Academic Bill of Rights

[LovetoCamp]

http://hnn.us/articles/1731.html

 

The Academic Bill of Rights: Not Exactly McCarthyism

 

By Thomas Reeves

 

Mr. Reeves is the author of A Question of Character: A Life of John F. Kennedy. His latest book is America's Bishop: The Life and Times of Fulton J. Sheen (Encounter, 2001).

 

One of the most obvious facts of life is that America's colleges and universities are dominated by the Left. This is easily documented by the examination of campus catalogues, lists of speakers invited to campus, studies on faculty political affiliations, positions taken by faculty governments, and by book lists. Some liberals even admit the bias on campus, arguing that there is a sort of necessary correlation between reason, justice, and leftist political, social, and moral positions.

 

What is less understood, at least by the general public, is the intolerance that haunts American campuses as the result of the partisanship, especially in the social sciences and humanities. While more research is needed on this topic, examples abound of the persecution of conservative professors and students, the confiscation and destruction of conservative literature, and the harassment of the few conservative speakers invited to campus. It is widely known that in many disciplines, such as history and literature, conservatives are rarely hired or granted tenure.

 

Why most faculty in the social sciences and humanities are on the Left is a fascinating topic that can't be dealt with here. But it is sufficient to say that liberals virtually own higher education in America. Now preferring to call themselves "progressives" and "moderates," thousands of zealous faculty members see themselves on a mission to liberate the country from ignorance, fanaticism, and oppression. They see conservatives (especially the Christian variety) as the enemies of all that is good. Which means that the Right has no place in academia, at least outside the schools of business and engineering.

 

Activist David Horowitz, once on the Left and now on the Right, has recently upset the cozy consensus on campus by writing and defending what he calls the "Academic Bill of Rights." It should not be very controversial, for it is an endorsement of the venerable concept of academic freedom in America, for both faculty and students. It is a document that seeks to secure intellectual independence on campus by opposing ideological or religious tests for faculty hiring and promotion, calls for balanced courses and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences, advocates free speech on campus, and seeks the restoration of research free of ideological restrictions. (Have you read, say, the Journal of American History in the last two decades?)

 

The Academic Bill of Rights might be adopted by the governing board of a college or university or perhaps even by a state legislature, concerned with the quality of public higher education. It is a statement of principles, designed to reopen the university to diversity at its highest level: A diversity of ideas. As Colorado State Senator John Andrews put it recently, "political pluralism, open debate, and tolerance of all viewpoints aren't the property of any party. They are simply the American way."

 

Quite naturally, the Left opposes anything which threatens its hegemony. The reaction of late has reached hysterical proportions, with charges of McCarthyism (the most overused and badly understood term in our political lexicon) and Nazism being hurled at Horowitz. It is said that he is trying to create quotas for the employment of Republican faculty members (this from the people who champion quotas and goals on the basis of skin color), that he would infuse science courses with superstition, and that he sanctions "mind police" to strip the faculty of its convictions. Horowitz has issued effective denials. As to quotas, for example, he replies, "I hold that quotas at our universities are never justified for any reason. Discrimination is always wrong, no matter whether it's based on race, religion, or political belief." The Bill of Rights would actually bar campuses from setting out to hire more conservatives. Academic merit would be the sole consideration.

 

It's about time for governing boards and state legislatures to begin pondering the value of the ideological straightjacket limiting our college and university campuses to a single point of view. Even if the Academic Bill of Rights is only a statement of principle, without any enforcement mechanism, it will have established a mission statement worthy of a free people in a free country.

 

Read the document for yourself. The preamble reflects a century of statements by the American Association of University Professors--forgotten in recent decades. David Horowitz, it seems to me, is merely reminding us of the values of intellectual freedom. If that seems subversive to the politically correct, the case made by Horowitz is all that much stronger.

 

 

[LovetoCamp]

Can a kid even get a balanced education today? Where can a student go where there's no Che Guevera posters and gray-haired professors sporting pony tails?

[Zahnada]

"Can a kid even get a balanced education today? Where can a student go where there's no Che Guevera posters and gray-haired professors sporting pony tails?"

 

I think if a kid is using political ideology as a criteria for selecting a university then it won't be too difficult to find one. The main example that comes to mind is BYU, but I've heard the liberal bias is not as strong as most people think.

 

But this supposed liberal bias has been around for a long time. But look at the country as it is. We have a Republican President and the Republicans own Congress. Just by looking at that information, I wouldn't say that liberal professors and textbooks have brainwashed all our college graduates. Just the opposite since college students are more likely to vote.

 

But I do agree that political affiliation and ideology should not be a criteria for selecting academics.

[Proud Eagle]

College students are more likely to vote than what other group? The average American perhaps, well that isn't anything to be proud of.

 

Most college students don't vote. Most college graduates don't vote. Most college drop outs don't vote. Most people don't vote.

 

So saying that college students vote more often than some other group, and therefore the outcome of national elections is a good gage of the presence, or absence, of a political bias on campus is beyond absurd.

 

Of coarse, I believe it was Churchill that said something along the lines that if a man wasn't a socialist at 20 he had no heart, and if he wasn't a conservative by 40, he had no brain.

 

Of coarse I converted from being a liberal to being a conservative at about the age of 13, so I wonder what that says about me?

 

Oh, I must note that I am a college student. I am majoring in political science. I must agree that there is a liberal bias in the general academic community. There are of coarse some conservative professors. Another factor is the degree to which the person injects their bias into their teaching, and the degree to which the students are aware of the bias. The really devious ones inject a truck load of bias before anyone starts to notice.

 

However, perhaps more worrisome is the droves of students that take anything spoken by someone with a PhD as gospel. Intellectual curiosity and free thinking is not something the universities are all that great at promoting. Of coarse the problems of that sort also are not helped by the primary and secondary education systems. Reminds me of something that happened in my high school physics class...(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

[Zahnada]

Sorry, I just reread my post and realized that I stated something wrong. I made it sound like college students themselves are people who often vote. What I meant was that college graduates (or higher educated people) are the ones more likely to vote. College students on the other hand are one of the worst voting demographics in the country. Sorry for the confusion.

 

So to restate my argument, the higher educated are more likely to vote. With the strong partisan split in voting behavior and elected officials, I don't believe that a somewhat liberal academic community is making a huge difference. The better argument would be that parent ideology influences child ideology more often than academic ideology influences child ideology. By the time people get to college, they know what they believe in.

 

And another great Churchill quote, I believe goes something like, "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

 

And my all-time favorite Churchill quote-

Woman: Why Mr. Churchill, I do believe you are drunk.

Churchill: And you are ugly, Maddam. But I shall be sober in the morning.

[packsaddle]

I was intrigued by the wording of the post until I read the link and realized they were essentially the same. But after reading the ABOR, I see nothing to disagree with strongly. Personally, and although I do understand the rather complex reasons for the institution of 'tenure', I support the abolition of that institution. But I am not rock solid in this opinion and I could, on reflection, modify it. At any rate, my view would probably be labeled 'conservative' or 'right wing' by most persons conversant with academia.

 

As to the dominance by 'the left', the institutions with which I have been affiliated certainly have not been so dominated. There are, perhaps, certain fields or departments in which this assertion could be true but certainly not the sciences (my area) and certainly not engineering or similar areas of inquiry. All of the institutions with which I have been affiliated have done a good job, in my opinion, of meeting the principles of the ABOR.

 

Finally, the student bodies that I have known have been, if anything, dominated by a conservative view that reflects the populations of their origin. I personally care nothing of a student's political views as they are not relevant to my field. I do require, however, that a student who expects to excel be prepared to exercise a critical eye toward ideas and be prepared to accept fair criticism, admitting mistakes where they occur. And very many students have met this standard, to my great enjoyment.

 

I think it is a mistake to attempt to characterize a student body in general terms. Every student is an individual with individual traits and talents - and views. Some excel, some don't. I could not begin to predict, when they enter, which will be which. It's largely up to them. I wish them all success.

 

Just a personal view.

(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[packsaddle]

To answer Trail Pounder's questions:

1) Yes. There are many thousands of options, student's choice.

2) Why do those things matter, as long as the student is free to question them and reject or accept on their merits?

 

If Trail Pounder considers the ABOR to be important, then hair color or length should have no relevance whether for a faculty or a student. I consider it none of his or my business (FYI, mine is short but getting a little gray - since this seems to be of such importance).

The presence of posters of Che Guevara does what to stifle free exchange of ideas?

[Proud Eagle]

I think every student has heard at least one horror story of some radical professor that turned their class into an indoctrination session. Students that hold apposing views are sometimes ridiculed for their beliefs. Other times professors will allow their idealogical bias to affect the grades they give students. So if a student sees a Che Guevara poster on the wall they will be inclined to think they may very well have such a biased teacher, and decide it is a good idea to suppress their real views in order to survive the coarse. (I would also note that for many people, being a Che Guevara fan would automatically qualify someone as irrational and closed minded, so that wouldn't exactly help either. Though that is more a case of a student bias against the position of the instructor.)

 

Oh, and I for one am all in favor of professional dress codes and codes for personal appearance for professionals. (That could potentially allow for clean, neat, well groomed long hair, or not.) If a professor is not a true professional, well I don't know who is. Maybe next year we can start having state dinners with the dress code being T-shirts and jeans. New presidential campaign promise "if elected I will not cut, comb, or wash my hair".

[Hunt]

The Academic Bill of Rights is not bad--except for the provisions that would actually strip faculty members of academic freedom by forcing them to present dissenting views in the classroom. This means, I guess, that an evolutionary biologist would have to explain creationism. This idea would also be impossible to enforce (which views are so extreme you don't have to present them? Does a WWII historian have to present the views of holocaust deniers?).

I should add that it's pretty hard to draw a line between "competence" and differences of opinions. Can an academic be competent if he holds a completely discredited view?

[packsaddle]

Proud Eagle, every institution with which I have been associated assigned lecture rooms based on enrollment, schedules, etc. Faculty were able to request lecture times but nothing was guaranteed. I guess that my laboratory classes would be the exception but those posters would more likely be filaria-infested giant testicles or microscope diagrams...much more interesting than Che.

If my lecture room had a poster of anything in it, it would be pure chance and I know of no student who would associate it with me. For that matter, not any other faculty member either unless they saw the person who posted it. I suppose at some smaller schools the faculty have their own lecture rooms but I have never had the pleasure.

 

Hunt, your point is well-taken and some teaching styles may well suffer as a result. However, I often employ discredited (opposing) theories to demonstrate critical methods. And sometimes as a source of comic relief. Creationism is a topic that evolutionary biologists should want their students to understand (without wasting too much time on it) because that awareness is critical to understanding the difference between science and faith-based belief. The primary cost is lost time from the intended subject and if all discredited ideas had to be presented you would be quite correct. An enormous amount of time would be wasted. However, I am trying to think of a field where employing a few opposing ideas to teach is not appropriate. Maybe religion?

 

I knew a comparative anatomy professor who really knew anatomy. He was a creationist. Was he competent to teach anatomy? I think so. Evolution? Definitely not.

 

Finally, Proud Eagle, I have probably heard most of those stories. I am still waiting to meet the persons who actually had most of those experiences. I don't doubt that some thread of truth exists in them but a better approach would be for a person to act on what they have experienced directly, not on rumors that may or may not have merit.

As for dress codes, I am sympathetic to your idea. However, as students are there to become professionals, I would require such code to apply to all, faculty and students alike. Fine with me.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Hunt]

One of my college classrooms had a portrait of General Sherman in it. As a Southerner, I found this deeply disturbing.

 

Packsaddle, I suspect that your example--an evolutionary biologist describing creationism in order to show that it isn't scientifically based--would not be satisfactory to those who want opposing views to be "presented."

[packsaddle]

Hunt, if expressed in the manner you describe I might agree. However I implied that there are several ways to teach. In one of these, information is supplied as facts to be digested by the students. Some of this is unavoidable to save time. However, the part of teaching I am addressing is the part where the instructor poses situations to the students in a manner that allows them to discover knowledge for themselves. This is not simply knocking down straw men (which is what, I think, you describe - and what seems to pass as critical examination in many of these forums). In this approach they are supplied with critical questions, in a sequence that allows them to efficiently build a logical structure for themselves. It not only allows them the feeling of discovery but it also allows them the freedom to charge off in directions of their choice, subject, of course, to the critical examination of the rest of the class. Yes, sometimes a few feathers get ruffled, no harm done. No, I don't normally teach topics that have much to do with evolution. I merely ask the questions and attempt to keep the herd in an agreeable mood.

FYI, the comp. anat. guy didn't teach some other aspects of biology because 1) he didn't want to, and 2) he didn't actually understand them well enough, by his own admission.