You may have seen the news reports on the so-called "academic bill of rights" proposed in the legislature a couple of weeks ago. This legislation, similar to bills now in vogue in conservative circles across the country, aims to end so-called liberal bias in academia.
The bill's sponsor, Republican Senator Andrew Brock said that as written, the bill would protect the "conservative train of thought."
The chairman of UNC Chapel Hill's College Republicans acknowledged that "Not everyone's out to get conservatives. That's just part of the partisan rhetoric But there are some out there, and that's what the Academic Bill of Rights is for -- to create guidelines."
In particular, the right is concerned about studies that show professors are more likely to be registered as Democrats than as Republicans. They suggest that this reflects a bias in academia.
Paul Krugman has a brilliant rebuttal to this contention in today's NY Times. Krugman concludes
Scientific American may think that evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, but President Bush declares that "the jury is still out." Senator James Inhofe dismisses the vast body of research supporting the scientific consensus on climate change as a "gigantic hoax." And conservative pundits like George Will write approvingly about Michael Crichton's anti-environmentalist fantasies.
Think of the message this sends: today's Republican Party - increasingly dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research - doesn't respect science, or scholarship in general. It shouldn't be surprising that scholars have returned the favor by losing respect for the Republican Party.
It is reasonable to wonder why different professions appeal to different political persuasions. But affirmative action based on political views is a bad idea. How well would the military, FBI, or police function if half their recruits had to be card-carrying liberals.
There is a solution for rightward inclined students who want a faculty whose views correspond to the religious ones that dominate today's Republican Party. It is called the seminary. Another alternative is one of the plethora of denominationally organized colleges.
Public universities like UNC are attractive to professors in the intellectual traditions based on reason, not on the contending dogmas of faith. In a nation that values separation of church and state, that's just how it should be.
Issues:
Comments
It's interesting that, other
It's interesting that, other than Will R, none of the comments have picked up on the issues surrounding the university. There's often seemed to be a bit of a divide between university issues and the community. This seems to be reflective of that.
Or, perhaps everyone agrees that it is utterly ridiculous to consider the question of political affiliation one way or the other in public sector emplyment.
On the affirmative action
On the affirmative action note, the University's AA policy doesn't include asians. Not trying to get in this fight since y'all know how I feel, but just thought it was interesting.
Bill, >>Why should schools
Bill,
>>Why should schools be in the business of teaching sex ed anyway? Isn't that what parents are for?
-In an ideal world, yes, parents would be the main communicators of information & values related to sexuality. However, numerous studies show that parents DO NOT communicate with their children about sex & sexuality with any regularity or accuracy. Unfortunately, since many public schools (the Chapel Hill-Carrboro system is an exception in our state) aren't able to discuss issues such as effective contraception, STD prevention, and healthy sexuality, and are forced to toe the "Abstinence until Marriage" line, kids aren't getting accurate and comprehensive information ANYWHERE. Instead, they watch movies, TV shows and video games (at a shocking average of 6 HOURS PER DAY!) which promote a totally unrealistic, unsafe view of relationships & sex (not to mention degrading women AND men); and talk to their friends, who usually don't know any more than they do. This has resulted in the United States (and southern states in particular, which almost all subscribe to the "Abstinence until Marriage" curriculum) having one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the industrialized world. How is this helping anybody?
>>Was Terri Schiavo guilty of a death-row worthy crime?
-Truly pro-life people would not support the death penalty or the war. That is the fallacy of the pro-life philosophy of most fundamentalist Christians--life is valuable if it's a baby, but not if it's an adult criminal, an American soldier, or an Iraqi civilian. The "seamless culture of life" promoted by the Pope and other Catholics makes rational sense--no abortion, no euthanasia, no war, no death penalty. I may not subscribe to this philosophy, but I understand it. I do not understand "pro-lifers" who are also in support of capital punishment (especially given the racism and classism of our justice system--do any rich white guys get executed EVER?) or the war.
>>*Everyone who pays taxes* got a tax cut.
Yeah, it's just that the wealthiest got an ENORMOUS one, and the poor got a piddly amount.
>>As the Great Communicator said, “It isn't that liberals are ignorant, it's just that so much of what they know isn't so.â€Â
I beg to differ, especially in light of many conservatives' blind support for theories which have no basis in fact, reason, or science. I would say it is the other way around.
>>How does ensuring the rights of conservatives the same as “affirmative action"? AA is nothing more than reverse discrimination…
I would assume that, as a man and perhaps a Caucasian-American man (though I dont' want to assume), you have had no need for affirmative action to ensure your place at the table. Without affirmative action, women, blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, and other minority populations would not be attending college & university in record numbers. How is this a bad thing?
Bill--What I take from your
Bill--What I take from your response is that there are no real principles behind your political positions--just ad hoc likes and dislikes. Why is ensuring the people of color, women, and older adults have equal rights reverse discrimination but ensuring the rights of people like you isn't? Protecting the rights of minorities is the principle behind affirmative action. If you don't agree with the principle, isn't it a little bigotted to turn around and expand the concept to protect the rights of a groups whose philosophy makes them a minority?
I have posted the following
I have posted the following link to a particularly thoughtful essay on the growing encroachment of delusional fundamentalism as the dominant force behind public policy elswhere, but I think it's particularly relevant here:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17852
Cheers,
Alex
"1.
"1. “They†don't want to pay for women to have abortions but they don't support sex education other than abstinence."
>>Why should schools be in the business of teaching sex ed anyway? Isn't that what parents are for?
"2. “They†kept talking about how Terri Schiavo was being killed but they support the death penalty."
>>Was Terri Schiavo guilty of a death-row worthy crime?
"3. “They†don't believe in entitlements, but they give tax cuts to the wealthy."
>>*Everyone who pays taxes* got a tax cut.
4. “They†want evidence before making policy, but they don't believe the evidence when it is presented to them.
>>As the Great Communicator said, "It isn't that liberals are ignorant, it's just that so much of what they know isn't so."
5. “They†don't believe in affirmative action, but they want to make ensure the rights of conservatives on campus.
>>How does ensuring the rights of conservatives the same as "affirmative action"? AA is nothing more than reverse discrimination...
Not all right-wingers are
Not all right-wingers are necessarily that way for religious reasons. Some of us come to conservative conclusions regardless of our faith.
1. "They" don't want to pay
1. "They" don't want to pay for women to have abortions but they don't support sex education other than abstinence.
2. "They" kept talking about how Terri Schiavo was being killed but they support the death penalty.
3. "They" don't believe in entitlements, but they give tax cuts to the wealthy.
4. "They" want evidence before making policy, but they don't believe the evidence when it is presented to them.
5. "They" don't believe in affirmative action, but they want to make ensure the rights of conservatives on campus.
I'm confused. Is there a difference between a conservative and a Republican? Who is the "they"?
Coming to a university near
Coming to a university near you, the Orwellian titled "Academic Bill of Rights". Brought to you locally by our conservative conscience. He joins with the national apparatchik to bring only the finest in academic intollerance to our academic community. Next stop, a quick rewrite of the basis of modern biology.
From some of the
finest
sponsors
of
intolerant
ideas!
Chris, I agree with
Chris, I agree with you.
However, you might be careful how you say that Chris. Some of your peers on the OCGOP Executive Committee might disagree with you and shut you out. There are some right-wingers whose involvement in politics is strictly dictated by their faith and religion (at least, that is what they profess). For some, it is more of a personal jihad than about service to the community (or party).
So what happens when some of those who cry persecution on college campuses end up being the persecutioners in other realms? Is it really about being registered a 'D' or an 'R'? Or is it really about being the "right kind" of 'R'?
Here is the proposed bill of
Here is the proposed bill of rights for those who haven't seen it elsewhere. I've been associated with at 5 different universities and these all sound like SOP. What I find most intriguing is that conservatives/ Republicans feel the need to have additional protection for their political beliefs.
1. All faculty shall 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. No faculty shall be hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of his or her political or religious beliefs.
2. No faculty member will be excluded from tenure, search and hiring committees on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.
3. 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 or religious beliefs.
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. Academic disciplines should welcome a diversity of approaches to unsettled questions.
5. Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty. Faculty will not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination.
6. Selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speakers programs and other student activities will observe the principles of academic freedom and promote intellectual pluralism.
7. An environment conducive to the civil exchange of ideas being an essential component of a free university, the obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature or other effort to obstruct this exchange will not be tolerated.
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. 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. 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.
http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/abor.html
Proposed language of Senate
Proposed language of Senate Bill 1139; substantially different (more political) than the generic language:
SECTION 1. Article 1 of Chapter 116 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new Part to read:
"Part 8. Academic Bill of Rights.
Each constituent institution of The University of North Carolina shall adopt a policy recognizing that the students, faculty, and instructors of the institution have the following rights:
(1) The constituent institution shall provide its students with a learning environment in which the students have access to a broad range of serious scholarly opinions pertaining to the subjects they study. In the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, the fostering of a plurality of serious scholarly methodologies and perspectives shall be a significant institutional purpose. In addition, curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social studies shall respect all human knowledge in these areas and provide students with dissenting sources and viewpoints.
(2) Students shall be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study and shall not be discriminated against on the basis of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs. Faculty and instructors shall not use their courses or their positions for the purpose of political, ideological, religious, or antireligious indoctrination.
(3) Faculty and instructors shall not infringe upon the academic freedom and quality of education of their students by persistently introducing controversial matter into the classroom or coursework that has no relation to their subject of study and that serves no legitimate pedagogical purpose.
(4) University administrators, student government organizations, and institutional policies, rules, or procedures shall not infringe upon the freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of conscience of students and student organizations.
(5) The constituent institution shall distribute student fee funds on a viewpoint‑neutral basis and shall maintain a posture of neutrality with respect to substantive political and religious disagreements, differences, and opinions. The selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speakers' programs, and other student activities shall observe the principles of academic freedom and promote the presentation of a diversity of opinions on intellectual matters. Except as provided by law, the institution shall not permit the obstruction of invited campus speakers, the destruction of campus literature, or other efforts to obstruct a civil exchange of ideas.
(6) Faculty and instructors shall be free to pursue and discuss their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views, but they shall make their students aware of serious scholarly viewpoints other than their own through classroom discussion or dissemination of written materials, and they shall encourage intellectual honesty, civil debate, and the critical analysis of ideas in the pursuit of knowledge and truth.
(7) Faculty and instructors shall be hired, fired, promoted, and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in their field of expertise and shall not be hired, fired, promoted, granted tenure, or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs.
(8) Faculty and instructors shall not be excluded from tenure, search, and hiring committees on the basis of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs.
(9) The institution and its professional societies shall 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:
a. Knowledge advances when individual scholars are left free to reach their own conclusions about which methods, facts, and theories have been validated by research;
b. 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 interpretations."
You're right Terri, "
You're right Terri,
" There really isn't a dime's worth of difference between a Democrat and a Republican"- Larry Elder 1999.
I'd like to see more Libertarian and Green party perspectives to local and national issues. The "Demopublican" model of politics is SO entrenched in the 20th century. To be truely progressive, we must ALL be exposed to diverse ideas, and this is a great forum for that!
Alex, it's called
Alex, it's called "trolling." Ignore it and it will go away (and will it really matter if it doesn't?).
The National Coalition
The National Coalition Against Censorship and others have come out against the Academic Bill of Rights. In their letter, the illustrate how easily this document could be turned around against the conservatives who are proposing it:
"When there is the requirement that teachers must "make their students aware of serious scholarly viewpoints other than their own." How exactly would this work in the classroom? Should the foreign policy perspectives of Henry Kissinger have been tempered in their classes, because of his conservative and controversial views? What about William Buckley: should he be required to "balance" any course he teaches by engaging in a continuous debate with a representative of the ACLU? Must Abigail Thernstrom, an opponent of affirmative action, provide counter evidence in every class on the subject, even if she thinks it flawed? Must Milton Friedman treat capitalism and Marxism equally?"
The full letter can be found at:
http://www.ncac.org/issues/sb24letter.htm
would that mean that
would that mean that conservative students would have to throw pies at liberal speakers when they visit college campuses, which seems to be all the rage among the moonbat college lefties?
Trying to siphon off the
Trying to siphon off the readers of this site with a deceptive URL is bad Nettiquette, methinks. Also the "censorship-free" debate involves sterling examples of rational discourse such as: "you're such a sleazy, scuzzy, sorry little broken-wind bag". Wow. Demosthenes, watch your back!
'Moonbat college lefties'?
'Moonbat college lefties'? My! The level of discussion here has just become too rarified for me--guess I'll have to get some air!
Cheers,
Alex
Did anyone catch Jon Stewart
Did anyone catch Jon Stewart on 4/13/05?
"BE REASONABLE!"
That'll be the day....