Some state legislators want to introduce an “academic bill of rights.” This legislation would be like a patient’s bill of rights, in that certain activities are curtailed and others are promoted and all are legally binding. To me, the academic bill of rights sounds more like trying to promote good teaching with some scary sounding prohibitions that could open the door to curtailments of the U.S. Constitution’s first ammendment. The Bill is promoted by Republicans and, more than likely, is a response to the fear that conservative ideology is actively discriminated against on a mass scale. You can read a Waterglass debate about it here.
As such, here are snipets of the proposed academic bill of rights:
As Introduced by the 126th General Assembly, Regular Session, 2005-2006, S. B. No. 24 A BILL To enact sections 3345.80 and 3345.81 of the Revised Code to establish the academic bill of rights for higher education.
Senators Mumper, Jordan, Cates, Wachtmann
(A) The institution shall provide its students with a learning environment in which the students have access to a broad range of serious scholarly opinion pertaining to the subjects they study. In the humanities, the social sciences [emphasis mine --ed.], 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.
Sounds like good teaching except for the last sentence. There is not enough time to promote all theories. The best thing to do is make sure the student has good research skills to find out some info on their own.
(C) Faculty and instructors shall not infringe 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.
NOW we’re getting into the scary territory. If there is a major social event happening, why can’t we talk about it classes that don’t deal specifically with that event? If we teach research methods, should we not talk about the War? If we teach 16th Century English literature, should we not talk about Abu Ghriab? When, exactly, can I talk about these things? Is discussion of current events not inherently pedagogical? This sounds like an infringement on free speech. Hardly a case of giving away state secrets or yelling fire in a crowded classroom.
(D) University administrators, student government organizations, and institutional policies, rules, or procedures shall not infringe the freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of conscience of students and student organizations.
Does this apply to extreme right wing hate groups? Or extreme left wing hate groups? Isn’t this already in the U.S. Constitution?
(F) 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.
Once again, just good teaching. But see (A) above.
Classrooms are not bully pulpits. However, I don’t like the idea of a politician telling me what I can discuss and when I can discuss it. I suppose passage of this bill opens the door to frivolous law suits of students who weren’t told some ancient theory about something, claiming political discrimination. We really do need tort reform in these cases.
A few replies:
In (A), the Bill is not suggesting that the instructor try to devote time to promoting ALL theories. Rather, it says that the curriculum should RESPECT all human knowledge and provide students with dissenting viewpoints. It doesn’t say TEACH all human knowledge; that would be silly. But for example, in a general social sciences class, I’d say that both Marxist and Randian philosophies should be equally represented. That’s not out of bounds, I don’t think.
On (C), the important term is “persistently.” Nobody’s arguing that you can’t mention Abu Ghraib during a 16th Century English Lit course. However, the point of 16th Century English Lit is, well, 16th Century English Lit, not how evil Chimpy McBushitler is personally behind the horrible torture undergone by the innocent Iraqis unjustly imprisoned in Abu Ghraib. And if this kind of hectoring goes on in the classroom at the expense of the real coursework, it’s not unreasonable to object.
On (D), many college campuses have severely curtailed free speech rights in flagrant violation of the Constitution in the name of “speech codes.” These speech codes are designed to keep anyone from having his or her feelings hurt by talk they might find offensive in any way.
In (F), I think the important term is “civil debate.” David Horowitz’s site FrontPage.com, located on the sidebar, writes about this all the time. Indeed, it’s my understanding that Horowitz drafted this Bill, and is its main proponent.
Unfortunately, classrooms are being used as bully pulpits all the time, especially in liberal arts and the social sciences. That would be fine, except for the fact that this is also done in state schools, which means that my tax money is used to pay the salary of a college professor who, rather than teaching his students what MIRV is, instead uses the class time to bitch about the current administration, belittle those students who are brave enough to disagree, and generally abuse their authority as educators.
This Bill is simply an attempt to release the intellectual stranglehold the left has on college campuses at the expense of giving students a good education. Despite that my tax money goes to fund state schools, I don’t have any control over who gets tenure and who doesn’t. That lack of control, combined with the persistent left-wing bias on college campuses across the country, contributes to the absolute necessity of this bill.
If you want to speechify, do it in the quad at lunch, or on a blog. Don’t foist political opinion on students that are just trying to understand just what’s going on in the Canterbury Tales.
I agree with many of your points. Here’s what I disagree with:
Your’re right on (a), except for the Ayn Rand part. I think she’s full of crap and I know of no sociology course that talks about Objectivism. Perhaps a philosophy class is more appropriate.
Civil debate is indeed important. I shudder at the thought of it being legislated, though.
“This Bill is simply an attempt to release the intellectual stranglehold the left has on college campuses at the expense of giving students a good education.” I don’t think conservatives are strangled, but I do think graduate education, from whence professors spring, lean liberally. This is reflected in voting records. The extent to which conservatives have a voice is an empirical question that, to my knowledge, has not been satisfactorily addressed.
Good teaching is presenting many sides to a debate. I think it’s a dangerous proposition to let legislators tell me how to teach, though. Perhaps if they let me tell them how to legislate, I’d allow them fuller access into my classroom.
By the way, it was the Canterbury Tales that drove me into the social sciences.
MIRV.
“I think it’s a dangerous proposition to let legislators tell me how to teach, though. Perhaps if they let me tell them how to legislate, I’d allow them fuller access into my classroom.”
But you DO tell them how to legislate. Not to sound TOO idealistic, but it’s your vote that drives legislation. In that respect, there’s a democratic system in place: we choose the people who are most likely to push through legislation that we find most agreeable through the voting process.
What most of us don’t get to do is choose who teaches whom. And even fewer of us get to pick out who gets tenure, which is a form of job security that VERY VERY VERY few fields of endeavor receive.
I agree that the government shouldn’t tell you what to teach in the classroom, with the caveat that if you’re paid from government funds (i.e. my money), you stick to the stated curriculum in a way that satisfies both the school administration and the community standards.
It’s clear that we both agree that the school lectern should not be used as a bully pulpit. I have no doubt that in your classroom, you have the intellectual integrity to stick to the curriculum, and it wouldn’t occur to me that you would abuse your authority as an educator because you have strong feelings about current events.
It’s been said a million times that you can’t legislate morality. This Bill may be an attempt to do that very thing, which means that it’s possibly doomed: either it won’t go through, or it has the potential to be abused if it does. In the latter case, I have no doubt in my mind that every left-leaning instructor in Ohio’s colleges will rise up in loud protest.
And as for Ayn Rand and Objectivism as opposed to Marx and Communism, I’d say that the millions and millions and millions of people murdered under communist regimes might differ as to whose philosophy is more full of crap. Oh, wait: they’re all dead.