Fully Agreed!

Indoctrination is an understatement.

Brainwashing fits the bill.. wouldn’t you agree?

Joey Plazo, Dr. at Ateneo, at 12:25 pm EDT on July 21, 2007

Teacher’s Union Is The Problem

Student’s CAN NOT get a good education if teacher’s are only teaching HALF THE STORY. That’s not teaching — it’s INDOCTRINATION and a common sense fair and balanced perspective is what’s needed in the curriculum.

Larry, at 11:17 am EDT on April 19, 2005

Academic bill of Rights

Mr. Scheurman claims that under the Academic Bill of Rights “on Monday we would hear that the Holocaust was bad, on Wednesday that it was good, and on Friday that it never happened.” This actually amounts to only adding a single viewpoint to his status quo, “the holocaust was bad.”

chris behmelande, Dr., at 3:23 pm EDT on April 19, 2005

The pitiable admission inherent in this piece

If Mr. Scheurman and “other critics” were to use lines of attack against Horowitz and the Academic Bill of Rights that were substantive and thoughtful — as opposed to the superficially silly, strawman and contemptuously dismissive arguments represented in this piece — then one could at least allow that the debate had been engaged at some recognizable level. As it is, rather than having been engaged, any appreciable debate has been ignored and evaded.

Michael B, at 9:36 pm EDT on April 19, 2005

Got a flash for you: The plural of student is students, not student’s.

Roberto, at 9:39 pm EDT on April 19, 2005

I really enjoyed this article- esp. the old bug-a-bo when the left gets up and starts dragging out the old ghost of Senator McCarthy. I find it funny that that the most pajoritive term to come up with- as compared with, say, Stalinistic. :)

William Duston, at 12:17 pm EDT on April 20, 2005

Academic Bill of Rights

There is something very wrong when a movement seeks to repress equality, of almost any kind, but especially to repress equality in teaching different views of controversial topics at colleges. One student at Butler University expressed his dismay over his professor’s bias in teaching. The professor went on an angry crusade in front of the class to expose the student even though he’d made it known that he wanted to remain anonymous. She passed out copies of the letter to the entire class. My daughter is in that class and was absolutely mortified that the professor thought she wrote the letter because, early in the semester, the professor asked for a show of hands as to who was liberal and who was conservative and my daughter identified herself as conservative. I’m not sure if the entire text of the letter will fit in the allotted comment space, but here it is:

Dear Dr. ________:

Thank you for single-handedly proving by your persistent, anti-conservative rhetoric in the classroom that David Horowitz is right on target in claiming that liberalism has contaminated the process by which all students’ views are respected, encouraged, and protected as part of their basic civil rights. In your discourse and demeanor and your selection of teaching materials and subjects, you have clearly demonstrated your own personal biases, which promote discomfort and discourage participation of conservative students under your instruction.

By allowing classroom applause for the actions of the student who attacked Mr. Horowitz, and by you, yourself, calling Mr. Horowitz “crazy, a “whacko,” and “the mouthpiece of Shawn Hannity,” you intimidated and isolated those students who may not have agreed that it’s acceptable to use violence in exhibiting free speech. The fact that you defended the applause with your statement that the offense was an invocation of the student’s right to disagree with Mr. Horowitz is deplorably inexcusable.

Your behavior contradicts the very principles of free speech and academic freedom that college professors hold so dear. In your case, as Horowitz points out, it is just a one-way street.

You are a disgrace to your profession, and I implore President Fong to, at the very least, call upon you to extend an apology to your students. Though you may not consider a small handful of conservative students worthy of your time and effort, they are paying customers at Butler University and should be treated with respect and fairness!

Dame Prout, at 12:03 pm EDT on April 22, 2005

The Schizophrenia of the AFT

Two critical themes are here.

1) The Academic Bill of Rights- I am wondering how many faculty who oppose this in favor of self-regulation oppose, at the same time the current administration’s effort to lift environmental sanctions in favor of letting business self-regulate. After all, most corporate leaders are products of the universities and should find that their values and those of their professors are equally trust worthy?

2) The current conflict between faculty and university administration for faculty rights/benefits. Here too, it is strange since most administrators were, at one time, faculty, many of whom were only too happy to change their roles since faculty chose to transfer that responsibility, at least, until, the shoe began to pinch, particularly when they began to understand that the university was not for them. As the union designation represents, they are now employees, union or not.

tom abeles, at 12:05 pm EDT on April 22, 2005

AFT meeting

On Friday, April 15, the National Education Association in conjunction with the American Federation of Teachers announced a joint lobbying effort to combat a provision in the Higher Education Reauthorization Act inspired by our Academic Bill of Rights which would promote greater intellectual diversity in our nation’s colleges and universities and combat discrimination against students for their political, religious, or ideological beliefs. In a press release announcing their opposition, the NEA and AFT deliberately mischaracterize the Academic Bill of Rights and the provisions in the Higher Education Act which echo its language and intent. The misrepresentation of the Bill is apparent even from the sub-headline of the release which declares that “Proposed changes in the Higher Education Act wouldâ€∫.create an ideological litmus test for faculty.â€? This statement is an outright falsehood and was adopted from an American Association of University Professors statement which has falsely claimed since the introduction of our bill that it would “enforce a kind of diversity that is instead determined by essentially political categories, like the number of Republicans or Democrats on a faculty, or the number of conservatives or liberals.â€? Our response to this misrepresentation of the Bill by the AAUP can be viewed here. Far from imposing an ideological litmus test on faculty, the Academic Bill of Rights proposed by our organization explicitly forbids the consideration of political or ideological views in hiring and tenure processes. The portions of the Higher Education Act which reflect our Academic Bill of Rights are chiefly concerned with the rights of students rather than educators and thus do not contain this exact provision—in fact the section of the Higher Education Act inspired by the Academic Bill of Rights is silent on the topic of hiring educators illustrating the lack of research which went into the NEA/AFT response. But these provisions similarly outlaw the use of political standards to judge or grade students, mandating that students not be “excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination or official sanction on the basis of their political or ideological beliefs.â€? The body of the release is equally misleading. A special paragraph devoted to the issue states: “A special concern for the two unions is a proposed congressional resolution on what the Republican majority ironically calls the ‘Academic Bill of Rights.’ If passed, the resolution would impose a litmus test on curriculum, teaching and hiring decisions. Several states also are considering state versions of the “Academic Bill of Rightsâ€? that would bar faculty from discussing controversial subjects and in other ways bar academic freedom, including legislatures in Minnesota , Ohio , New York and Rhode Island.â€? NEA President Kathy Sproles is then quoted as stating, “If Congress tries to create a ‘balance’ of political and religious views and other forms of expression by faculty through this action, they will kill academic freedom.â€? The mischaracterizations in these statements are many. The first charge, that the Bill would “impose a litmus test on curriculum, teaching and hiring decisions,â€? is clearly contradicted by the text of the Higher Education Act itself which states that students should be presented with “diverse approaches and dissenting sources and viewpoints within the instructional settingâ€? and should not be “subjected to discriminationâ€∫on the basis of their political or ideological beliefs.â€? Nowhere does either the Act or the full Academic Bill of Rights refer to any particular political position or viewpoint, much less mandate that instruction be directed by political aims. It takes a suspension of rational judgment to conclude that the teaching of diverse scholarly perspectives—which should be an aim in any educational setting—amounts to the imposition of a particular political agenda or “litmus test.â€? The American Historical Association even emphasizes the importance of teaching diverse perspectives, declaring in its recently-revised Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct that, “ Students should be made aware of multiple causes and varying interpretations. Within the bounds of the historical topic being studied, the free expression of legitimate differences of opinion should always be a goalâ€? (emphasis added). NAS President Sproles’ comment that mandating a “‘balance’ of political and religious views and other forms of expression by facultyâ€? would “kill academic freedomâ€? is misleading of several grounds. Nowhere does the section of the Higher Education Act inspired by our Academic Bill of Rights or the Bill itself contain the word “balanceâ€? which implies a 50-50 division of views which might lead to intellectual quotas. The concept touted by the Higher Education Act and the Academic Bill of Rights is not that of “balanceâ€? but rather of intellectual diversity. As was revealed above, it is the same concept recognized by the American Historical Association and is already embedded in the Academic Freedom Policies of many public universities across the nation. Can a concept that is already so widely recognized as a key component of academic freedom really be a means to “kill[ing] academic freedomâ€?? On the final claim, relating not to the Higher Education Act, but rather to the legislation introduced in many states, that it would “ bar faculty from discussing controversial subjects,â€? the AFT and NEA again distort the facts. The clause which can be found in much of the state legislation states: “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.â€? As can clearly be seen from the above passage, it is a vast simplification and overstatement to say that these state bills would “bar faculty from discussing controversial subjects.â€? The language of the legislation makes explicitly clear that only those controversial topics that have “no relation to their subject of studyâ€? and serve “no legitimate pedagogical purposeâ€? would be considered out-of-bounds. This policy is in fact a much more lenient standard than that held by the AAUP which states in the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure that, “Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.â€? Furthermore, many individual universities have also adopted regulations which are also more stringent than our legislative bills including Ohio State University and Pennsylvania State University. As the two higher education unions that by their own claim represent “more than 90 percent of unionized faculty and professional staff employed in the nation’s colleges and universities,â€? the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers have undermined their credibility by releasing this poorly-researched and one-sided propaganda piece as an official statement.

Sara Dogan, at 6:14 pm EDT on April 24, 2005