Capitol bill aims to control ‘leftist’ profs

[Ossai]

I started this a couple of time and each time it seemed more implausible that the last.
Read the article for yourselves.

Capitol bill aims to control ‘leftist’ profs
THE LAW COULD LET STUDENTS SUE FOR UNTOLERATED BELIEFS.
http://www.alligator.org/pt2/050323freedom.php

excerts

The bill sets a statewide standard that students cannot be punished for professing beliefs with which their professors disagree. Professors would also be advised to teach alternative “serious academic theories” that may disagree with their personal views.

“Some professors say, ‘Evolution is a fact. I don’t want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don’t like it, there’s the door,’” Baxley said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue.

House Bill H-837 can be viewed online at www.flsenate.gov.

 

[RussDill]

I can see the case of a professor asking someone to write an essay about how bush is a war criminal, or how bush is the savior to the world. But such a law, yes, would apply to a student substituting ID for evolution and suing for an A.

This is an issue that should be addressed at the university level, please, please please, don't involve the government.

 

[crimresearch]

Too late.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

During the early-to-mid 90s, campus conservatives screamed and bellowed about "political correctness" and how left-wing professors and student activists were trying to subvert academic freedom, censor conservative student newspapers, and destroy the humanities all together with "deconstructionism" and "multiculturalism."

Of course, you can still find western literature in the library, and the College Republicans were never hauled off to re-education camps. When I was at college William Bennett and Walter Williams were brought to speak on campus. PC turned out to be much ado about very little.

I'll grant you that academia isn't the most right-wing-friendly environments, and I have had professors use their lecterns to pump their ideology (in 2000, I had one journalism professor request that students vote Gore). However, I have never met one student that was ever failed for having a conservative opinion. The average academic, even the ones who join ANSWER-sponsored anti-war protests and throw rocks at Starbucks, look for good scholarship and hard work, not ideological conformity.

This legislation is boob-bait-for-the-bubbas designed to cowtow to the right-wingers who preceive academia to be a den of Lefties. In the end, it will damage academic freedom far more than it will protect it.

 

[pgwenthold]

I'll grant you that academia isn't the most right-wing-friendly environments, and I have had professors use their lecterns to pump their ideology (in 2000, I had one journalism professor request that students vote Gore). However, I have never met one student that was ever failed for having a conservative opinion. The average academic, even the ones who join ANSWER-sponsored anti-war protests and throw rocks at Starbucks, look for good scholarship and hard work, not ideological conformity.

Pretty much, yep.

For example, suppose an assignment is to write a position paper on legalized prostitution in the Netherlands. You won't be graded on whether you argue in favor or in opposition, but in how you formulate the argument. If your argument _against_ legalization is "I don't like prostitution" or "my religion says prostitution is a sin," you likely aren't going to get a very good grade. OTOH, because arguments _for_ legalization are generally not so simplistic, they tend to be better thought out from the beginning (although they don't have to be; for example, someone in principle could say, "I want to be able to have lots of sex with hookers" as their argument for legalization, and it would be graded just as harshly as the shallow arguments against).

At the same time, there are legitimate arguments that could be made against legalization, and that would be treated fairly. The problem is the papers that are poorly thought out and poorly supported. Those are the one that get the poor grades, and deservedly so. However, the problem with them is that they are predominantly from one side. Although it is in principle possible to support the pro-legalization side with "I want to have sex with hookers," it doesn't happen very often. OTOH, "my religion says it's morally wrong" is not at all an uncommon view.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Finally, a victory for all the oppressed geocentricists!

 

[RandFan]

During the early-to-mid 90s, campus conservatives screamed and bellowed about "political correctness" and how left-wing professors and student activists were trying to subvert academic freedom, censor conservative student newspapers, and destroy the humanities all together with "deconstructionism" and "multiculturalism."

Of course, you can still find western literature in the library, and the College Republicans were never hauled off to re-education camps. When I was at college William Bennett and Walter Williams were brought to speak on campus. PC turned out to be much ado about very little.

I always find it interesting that Republicans who complain about limits to their free speech are belittled while any slight directed at someone on the left is spoken about in sacred tone.

I can always find examples such as yours for any real or perceived threat to speech.

This legislation is idiotic. However academic freedom and freedom of speech should be embraced in our institutions of higher learning. We should expect and demand better. Demeaning those on the right when they demand equity seems to me to be counter productive.

 

[Brown]

I believe a similar bill was being pushed in Minnesota earlier this year, but I don't think anything came of it.

When I was getting my first undergraduate degree (mumble, mumble) years ago, many of my courses required my classmates and me to give speeches on various political topics. Most of the classmates gave presentations that were, in the conventional vernacular, "liberal": helping the poor, addressing racism, limiting nuclear weapons, and the like. But there were a few of us (myself included) who gave presentations that would more likely be branded as "conservative": reducing the role of the federal government, projecting a stronger military presence in the MidEast, increasing the use of the death penalty, and so forth.

The professor was tough on everyone. When a student made a good presentation, the professor pointed out what was good about it and where there might be room for improvement. When the presentation needed work, the professor provided constructive criticism.

When the most right-wing student in the class made his presentation, he did a poor job. He set forth a series of unsupported and questionable "facts" in a disorganized manner and made arguments that were circular or otherwise illogical. The professor patiently explained how the student needed to improve his presentation.

To my surprise, the student took these remarks personally, concluding that the professor was coming down harder on him because the professor disagreed with his political views. He seemed to be unable to consider the possibility that the professor criticized him because his speech was terrible.

Granting a student a right to maintain suit in such a situation would border on insanity. It would encourage grade inflation for the students who were the biggest A-holes, compel unwitting classmates to be named as witnesses to material facts, and compromise a school's desire to promote academic excellence.

 

[pgwenthold]

I believe a similar bill was being pushed in Minnesota earlier this year, but I don't think anything came of it.

When I was getting my first undergraduate degree (mumble, mumble) years ago, many of my courses required my classmates and me to give speeches on various political topics. Most of the classmates gave presentations that were, in the conventional vernacular, "liberal": helping the poor, addressing racism, limiting nuclear weapons, and the like. But there were a few of us (myself included) who gave presentations that would more likely be branded as "conservative": reducing the role of the federal government, projecting a stronger military presence in the MidEast, increasing the use of the death penalty, and so forth.

In my speech class, one of the other students and I gave back to back speeches on nuclear power. She was anti-nuke, I did mine pro-nuclear power (it wasn't planned this way, and neither of us knew the other was doing theirs).

I got an A on my speech. I don't know what she got.

Oddly enough, at the time, I didn't feel strongly either way (and I really still don't). I just did a persuavive speech from the pro-nuke position. Even then, I understood that it wasn't the topic per se that mattered, but what you did with it.

 

[jmercer]

Historically in the U.S., the surest way to promote free speech is to attempt to suppress it. And from what I've seen, the best way to ensure the widespread adoption of an idea is to try and kill it. Apparently - among other failings - these ignorant louts in Congress failed to attend their history classes.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I always find it interesting that Republicans who complain about limits to their free speech are belittled while any slight directed at someone on the left is spoken about in sacred tone.

I can always find examples such as yours for any real or perceived threat to speech.

This legislation is idiotic. However academic freedom and freedom of speech should be embraced in our institutions of higher learning. We should expect and demand better. Demeaning those on the right when they demand equity seems to me to be counter productive.

I don't think this is about preventing Republicans from exercising their free speech. It is about Republicans trying to prevent academics from teaching theories with which they disagree (i.e. Evolution) under threat of litigation and having the temerity to call it academic freedom. That deserves belittling at the very least.

 

[Brown]

Oddly enough, at the time, I didn't feel strongly either way (and I really still don't). I just did a persuavive speech from the pro-nuke position. Even then, I understood that it wasn't the topic per se that mattered, but what you did with it.

That's how it was in my class, too. If memory serves, I gave speeches on First Amendment Freedom of the Press, and deployment of the MX (or "Peacekeeper") missile system, among others. (Actually, I did a lot of speaking in those days, so it's hard to separate out exactly what speech went with which class.) Part of the exercise was NOT to sway others to YOUR way of thinking, but to present a thoughful argument about a controversial issue, even if you disagreed with the position you were arguing. Later, I would take a class in which students were required to make a persuasive presentation on one side of the issue one day, and to make a second persuasive presentation on the other side of the issue the next day. That was fun.

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

Whoever wrote that article (linked way above) has a great sense of humor --

During the committee hearing, Baxley cast opposition to his bill as “leftists” struggling against “mainstream society.”

“The critics ridicule me for daring to stand up for students and faculty,” he said, adding that he was called a McCarthyist.

Baxley later said he had a list of students who were discriminated against by professors, but refused to reveal names because he felt they would be persecuted.

Now, that juxtaposition can't have been a coincidence, can it?

 

[RandFan]

I don't think this is about preventing Republicans from exercising their free speech. It is about Republicans trying to prevent academics from teaching theories with which they disagree (i.e. Evolution) under threat of litigation and having the temerity to call it academic freedom. That deserves belittling at the very least.

My complaint is with Mark's comments which I take exception to. If by "this" you mean the topic of the thread then let me repeat what I said to mark. "This legislation is idiotic."

 

[RandFan]

That's how it was in my class, too. If memory serves, I gave speeches on First Amendment Freedom of the Press, and deployment of the MX (or "Peacekeeper") missile system, among others. (Actually, I did a lot of speaking in those days, so it's hard to separate out exactly what speech went with which class.) Part of the exercise was NOT to sway others to YOUR way of thinking, but to present a thoughful argument about a controversial issue, even if you disagreed with the position you were arguing. Later, I would take a class in which students were required to make a persuasive presentation on one side of the issue one day, and to make a second persuasive presentation on the other side of the issue the next day. That was fun.

My poly-sci prof was wonderful. At the beginning of the course He passed out a list of controversial subjects and we were asked to write down our position on those subjects. Later he used that list to assign us a subject to debate but we were required to take the opposite of our stated position. The professor was liberal and at the time I was much more conservative. He was very respectful of all opinions but he demanded that we challenge ourselves and find out why we believed what we did believe. He and I kept in contact for a long time after I left school.

That being said. Educators are people like anyone else. Many are vain and egotistical. I found the easiest way was to get good grades was simply to tell them what they wanted to hear. And yes, there are many teachers and professors who value independence and academic freedom. Sadly many don't. What is the ratio? I don't know. I would guess worse than better.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

I always find it interesting that Republicans who complain about limits to their free speech are belittled while any slight directed at someone on the left is spoken about in sacred tone.

I wasn't belittling the free speech rights of conservatives, Republicans, or anyone else. I merely said that I believe that this legislation is the conservative's reaction to the so-called climate of "political correctness" that they claim exists in academia. Claims that , in my opinion, are overblown.

I can always find examples such as yours for any real or perceived threat to speech.

I'm sure you can. However, are they rule, or exceptions? Anecdotal evidence is not proof. Give me peer reviewed research that shows that conservatives are the targets of official harassment, censorship, and/or failing grades.

This legislation is idiotic. However academic freedom and freedom of speech should be embraced in our institutions of higher learning. We should expect and demand better. Demeaning those on the right when they demand equity seems to me to be counter productive.

How do you define "equity" in this case? How do you guarantee it? Do we have quotas to make sure a certain number of professors and students have a certain ideological bend?

If you mean that academic freedom and free speech is guaranteed for all, then it appears that is. As far as we know, a conservative can say what they want on an American college campus and not get in any academic trouble. They might ruin their reputations for lousy scholarship, or hack off students if they say something downright bigoted, but who ever said that free speech wouldn't come with consequences? Should the religious conservative student who attacks feminists and homosexuals be spared criticism from their female or gay classmates just because they are a religious conservative? In the end, I think that PC is pretty much the invention of angry conservatives who find that not everyone on campus agrees with them.

 

[RandFan]

I wasn't belittling the free speech rights of conservatives, Republicans, or anyone else.

I said you were belittling republicans not free speech rights. There is a difference.

I'm sure you can. However, are they rule, or exceptions? Anecdotal evidence is not proof.

Amazing, you give anecdotes and then when I say I can match your anecdotes you point out that anecdotes are not proof. Thanks for that.

How do you define "equity" in this case? How do you guarantee it? Do we have quotas to make sure a certain number of professors and students have a certain ideological bend?

I don't define "equity". I don't think it can be guaranteed. I see no need for quotas.

I only think we should expect more.

If you mean that academic freedom and free speech is guaranteed for all, then it appears that is. As far as we know, a conservative can say what they want on an American college campus and not get in any academic trouble.

Wrong. The courts have had to step in to protect freedom of speech.

They might ruin their reputations for lousy scholarship, or hack off students if they say something downright bigoted, but who ever said that free speech wouldn't come with consequences?

Should the religious conservative student who attacks feminists and homosexuals be spared criticism from their female or gay classmates just because they are a religious conservative?

These are not the incidents that I am talking about. I have never defended such actions. But good fallacy. Thank you for that. This is what is known as a straw man.

In the end, I think that PC is pretty much the invention of angry conservatives who find that not everyone on campus agrees with them.

In the end you are just a jerk. Typical of liberal thinking that can't comprehend that anyone other than someone of their own ideology might have a reasonable complaint.

 

[jay gw]

Real life scenario:

Iran University, Tehran: A student decides to write an essay praising democracy and tolerance in religious beliefs. The teacher not only gives it a zero but refers the student to the campus religious police. The administration does one better, and recommends the campus police torture and reeducate the student.

University administrations will always side with faculty. Students who are mistreated by professors should go directly to independent authorities for guidance and possibly intervention. It's the only remedy for abuse.

 

[TragicMonkey]

University administrations will always side with faculty. Students who are mistreated by professors should go directly to independent authorities for guidance and possibly intervention. It's the only remedy for abuse.

LOL. What college did you go to, that administration and faculty get along? At my school, it was permanent, vengeful, bloody open war, which was launched in the fifties and still raging now. From what I've read and observed, this is quite common among universities. Certainly it's borne out by reading The Chronicle of Higher Education, possibly the most bitter periodical ever.

There is no greater animosity between colleagues than is found in academe, and the only thing a professor hates more than another professor is a professor who jumped up to become a provost or something in administration.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

I said you were belittling republicans not free speech rights. There is a difference.

OK, how did I belittle Republicans? Because I
doubted their claims? Why should I believe them?

Amazing, you give anecdotes and then when I say I can match your anecdotes you point out that anecdotes are not proof. Thanks for that.

Very well, I'll grant you that. Mea culpa. However, I would like to see conclusive proof one way or another to put the issue to rest. Convince me, please.

I only think we should expect more.

Define "more," please. What do you expect?

Wrong. The courts have had to step in to protect freedom of speech.

I assume you mean UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin? (Point of information: The Post is a left-wing student paper.) The court ruled that speech codes were unconstitutional. But is that one case proof or wide-spread censorship or academic harassment of conservative students by "liberal" professors? I want to know.

In the end you are just a jerk. Typical of liberal thinking that can't comprehend that anyone other than someone of their own ideology might have a reasonable complaint.

First of all, was calling me a "jerk" necessary? I've been polite to you, so I don't see why you couldn't return the courtesy. Ironically, you lecture me about my apparent "straw man" argument when you resort to ad hominem?

Secondly, how do you come to the conclusion that I, a gun-owning free-marketeer, am a "liberal?" It seems to be typical of conservative thinking (or, by your handle, objectivist?) to make snap-judgment about a person's beliefs based on one or two posts.