The Academic Bill of Rights

You wrote: "Unnecessary legislation is very dangerous and it is suprising that a conservative would be in support of such a thing."This is simply a bill of rights. It is not legislation in the typical sense. I posted David Horowitz's address to a state legislature, explaining why it is necessary. Only those who recognize that there is a distinct leftist bias might see that there is also a problem. So, before responding any further: Do you recognize an overwhelming leftist bias on campus?

I agree that creationism is not science, and cannot be expected to be treated as such in a science class; it belongs in theology. But when a biology prof screens Farenheit 9/11, neither is that science - as I'm sure you agree. Likewise, when English profs teach political science, or political science profs demand agreement that the war in Iraq proves Bush is a war criminal, things are out of whack.

You wrote: "I think you are skipping a step. First, why is there a problem if the education system is biased against any students point of view or beliefs? Why wouldn't you want the education system to challenge EVERY belief?:You were right to stress "Every belief." The problem is that the system does not challenge leftist beliefs, only conservative ones. Moreover, the challenge should be bias free. So...The prof who asked students to prove that Bush is a war criminal should have, instead, asked students to take a stand for or against that position. Instead, he demanded that they agree with it. What might have been acceptable would have been this: He prefaced his question with: "Some people hold the controversial position that Bush is a war criminal," then wrote: "Whether you agree or not, defend that position." However, in another exam or class exercise, we'd expect him to demand that studentss argue against that position. Then we'd have balance. Such was not the case. The prof was indoctrinating students to agree with his personal view. Such a prof would, in all liklihood, mark down a student who disagreed - and, apparently, did exactly that.

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/...This link, in turn, links to many articles on the story:
Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access DeniedThis message has been edited by Admin, 06-11-2005 07:52 AM

The ABOR assiduously avoids anything close to a demand for quotas or preferential hiring. Read it, you will see what I mean. You might alos be interested to know that Horowitz wrote it with input from a few well known leftist academics.

They're wrong, only feeling threatened by a challenge to their leftist hegemony. Here's the bill in full:Academic Bill of RightsI. The Mission of the University.The central purposes of a University are the pursuit of truth, the discovery of new knowledge through scholarship and research, the study and reasoned criticism of intellectual and cultural traditions, the teaching and general development of students to help them become creative individuals and productive citizens of a pluralistic democracy, and the transmission of knowledge and learning to a society at large. Free inquiry and free speech within the academic community are indispensable to the achievement of these goals. The freedom to teach and to learn depend upon the creation of appropriate conditions and opportunities on the campus as a whole as well as in the classrooms and lecture halls. These purposes reflect the values -- pluralism, diversity, opportunity, critical intelligence, openness and fairness -- that are the cornerstones of American society.II. Academic Freedom1. The Concept . Academic freedom and intellectual diversity are values indispensable to the American university. From its first formulation in the General Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure of the American Association of University Professors, the concept of academic freedom has been premised on the idea that human knowledge is a never-ending pursuit of the truth, that there is no humanly accessible truth that is not in principle open to challenge, and that no party or intellectual faction has a monopoly on wisdom. Therefore, academic freedom is most likely to thrive in an environment of intellectual diversity that protects and fosters independence of thought and speech. In the words of the General Report, it is vital to protect “as the first condition of progress, [a] complete and unlimited freedom to pursue inquiry and publish its results.”Because free inquiry and its fruits are crucial to the democratic enterprise itself, academic freedom is a national value as well. In a historic 1967 decision ( Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York ) the Supreme Court of the United States overturned a New York State loyalty provision for teachers with these words: “Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, [a] transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned.” In Sweezy v. New Hampshire, (1957) the Court observed that the “essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities [was] almost self-evident.”2. The Practice . Academic freedom consists in protecting the intellectual independence of professors, researchers and students in the pursuit of knowledge and the expression of ideas from interference by legislators or authorities within the institution itself. This means that no political, ideological or religious orthodoxy will be imposed on professors and researchers through the hiring or tenure or termination process, or through any other administrative means by the academic institution. Nor shall legislatures impose any such orthodoxy through their control of the university budget.This protection includes students. From the first statement on academic freedom, it has been recognized that intellectual independence means the protection of students - as well as faculty - from the imposition of any orthodoxy of a political, religious or ideological nature. The 1915 General Report admonished faculty to avoid “taking unfair advantage of the student’s immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher’s own opinions before the student has had an opportunity fairly to examine other opinions upon the matters in question, and before he has sufficient knowledge and ripeness of judgment to be entitled to form any definitive opinion of his own.” In 1967, the AAUP’s Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students reinforced and amplified this injunction by affirming the inseparability of “the freedom to teach and freedom to learn.” In the words of the report, “Students should be free to take reasoned exception to the data or views offered in any course of study and to reserve judgment about matters of opinion.”Therefore, to secure the intellectual independence of faculty and students and to protect the principle of intellectual diversity, the following principles and procedures shall be observed.These principles fully apply only to public universities and to private universities that present themselves as bound by the canons of academic freedom. Private institutions choosing to restrict academic freedom on the basis of creed have an obligation to be as explicit as is possible about the scope and nature of these restrictions.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.

You may be right that that is how leftists would respond. But I'm not so sure. Leftists often use quotas, affirmative action, "equal opportunity employer" stuff to redress wrongs they diagnose from stats. I think it is telling that conservative Horowitz's ABOR makes no such demand, preferring, instead, to demand that principles of fairness be established and maintained.BTW, I once favoured affirmative action. But, as should have been obvious, once established along with corresponding interest groups, they would exist forever. And thus, two generations later, none of those groups are saying: Great job everyone; time to disband, victory having been achieved. They will never say such a thing, period, even if their desired equal stats are met. (Consider that more women enter university now than men, and they even outnumber men in Medicine and law faculties. What do the feminists say? Sure, but men still outnumber women in hard sciences: Wonder why they don't complain that women outnumber men in all other faculties, or in particular professions, like teaching and nursing?)Conservatives say: Equal opportunity. Leftists say: Equal results.

First, this bill was drafted with leftists. Second, I believe you are misinterpreting the bill. It says:"Students should be free to take REASONED EXCEPTION to the data or views offered in any course of study." So, a student would have been free to take reasoned exception to the notion that Bush is a war criminal...or that Kerry is a war criminal (given his contentious service in Viet Nam and, especially, afterwards). Sounds fair to me.

You, or someone, said that the ABOR was about quotas to provide more conservatives on campus. I was responding to that post. As for last word, I have not responded to a number of posts, including, I believe, some from you.

When you and others argue that the ABOR is a conservative plot to bring change to campus, then it is relevant that it was drawn up with leftists.You wrote, and almost all your arghumentation is based on, "If one or both of those positions are factually true, why should someone be allowed to take exception? Faith couldn't answer that; can you?"Here's the problem: You assume certain things to be factually true that are not. So do many leftist profs. The allegation that the war was for oil, or that Bush is a war criminal, are good examples. It is that kind of subjective viewpoint that the ABOR provides for reasoned objection without grade or other sanction.

More women then men attend university, including law and medicine faculties. But that is not enough. The bar is moved. The left, and especially feminists, will not be pleased until women dominate every faculty.But that aside, stats are not the way to determine justice. Equal opportunity is, and the results fall as they do.Your comment about conservatives not knowing justice is nothing other than obtuse silliness.

I didn't mean to say that women outnumber men in faculty positions. I meant as students. And , just as more women get into university ebcause they get better High School marks, so faculty should be determined on merit. And yet, affirmative action made it easier for my daughters to get into law school and med school than my sons. That was dumb. They had equal opportunity (and a ton of encouragement) and didn't need affirmative action, nor deserved it. The same applies for faculty. There should be an objective determination process, and whoever best qualifies gets the job: Period.Page not found - PBS NewsHour Classroom

I agree, of course, with just about all you say on tbhis subject. The objectors are taking a stand against a bill of rights. What else needs to be said?

Thank you. I feel better about this board as a result.

Everyone has heard about "lies, damn lies and statistics." To argue that women don't earn equally for the same work is such a statistic. The truth is next to impossible to determine, but we do know that a) women tend to feel more obligation to family and therefore leave work for periods of time, decline promotions that will take them away from their children, and so on. We also know that, regardless of what is actually true, women can form companies just like men and hire who they will. In other words, there is equal opportunity. The bottom line is that justice will not be accomplished through quotas. But were it otherwise, then I guess conservatives should be demanding quotas on faculty hiring.You quoted me: "And yet, affirmative action made it easier for my daughters to get into law school and med school than my sons. That was dumb. They had equal opportunity."You responded: "Did they, though?"
Obviously they did. That is why there are more women entering Law school and Medicine faculties than men these days.Then you ask: "If they had been trying to get into law and med school in the 1950's, do you think it would have been just as easy?"Maybe, perhaps probably, not. But what transpired 50 years ago is not relelvant to today's reality.You ask: "Do you think that the attitudes towards women in higher education have become completely egalitarian in a single generation?"Probably, given that there are more women in higher education than men. Regardless, solutions, especially to entirely subjective determinations, do not come from quotas. Were it otherwise, not only should conservatives demand quotas on faculty hiring, but men should demand that education faculties have 50% make students. Smae for nursing faculties. And arts faculties.