Was this inevitable?

In an activity in which 80% of organizations rely on government support (monopoly investigations start 55%), and of that total 60% of the participants have lifelong tenure (contested cases involving removal costing more than $200K) — how else, would one bring about behaviorial changes of the tenured?

Threaten to take away parking? Assign the freshman seminar, or development fund?

Art, at 8:25 am EDT on July 7, 2005

AL — Since faith-based institutions are private and not public, direct oversight from a state government such as what the article describes almost certainly wouldn’t happen. Private, especially faith-based, colleges are largely exempt from state and federal rules — for example, they have the ability to discriminate in their hiring practices on the basis of religious belief.

Robert, at 9:27 am EDT on July 7, 2005

Why, yes — everything in academia is perfect

“Every college and university has academic grievance process for students to file complaints about bias.”

Yes — and, in theory, every government agency has a grievance procedure. Yet, newspapers are filled with cases of waste, abuse, bias, sloth, law-breaking, etc.

If one is suggesting that academia is perfect and above public review — one believes academia more perfect than the Presidency, Congress, and Supreme Court? Puh-leeze ..

Art, at 10:34 am EDT on July 7, 2005

Where the heck does Art get the idea that 60% of faculty are tenured? Picking numbers out of the air with no relationship to anything (especially not reality) is a behavior that has no place in academia.

And it’s NOT left-wing to prioritize facts over numbers plucked from nowhere, Art!

Thane Doss, Tokyo

Thane Doss, at 11:55 am EDT on July 7, 2005

What’s the number, Kenneth?

Pain, uh, Thane:

You can deconstruct, like the masses —

What about constructs — what is your percentage number, sir?

Do you even have one?

Art, at 2:19 pm EDT on July 7, 2005

There is more than all of this, though. The template for this also includes this language:

“[A]cademic 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”

This means that even when we are outside of the classroom, legislation closely patterned on the Horowitz model would allow the government to look over our collective shoulder. Here comes the unsmall unsister (sorry, Horowitz does the Newspeak better than I).

Andrew Purvis, Read it all, at 2:19 pm EDT on July 7, 2005

NO REASON TO GET UPSET

Why the commotion about promoting diversity of ideas? If indeed that is the mission of a university, professors — whether liberal or conservative — should have nothing to fear.

David Horowitz, deeply engaged in ideological wars for many years, understands as we do the preponderance of liberal thought in college campuses just from the sheer numbers of professors who embrace the liberal ideology. Knowing the same atmosphere that exists in the mainstream media, with its liberal bias, isn’t it logical to achieve balance in colleges with the kind of resolution that Represenative Armostron sponsored?

Citing worst-case scenarios such as some examples given here (denial of Holocaust, competing theories against evolution, etc.) should be no reason to assume that one group is out to promote its agenda, or that the government should stay out of its oversight function altogether and allow the universities to appropriate that role even when there are legitimate reasons to see how public money for education is spent. It cannot be that one-sided.

America will remain great if we keep our universities as marketplaces of ideas, with no doors shut to those who may have have opinions different from established dognas and orthodoxies.

R. G. LACSAMANA, M.D., at 5:34 pm EDT on July 7, 2005

In what way are the educators protected? They cannot wear, under the template version of the “Academic Bill of Rights,” anything that expresses a political view, yet students can. Students can thus attempt to sway one another politically while in the classroom, but the educator may not express a view (even if it is a contrary view to the one theh educator actually holds) without running the risk of being called on the carpet.

What is the defense? Proclaim, at one’s (public) hearing, one’s (private) views on an issue about which a student has written and earned a less-than-ideal grade?

I would still like to hear a case or two in which this kind of discrimination has been shown to exist. I would like to see numbers that illustrate (heck, hint at) its frequency. I would, in short, like to see what might justify such a law, should it ever threaten to become law.

Andrew Purvis, at 5:44 am EDT on July 8, 2005

Academic Rights and Responsibilities

Academic leaders in Pennslyvania should have argued to the legislature, “Let us evaluate our own campus policies on academic rights and responsibilities and give you a report.” To resist addressing the issue is what will drive legislative bodies to do things they should not. The recent statement on this topic by 28 higher education associatons was meant to move action on this increasingly hot issue away from political to academic leaders. Let’s step up to the plate.

Bob Andringa, President at Council for Christian Colleges & Universities, at 6:55 am EDT on July 8, 2005

The Horowitz Investigation

As the elected legislative leader most vociferously against the Horowitz-inspired House investigation, I am delighted this nonsense is receiving the national attention it deserves.

I would welcome any attempt to help introduce bias against liberals or moderates into this psuedo-investigation, or to supply me and other House Democrats and moderate Republicans with information on standards and practices of course preparation, grading, relating course material to current events, expressing political opinions, etc.

Pennsylvania is perhaps the most conservative state to have gone for Kerry. The Jim Carville description of Pennsylvania has become famous in the twenty years since he first came up with it because of its essential (although not total) accuracy: Pennsylvania, he said, is basically Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, with Alabama in between.

With your help, we can help persuade Pennsylvanians of the utter emptiness and irresponsibility of this needless investigation.

Rep. Mark B. Cohen, Chairman, House Democratic Caucus at Pennsylvania House of Representatives, at 5:13 pm EDT on July 8, 2005

first baby step

This may be a good first step but it is a small one. A fundamental problem is that the hiring process for higher education faculty and administration involves many hurdles that favor philosophical leftists. This has been the case for several decades, and it is going to be tough to reverse.

Job descriptions for chancellor, president, provost, dean, department chair, and faculty member usually contain expectations addressing attitudes, accomplishments, and responsibilities that are unrelated to competent performance as an administrator, scholar, or instructor, but do enable search committees and administrators to eliminate candidates whose philosophy does not please them. Such requirements are usually coded into vague, noble-sounding phrases, the purposes, results, and real meaning of which can be denied if challenged.

For instance, “candidate must value diversity” actually means the candidate will support hiring and promotion preferences based on a person’s race-ethnic group, sex, and other personal characteristics unrelated to excellence and achievement in the position. Furthermore, the candidate must show evidence that he or she will promote such a perspective in courses, other university duties, and scholarly activities.

“Commitment to social justice” often means that the candidate must believe that capitalism usually creates harm while socialism usually produces good, government action is the best way to solve societal problems, and world government institutions should trump U.S. constitutional rights. The ambiguity and broad coverage of commitment to social justice is especially suited for hiring discrimination based on political philosophy.

In most universities, administrators make the actual hiring decision after input from search committees and others. The administrators have been hired through a process that values diversity and has a commitment to social justice. Thus, administrators are often suspicious of candidates with differing philosophies, even in the unlikely event that a search committee recommends such a candidate. And administrators are aware that numerous diversity and social justice watchdog individuals and organizations are eager to question and, often, publicly embarrass the administrator over any candidate that seems to vary from the standard philosophy.

Can there be any wonder about why the vast majority of higher education personnel are political liberals? David Horowitz and the PA legislature have a tall mountain to climb.

Doug Cullinan, at 12:35 pm EDT on July 9, 2005

Where’s the beef?

“And in a time of national debt, it’s important to spend state funding conducting political witch hunts and kangaroo trials against higher education, one of the few industries that generates a net SURPLUS for the U.S. economy.”

Really? Where’s your proof?

In declining reading scores? Rising teen births? Rising social service costs? Third-generation welfare receipients? Declining productivity?

If publicly-funded higher ed is so great — why doesn’t it go private, and kiss-off David Horowitz? People should be rushing to join in, right?

Answer: large parts of it, isn’t self-supporting. Take away W.L. Churchill’s government subsidy for whining, and he’s just another freak-show crank in the park.

If you had the courage of your convictions, you’d start your own school. I await the announcement — right after the cow jumps over the moon.

E.T., at 6:51 pm EDT on July 11, 2005

Bias in Japan

I am following this development with great interest even though I am not American, and live and teach in Japan. Content in English Language Teaching material here is generally not an area where authors and/or teachers try to push their views onto students, and both/many sides of controversial issues are generally presented to stimulate discussion and debate. Still, there are instances of concerted attempts to use ELT content as a vehicle for pushing personal beliefs onto students, under the auspices of an organization of teachers here that claims to be “teaching for a better world".

For example, one textbook presents only an anti-globalization viewpoint, and even then, presents it as if this view were an established fact: “Unfortunately, the direction in which globalization is leading us is not towards Utopia, but towards a world dominated by huge corporations whose only purpose is to maximize short-term profits regardless of the consequences for humanity” with the following comprehension question to reinforce this “fact", “What kind of world is globalization bringing?”

Another example, “However, the power of corporations reaches beyond our livelihoods and our health, and extends to our thoughts. Large corporations own all the major newspapers, broadcasting companies and publishers, and can thus influence what we learn and think about the world” followed by the question-begging comprehension question, “Do you feel any concern about the power of large corporations over your life and mind?”

And yet another example from another textbook by the same author, “The sole objective of the World Trade Organization is to eliminate all barriers to free trade, regardless of their pupose” followed by the suggestion that “the WTO should be eliminated next.”

And one more example from another author, “All this buying and sepnding has brought about tremendous economic growth in the developed countries. But it has also given rise to great inequality. The poverty, hunger and disease of the developing nations are all a direct outgrowth of our love of shopping.” with the only explanation for this claim being, “Just think: a pair of running shoes that costs $5 to make in a poorer country often sells for $120 or more in a rich country! In other words, the developing countires get little benefit from our high-income consumerism.” Once again, this claim is not accompanied by any alternative viewpoint, and is stated as a bald fact.

Attempted indoctrination seems to be alive and well in the teaching of English in some Japanese university classrooms at least. Personally, I would like to see some kind of code of ethics in place here to help prevent this kind of biased instruction in compulsory classes, and ensure that both/all sides of controversial issues are fairly aired when they are introduced. I think that would be a far better outcome than having other teachers who see the world differently, taking it upon themselves to just as one-sidedly try to push their opposite views onto students.

Rovert, at 4:42 am EDT on July 12, 2005

Oversight

It seems interesting that when certain libertarians say that businesses can be self-policing, the vast majority of Americans can see the fallacies in that. Yet, when it comes to education, the establishment claims to be effectively the only honest self-policing organization on the face of the earth.

That is quite an assertion.

Few people have problems with the concept that governments can regulate the activities of private businesses, although they belong to people (ie the shareholders) not the government, and largely are not government funded – unlike the public universities. Horowitz has made the scope of his legislation far too broad and invasive, but to question the very concept of oversight of a government entity by the government it is funded and organized by is utterly ridiculous. Academic freedom does not mean immunity from any oversight by any force outside their university.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 2:35 pm EDT on August 23, 2005