who are seeking to mandate that their view points are given equal time.
I guess I will return to my question, if their ideas are worthy via their usefulness, is it necessary to mandate their consideration. I ask this being a person who has not always been happy with the decided left leaning of academia. It does seem to me that conservative ideas get plenty of expression in our culture, e.g., Fox News, etc. Conservatives have invaded NPR for heavens sake. Do we need to mandate that their thoughts will be heard at Universities? I say “no” to the mandate aspect.
Paxton,The point was my putting quotes around your paranthesis. Done in humor only. Lighten up:-)
Steven E,From everything I’ve read, the “Academic Bill of Rights” in no way tries to foist conservative ideas on college students, nor does it try in any way to inhibit liberal ideas from being taught to college students. It simply states that One shouldn’t be taught at the expense of the other. It calls for parity.
Give the student that, and the student can make his or her own decision on what they want to believe or disbelieve.
The “Academic Bill of Rights” has been something I’ve looked at quite a bit, just because of the imbalance of the political spectrum in most of our universities. It specifically prohibits imbalance in the university teaching environment, both liberal AND conservative.
History is what the conquerers make it. I would rather the history of teaching in the universities be remembered as something that took many ideas into account, and taught them. The “Academic Bill of Rights” seeks to allow that to happen.
Thanks Walker,
I am cutting and pasting a portion of a column written by David Limbaugh (Rush’s brother who did graduate from college and is apparently an attorney).
“Conservative scholar-warrior David Horowitz has the left in apoplexy over his ingenious proposal for an Academic Bill of Rights that would forbid university faculty from hiring, firing, and granting or denying promotion or tenure on the basis of political beliefs.[aren't they forbidden to do so now?]“Hysterical liberals are screaming ‘quota’ and ‘McCarthyism,’ neither of which has any basis in rationality. Horowitz’s plan would eliminate quotas, not impose them, requiring universities to judge professors on their merits, not their ideology.
“Horowitz is not demanding that the percentage of faculty conservatives correspond with the percentage of conservatives in the general population. But he doubtlessly believes that if universities were prohibited from discriminating against conservative professors, their percentages on college campuses would increase.[Republicans as victims, kinda old isn't it?]“Can somebody explain how Horowitz’s plan remotely smacks of McCarthyism? Isn’t McCarthyism the groundless smearing of political opponents by accusing them of being Communists or the like? If so, then how much more so are liberals guilty of McCarthyism when they demand actual quotas in university admissions and other areas of society? This is all ridiculous.
“Liberals have gotten to the point that they throw out the term ‘McCarthyism’ practically every time they get caught in the act. Their name-calling is designed to divert our attention from the merits of the Horowitz proposal. How dare anyone challenge their title deed to their indoctrination factories?
“Yale University Professor Bruce Shapiro, a card-carrying far-left liberal, by his own proud admission pooh-poohed Horowitz on ‘Hannity and Colmes,’ arguing that a professor’s ideology has no bearing on most courses.
“Shapiro pressed, ‘When you say 10-to-1 liberal, are we talking math professors? Is there a liberal way to teach math? Are we talking about Aristotle versus Plato, or Bush versus Gore? Are we talking about, perhaps, biology professors? What is the relevance of how professors or anybody else votes?’
“Horowitz shot back, ‘This is completely ridiculous. Here we have liberals who want diversity of skin color because they claim that that means diversity of viewpoint. That’s what the Supreme Court has declared. And yet when I’m showing you that 90 percent of professors come from one political persuasion, you suddenly object. You can’t get a good education if they’re only telling you half the story.’”
[backeted comments mine, above]
Count me as one who is suspicious that the goal is to get both sides out in college settings.
I went to college in the early 70’s and picked up much in the way of liberal ideology. I like to think that I have kept portions of that which are useful to me, and those parts which aren’t have died away from disuse in the real world.
An old professor of mine visited my house about 10 years ago. This man is a Canadian and he had much to do with how I view things — he taught me a lot. My old professor is an admitted Socialist.
I am in clinical sciences now and I was telling him that while prevention of problems was a good idea, a failing of it was that it was hard to demonstrate what disease, etc. one prevented. This in turn made it hard to get paid for your work. This strident capitalism in my judgement obviously offended him a great deal and he promised to never come to my house again. This really hurt my feelings — because he was like a father to me in many ways. I finally realized that I was not going to apologize for the idea that making a living was important to me. I may have been a bourgeoisie elist in his view, but I had kids to feed.
My old professor will email me sometimes now, so I am hoping we make up before he dies. Besides the Canadian stuff, he was educated at Clark and Boston U. – he probably never had a chance for much else but knee-jerk liberalism.
So, I guess the shorter point here is that I think people can make up their minds about all, or parts, of their indoctrination as they see fit. The work of the ABoR does not seem that vital to me.
Steven,I had a similar experience with a mentor, a director of organizing for one of the AFL-CIO unions. After 3 years and 4 devastating and unsuccessful organizing campaigns, it became a matter of keeping the job and putting food on the table. He never forgave me for making peace with the company.
We do what we gotta do, and sometimes it really goes against the grain, but real world issues sometimes trump belief. I’m not one to let politics get in the way of survival.
I know what it’s like to lose the friendship of someone you respect.
Steven E,Good post. Most of what you say I agree with. One point though: “[aren't they forbidden to do so now?]“. If the universities are indeed 90% liberal, than promoting or demoting tenure would be difficult to do on a parity basis. Remember, to the victor go the spoils. And in this case, if the liberals rule, who makes the rules?
Look at Washington. The conservatives rule, and look what a mess it’s in. I really don’t like the idea of government legislating college doctrine, but if it opens avenues of learning that would otherwise be unavailable to the average student because of resistance from the university itself, than I don’t see where they have any other choice.
I am neither for nor against Liberal or Conservative teachings; I would like to see all sides taught.
Walker said: “I am neither for nor against Liberal or Conservative teachings; I would like to see all sides taught.”
I believe the above to be true, and that is one reason why I went to the trouble of explaining my views.
XXX,Thanks. I enjoy your posts. Your last one was very good. Thanks for your contributions.
If colleges and universities are so “leftist,” why is it that so many graduates are unthinking conservatives?
Steven E.,Had a bad day yesterday, but I’m back. From skimming over the blog, it looks like I have a bit of reading to do. . .
Rage,Sorry about your day. Glad you’re back and welcome your thoughts on this thread.
The so called “Academic Bill of Rights” starts off innocently enough, but goes off the tracks here (I’ve added EMPHASIS where appropriate):
“4. Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas by providing students with DISSENTING SOURCES and VIEWPOINTS where appropriate. 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.”
and HERE:”8. Knowledge advances when individual scholars are left free to reach their own conclusions about WHICH METHODS, FACTS, and THEORIES have been VALIDATED BY RESEARCH. . . . To perform these functions adequately, 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.”
This is creationist-style “reasoning.” This is not about allowing dissenting professionals to present their own outlook, nor about other faculty insisting a professor address the “mainstream” view. This is about outside forces shoehorning their own “dissenting” views into the classroom, over the objections of the faculty and the professional societies. I really can’t improve on the AAUP criticisms Anonymous posted. It’s not about a free-wheeling exchange of ideas–it’s about removing control of the standards from the very people who are most qualified to create them. Honest scientists (yes, even social scientists) will generally agree when something has been overwhelmingly validated by research.
It is also reminds of the “postmodernists,” the collective of English and humanities professors who regard all knowledge as a product of power and social contruction. The difference is, the postmodernists are content to spew their incoherent psuedo-intellectual gibberish in their own “cultural criticism” journals, or inflict a “deconstructionist” writing assignment on an unsuspecting English class.
Would I like to able to tell the damn postmodernists to knock it off? You bet. As as student, I did (to no effect). But if they weren’t free to have their own views, within the constraints of the standards of their professions (including standards of pedagogy), well, that wouldn’t be academic freedom.
Bullhorn rightist (and 60’s bullhorn leftist, incidently) David Horowitz has a very specific political agenda in mind, and it has nothing to do with academic freedom. Check out frontpagemag.com for a taste of what he’s really like.
Thanks, Steven. By the way, I should have emphasized “OUTSIDE” as well . . .
Conservative Republicans tend to be against quotas. Because their ideology is under-represented on college campuses, they want “idea qoutas”?
At its base this movement seems to have the “Republicans as victims” theme to it.
I would also counter that Academic freedom has protected some pretty far right ideas. I am thinking of Shockley (spelling may be wrong) and some other clown in California who were trying to say that blacks were inferior in terms of I.Q. to whites.
Any way, rightly or wrongly, I question the need for this solution. And, if one is needed, I can’t see where a KS BOE type solution makes much sense.
Would someone throw Ian a milk-bone?
Ian said it.I don’t believe it.That settles it.
Viva Libra Republica Belize?