Nov. 16, 2006

Who Won the Battle of Pennsylvania?

For all the fears about David Horowitz’s Academic Bill of Rights, the proposal ended up going nowhere in state legislatures last year. But in Pennsylvania, the House of Representatives voted to create a special legislative committee to investigate the state of academic freedom and whether students who hold unpopular views need more protection. The special committee held hearings — amid charges and countercharges from Horowitz, his allies, college presidents, faculty groups and others.

Looking for a job?

See all 244 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 2,670
Administrative: 2,058
Executive: 151
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

With the committee wrapping up its work, the battle has shifted to the question of what the committee accomplished and what its work means. Horowitz is so pleased with the committee’s work that he said in an interview Wednesday that he sees it as a model for what he will do in the next year. He no longer plans to get legislatures to adopt his “Bill of Rights,” which calls for a diversity of views in courses and in hiring — a principle that many professors say sounds innocuous but could lead to their being forced to adopt ideological quotas or to include, for example, creationism and Holocaust denial in courses on evolution or anti-Semitism.

“I found in Pennsylvania a better way to go than [legislative] resolutions,” he said. His next move will be to work in two or three additional states to set up committees like the one in Pennsylvania to hold hearings and to issue reports on academic freedom. He said he already has the support of one state’s governor and legislative leaders, although he declined to name the state. “In any red state controlled by Republicans, I can get hearings,” he said. He’s keeping his plans secret for now because “if I tell you, all that will do is mobilize the AFT and AAUP.”

Where Horowitz sees victory, however, others see a rather dramatic defeat for his movement and its ideas. The final report of the committee is still being negotiated between Republican and Democratic members of the panel. But consensus already exists that problems with students being punished for political views are rare and that no legislation is needed. From the start of Horowitz’s movement, academic leaders have been saying just that.

“This committee spent a lot of time and a lot of money trying to find some shred of evidence of a real problem and they couldn’t find one because there is not one,” said Megan Fitzgerald, field director of the Center for Campus Free Speech.

Rep. Lawrence H. Curry, a Democrat who served on the committee, said that it was “nonsense” for Horowitz to say that the panel’s work had validated his ideas. Curry said that throughout the process, he kept hearing from Horowitz supporters about groups of students who had stories of being punished for their political views, and that Curry offered to meet with them — in public or private — and that the students never materialized. “I’m on the students’ side so if this was a problem, I wanted to know about it, but there never were these students,” Curry said, adding that Horowitz deserves “an A for vivid imagination.”

Some of the students who are named in the draft report also seem to challenge Horowitz’s contention that the prevalence of liberal professors somehow makes it difficult for conservative students to get an education. The draft quotes the president of the Millersville University Republicans talking about a professor who discussed his anti-Bush views during the 2004 presidential campaign, and at least once in class noted this student’s conservative leanings. Apparently she survived, as the report goes on to quote her saying that she had signed up for another course with the same professor “because I find him to be a brilliant professor.”

The draft report describes in considerable detail the hearings held by the committee. And while Democrats and some academic leaders say the current draft favors pro-Horowitz testimony, there don’t appear to be many disputes over the accuracy of the quotes and descriptions. The report goes on to note that there is no evidence of any but “rare” cases in which students are punished for their views, and that no legislation is needed. The draft criticizes the lack of political diversity on some campuses but again says there is no government role to carry out.

One area where the report says colleges aren’t doing enough concerns policies for students who do feel discriminated against. The draft says that many students don’t know their rights and that colleges should review their academic freedom policies to make sure student rights are protected, and make sure these policies are well publicized to students.

Horowitz said that this is the key point and explains why more students did not come forward. “How can students report abuses if there is no policy that explains what an abuse is, if there is no grievance machinery, and if the students are intimidated?” he asked. He also characterized as a “major victory” and a model the steps Temple University took this year to revise its grievance procedures. Temple officials characterized their action as one of clarifying and simplifying policies, as the university periodically does. Horowitz said that Temple’s action was the result of the hearings and said Temple was “full of shit” for not acknowledging that it had made significant changes.

Many college leaders said that most colleges do in fact have policies to allow students to make complaints, but that there was no harm in reviewing them and publicizing them. But several said it was time to shift the discussion — and that the protections many students want or need aren’t from professors who express a view they may not like.

Michael Bérubé, a professor of literature at Pennsylvania State University, said via e-mail: “I haven’t been involved in any ‘political bias’ cases, but I have had front-row seats for sexual harassment allegations, egregious employment abuses of research assistants, and cases in which graduate students have had directors or committee members get weird or hostile and wind up trying to undermine them or drive them out of the program.” Bérubé, author of What’s Liberal About the Liberal Arts: Classroom Politics and ‘Bias’ in Higher Education, said that based on those and other experiences, “I have no quarrel with the committee’s recommendations,” even “if my concerns don’t overlap with Horowitz’s.”

As colleges address these legitimate student concerns, Bérubé said, “I continue to wish that people would distinguish between ‘academic freedom,’ which is a property of the faculty and pertains to the intellectual autonomy necessary for their research and teaching, and ’student rights and responsibilities,’ which is what the committee is talking about. Calling students’ right to be free from political harassment ‘academic freedom’ only further confuses the meaning of ‘academic freedom,’ which is most vexing, since most people don’t even know the difference between academic freedom and First Amendment freedoms to begin with.”

Much of the debate about what the committee found centers on the evidence it gathered at the hearings and included in its report. Rep. Gib Armstrong, a Republican who was a leader of the panel, said that there are in fact many victims of political discrimination in Pennsylvania colleges — some of whom came forward to him, but whom he could not identify in any way.

He said many students feared that if they came forward, they would receive bad grades and be unable to graduate. Asked why he didn’t bring forward more recent graduates who — their degrees in hand — wouldn’t have been at risk, Armstrong cited the Temple University policy (and didn’t answer). He said the problem extended to professors, and described a female professor who felt she couldn’t participate in a debate about the war in Iraq (she favored the U.S. invasion) without putting her tenure vote at risk. Armstrong said he couldn’t identify her in any way.

Armstrong rejected the idea that the lack of some verifiable pattern of political discrimination constituted a defeat for Horowitz. One case of discrimination is too many, Armstrong said, so it doesn’t matter if these incidents are rare. He said that Penn State and other universities “will create million-dollar diversity programs” when a single racist e-mail is sent to a black student. When bias takes place against black students, he said, universities respond without worrying about how widespread a problem an incident reflects.

“All we are asking for is an even standard,” added Armstrong. Colleges “can’t address the diversity issues they want and not the others.”

Many others said that the evidence gathered by the committee flat out didn’t support Armstrong’s and Horowitz’s statements — even though the panel was created by Horowitz supporters. Free Exchange on Campus published an analysis Wednesday of all of the testimony the committee heard. The group noted that 24 of 28 students, 24 of 29 professors, and all 8 administrators who testified said that adequate protections for students were in place.

The analysis also noted that some claims that were made about Pennsylvania colleges by critics had subsequently been withdrawn. For example, at a hearing in January, Horowitz acknowledged that he had no evidence to back up a story he had told several times — about a biology professor who used a class session just before the 2004 election to show the Michael Moore documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. Horowitz blamed the inaccurate information on a legislative staffer.

So where does Horowitz’s movement go from here?

He said that the Pennsylvania process demonstrated that he could attract plenty of attention and force colleges to take him seriously with hearings. He said that the only reason he would focus on two or three states next year — instead of more — is that his staff isn’t large enough to handle more states.

The recent elections — while obviously not fought on issues of academic freedom — may not help Horowitz or his campaign. Free Exchange on Campus tracked how members of the Pennsylvania committee fared in their re-election bids. The Democrats — who generally were skeptical of Horowitz’s claims — are all coming back. Four Republicans — including Armstrong — were defeated. (In a twist, Armstrong said Wednesday that among the options he is considering when he leaves office at the end of the year is a job at a college in Pennsylvania. He declined to name it.)

Despite such losses, there is little doubt that Horowitz still has plenty of political allies. Arizona and Kentucky are mentioned as states where he may have strong enough support to advance legislation or push for committees to be created. This year, Arizona legislators considered — and did not enact — legislation that would have required public colleges to provide students with “alternative coursework” if a student found the assigned material “personally offensive,” which was defined as something that “conflicts with the student’s beliefs or practices in sex, morality or religion.” The legislation was opposed not only by faculty groups, but by Horowitz, who said it went too far in taking away professorial authority.

Larry Gold, who directs the higher education division of the American Federation of Teachers, said it would be a mistake to count Horowitz out. Gold said that the failure of the Pennsylvania committee to document a real problem was “a body blow” to Horowitz’s movement, but not “the death knell.” Added Gold: “His fame is fueled by finances, which aren’t disappearing.”

Bérubé said he thought the future success of Horowitz’s efforts would depend on the future of the Republican Party.

“If matters were left wholly to the culture warriors on the right, legislatures would be consumed with Academic Bill of Rights hearings and anti-gay/lesbian resolutions and flag-burning amendments and stem cell research bans 24/7,” he said. Not all Republicans want that agenda, he said. “In my state, the Arlen Specter wing of the GOP seems to be getting a little annoyed at the Rick Santorum wing. Whether the culture-war right drives the party bus is something my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle will have to figure out for themselves.”

One problem with the kinds of hearings Horowitz wants, Bérubé said, is that they prevent other kinds of hearings: “If Democrats were to hold hearings on higher education, you know what they’d focus on — mounting student debt, and the GOP’s ties to the student-loan industry. Which issues, do you think, matter more to the vast majority of students in American colleges (and their parents)?”

— Scott Jaschik

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

When you lose, claim victory!

This is a great strategy: when you lose, claim victory! Hey, mayber there’s a pattern here: When there are no actual cases of political discrimination, claim discrimination!

OK, can we move on now? (Please.)

Christian Anderson, Penn State, at 6:50 am EST on November 16, 2006

Horowitz — Unpopular Views

The real issue is the need to protect freedom of speech while issues are clarafied.

Horowitz addresses a real problem, the imposition of the professor’s will upon the student rather than the development of the ability to solve problems.

A case in point is the 25 years that lead up to the civil war. The issue was a desire to revoke the slavery compromise. Was that proper and was it worth the anarchy and civil war Lincoln imposed.

Horowitz is our modern day Clement L. Vallandenham — he knows there is a problem, the will of the majority is against him, and he has not articulated the problem succinctly.

He is impeded by a Republican to the right political bias that forces him to leave the general free thought policy that should be implemented by educators.

William Sumner Scott, J.D.

Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.

wss@jefound.org

William Sumner Scott, J.D., at 7:45 am EST on November 16, 2006

It’s about the money, stupid

” .. OK, can we move on now?”

Sure — with 80% less government-subsidized funding.

If one is doing such a great job — the public should be rushing to enroll, without tax-subsidization.

Plus — without government tax-subsidization — no public oversight. Ever heard of fund accounting?

If not providing a real service — then one has a real problem. That is not anyone else’s but your own.

Fix your own problems and quit demanding the public subsidize your lifestyle, please. Thanks.

B.D., at 8:02 am EST on November 16, 2006

Scott’s non-sequiter

Oh please. Dr. Scott would have us believe that Horowitz is the Casandra of our day. By contrast, the vast majority of “unpopular views” are unpopular because they are just wrong (or worse, plain silly). Being unpopular is no guarantee of truth. His attempt to invoke the specter of the Civil War reminds me of the laughable ploy of Creationists who keep attempting to draw on the example of Galileo, even though Galileo’s presecution was executed by their own intellectual ancestors.)

just another professor, at 8:10 am EST on November 16, 2006

A Solution in Search of a Problem

Yep, Horowitz, you won the Battle of Pennsylvania.

And the Republicans won last week’s election. And the Tigers won the 2006 World Series.And Dewey defeated Truman.

David Horowitz, it seems, is impervious to humiliation as long as that right-wing foundation money keeps pouring in. His inability to back up one of his key claims with evidence was the single defining moment in the hearings, and should be the single defining moment in the execrable career of David Horowitz. I mean, even ACTA is able to trot out the occasional anecdote to keep their tenuous claims of pervasive liberal bias on life support.

Speaking of ACTA, I am still waiting to see how Ms. Neal and company spin their inability to prevail during this critical put-up-or-shut-up moment. After all, back in January, as the clowns were still tumbling out of the Volkswagen in Harrisburg, the ACTA blogger wrote the following:

“Horowitz’s substitution of hearsay for fact undermined his campaign for an Academic Bill of Rights, but the media and the public should not assume that this amounted to a dismantling of the argument that the academy is ideologically fraught zone that desperately needs to be overhauled.”

And what, pray tell, should the media assume now that the committee has concluded, to quote the article above, “that problems with students being punished for political views are rare and that no legislation is needed"?

It doesn’t matter. Horowitz, ACTA, and the rest will keep up their search for Sasquatch, never allowing mere facts to get in the way of their ideological crusade. And taxpayers’ money will no doubt continue to be wasted as yet another state legislature gears up to chase shadows.

Unapologetically Tenured, at 8:15 am EST on November 16, 2006

With All Due Respect

With all due respect, there is no consensus in Pennsylvania that abuses of students’ academic freedom is rare. The committee concluded that there are no protections for students’ academic freedom rights at any of the 17 public universities in Pennsylvania. The fact that there are no protections is the reason official complaints are rare. The committee therefore unanimously recommended that universities in Pennsylvania review their academic freedom policies and make them “student specific” and that they inform students of their rights in student handbooks and freshman orientation. This conclusion and these recommendations refute the repeated claims of the AFT, the AAUP, and university administrators who testified before the committee that students were already protected. They were not. Now, if the committee’s recommendations are followed they will be. That is a victory for the campaign for academic freedom.

David Horowitz, at 8:21 am EST on November 16, 2006

where to go next ?

Mr. Horowitz, I think you are conflating procedural protections of students with substantive teaching standards. Most colleges deal with numerous complaints. Whether they are “rare” is a matter of perspective. Unfortunately, many of them are without merit. I would urge you, in the future, to provide very specific, documented, examples of bias.

This means 1) transcripts of actual classes; and 2) papers of high quality that were adversely graded (as compared to the rest of the class) for political reasons.

Thankfully, because of you, students have two means to vindicate their interest, 1) a school’s conventional grievance process; 2) political activity. Unfortunately, these efforts fail.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that students don’t know about the school’s grievance procedure. Some procedures are, in my view, inadequate. On the other hand, many students think (correctly or not) that using the grievance procedure will result in retaliation. Some students realize that they were wrong, and want to move on with their lives.

Mr. Scott, I am trying to figure out what your point is. What problem does Mr. Horowitz address? Considering that everyone has “wills” and professors are people (well, most of them), it is hard to see how, outside of any baseline as to what constitutes “good” teaching, he is addressing anything. Instead of providing any sort of guidance as to how to identify the philosophical assumptions of a discipline (and yes, every discipline has them), Mr. Horowitz just talks of political bias, which is unable to provide specific example of.

BD, While eliminating all funding for higher education is an option, it is unpopular, because people like their sports, research, and the ability to send their kids to school. Indeed, in most circles it is considered a shame if your kid doesn’t go to college.

Mr. Tenured, Mr. H doesn’t have too much other choice but to declare victory. I should note that the recent election doesn’t prove much, since the margins of error of victory are pretty similar to the last few elections which came out the other way. Indeed, I suspect that if the weather had been worse in VA (it was light rain) and parts of Montana, we would have a GOP majority in Congress. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Larry, at 10:25 am EST on November 16, 2006

Also with all due respect

I find Horowtiz’s statement that “there are no protections for students’ academic freedom rights at any of the 17 public universities in Pennsylvania” to be more than a little misleading. During the summer of 2005, when this was all developing, I was asked to examine Penn State’s policy on this very matter and found it to be very robust and beyond what the legislation advocated by Horowitz himself (the Academic Bill of Rights) called for. I am not the only one to arrive at this conclusion. Horowitz’s student group, SAF: Students for Academic Freedom, also arrived at that conclusion. You can read their report here: http://cms.studentsforacademicfre...;task=view&id=1056&Itemid=54

Horowitz your exaggerations appear to be catching up with you.

David Tandberg, at 10:25 am EST on November 16, 2006

Question for William Sumner Scott

You wrote, in part “the anarchy and civil war Lincoln imposed".

Are you serious?

math prof, at 10:26 am EST on November 16, 2006

Working the ref

I’m a person who has actually worked on this issue, being a one time member of the National Association of Scholars. I know from experience that there are some professors who work their politics into the classroom for non-pedagogically valid reasons, and that due to the current climate on U.S. campuses the majority of these profs have leftist leanings. To be honest though I now have serious doubts about groups like NAS, Horowtiz and FIRE. These groups seem to be much more concerned about replacing leftist ideologues with right wing ones. When professors are fired from orthodox religious colleges for teaching evolution they make nary a sound. When BYU acts against someone for supporting gay marriage or the like, again we hear little from them. When Straussian or libertarian professors rail against the fact/value distinction and inject politics into the classroom they appoint them as spokepersons for their groups. They fret over the excesses of multiculturalism in K-12 education while keeping a blind eye towards the charge for creationist nonsense. Racial preferences are decried but legacy admits defended. They write for blatantly partisan journals like National Review or the Weekly Standard. It strikes me that what is really going on here is the phenomena of right wing activists trying to hurt and discredit institutions that do not tow their line. They do the same with journalism (sure the NYTimes can be attacked for leaning left, but when has Brent Bozell called Fox News’ much more coordinated and blatant bias a horror?). And just to pre-empt a silly response one hears about this: to the claim by some of these groups that they are not concerned with private institutions but only public ones then I ask them to answer why they constantly run down Harvard and other Ivy’s? If you really believe in academic freedom then step up to the plate consistently. Until then these groups and individuals should be judged by their partisan actions.

Ken, at 10:41 am EST on November 16, 2006

Don’t let the Fact Get in the Way

Once again, David Horowitz doesn’t want his campaign to let the facts get in the way of his position. As it was proven when he tesitfied before the Select Committee, he continues to make assertions, that are simply not accurate. I attended the meeting of the Select Committee on November 14th and I have in my possession a copy of the Draft Report and Recommendations. I read through the report and I cannot find anywhere in the report where the Committee concludes “that there are no protections for student academic freedom rights in the 17 public institutions in Pennsylvania” as Mr. Horowitz states. Again, I attended three of the four hearings covering 6 days of testimony. Mr. Horowitz attended and testified at one day of the hearings. I personally heard testimony from a number of faculty, students and administrators at these hearings state that their institutions had such policies in existence and produced copies of those policies. I ask Mr. Horowitz to produce the evidence that the 17 institutions do no have polices in place. Finally, he states that “the Committee unanimously recommended” when in fact, the Committee did not even vote on the Report. The vote was table until November 21st because the Chairman ruled that the Committee did not have a quorum. Additionally, anyone who has been closely following the Committee’s hearing, would know that this Committee would find few things it could unanimously agree upon including those recommendations. The fact is, the Democratic members of the Committee have submitted their own report because the Report that was circulated to the Committee members was drafted by the Republican staff and the Democratic members disagree with the findings and the recommendations. I believe it is a safe assumption to make that unless a compromise is reached to revise the report, the vote will not be unanimous, but hey, let’s not let the facts stand in the way when we can get good press. Once again, Mr. Horowitz’s research skills should receive an “F".

Cary R, Kurtz, UniServ Representative at Pennsylvania State Education Association, at 11:05 am EST on November 16, 2006

Viva....... National Association of Scholars

Just like “Ken,” I’ve actually worked on this issue too as a one-time member of the ACLU, NAACP, and The Nation Associates.

I know from first-hand experience that many professors piously imagine themselves to be social reformers who routinely weave their politics into their classes for pedagogically invalid reasons. The vast majority of these profs are leftists.

I lost all faith in the ACLU, NAACP and The Nation Associates when they steadfastly refused to do anything whenever the zealous, thuggish, illiberal and downright reactionary defenders of racial or gender double standards denied their critics opportunities to speak.

Will Ken cite me occasions when the ACLU, ACE, AAUW, Nation Associates, or NAACP unambiguously repudiated and condemned these attacks on free speech, often whenever David Horowitz was invited to address a variety of campus issues?

Thanks for reminding me to renew my membership in the N.A.S.

Chuck, at 11:55 am EST on November 16, 2006

The “Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students,” adopted in 1967 and updated in the early 1990s, makes clear that “Freedom to teach and freedom to learn are inseparable facets of academic freedom.” In the classroom, the document states, “Students whould 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, but they are responsible for learning the content of any course of study for which they are enrolled."A product of collaboration between the AAUP, the United States Student Association, AAC&U, the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, and the National Association of Women Deans and Counsellors. the “Statement” provides ample protection of students’ academic freedom while preserving the rights of faculty. David Horowitz and his allies should first read and then endorse the Statement and join us in encouraging all colleges and universities to do the same.

roger w. bowen, general secretary at aaup, at 11:55 am EST on November 16, 2006

Who reallly lost?

As a practical matter, the faculty in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education are among the big losers here. We were presumed guilty from the start by Horowitz and his ilk, and although the Select Committee’s findings turned up little or no evidence of such guilt, the damage done to our professional reputations by this process may not be so easily undone.

Anyone following these hearings must have noticed that Gibson Armstrong solicited most of his allegedly “damaging” testimony from outside Pennsylvania. I wonder how much it cost to bring in Horowitz, ACTA President Anne Neal, and National Review blogger Mark Bauerlein to testify at these hearings? At least Bauerlein knows what it’s like to be an academic (though his cushy professorship at Emory University must leave him blissfully unaware of what it’s like to teach a 4-4 load, to face increasing class sizes every semester, to be overwhelmed by service expectations, and to spend twelve hour days advising students during registration). Horowitz and Neal, lavishly funded by think tank and foundation money, and with teams of paid researchers on their side, should be ashamed to have chosen faculty in Pennsylvania as their target of opportunity. Their real beef is with elite private institutions like Harvard and Yale. Why not spend their time, money, and energy accordingly?

We could probably use substantive legislative hearings on higher education in Pennsylvania, focusing on increasing class sizes that hamper the quality of instruction, the negative effects of the “adjunctification” of higher education, and mounting student loan debt. I won’t hold my breath waiting for ACTA, Horowitz, and FIRE to come running back to Pennsylvania for those.

Professor in PASSHE, at 11:55 am EST on November 16, 2006

FIRE’s mixed record

Ken, At one point in the past FIRE took almost exclusively the causes of religious and “right”-leaning political organizations. They seem to have “cleaned” up their act recently, and have taken on the cause of political organizations on both sides. A quick look at their website shows a smattering of causes (or “balance”) if you prefer. Most of their complaints are about “speech codes” which are used to silence all sorts of views. Their complaints about social work standards, I think are somewhat simplistic and probably are motivated by some right-leaning bias, though since it is a complaint about an executive branch agency (headed by a person called “conservative”), it is doubtful that they are motivated by partisan (rather than ideological) leanings. On the other hand, at UVA, FIRE has taken up the cause of students accused of cheating. I don’t know where this falls.

One of FIRE’s “bigwigs” is Harvey Silvergate, who I don’t think anyone calls a “right-wing” ideologue, and he spends the balance of his time complaining about the Bush administration.

But, at no time did FIRE ever advocate the dismissal of any professors, or even claim that a curriculum was biased (am pretty sure of this), since they are more concerned with student expression rather than faculty teaching.

Larry, at 12:20 pm EST on November 16, 2006

Horowitz Comments...

“The committee therefore unanimously recommended that universities in Pennsylvania[...] inform students of their rights in student handbooks and freshman orientation.[...] That is a victory for the campaign for academic freedom.”

Actually, as Michael Berube points out, that has nothing to do with “academic freedom.” If anything, it is a question of First Amendment rights.

Academic Freedom is an important part of our university structures. When the phrase is misused (as it is so often—not only by Horowitz but by First Amendment protectors of all political stripes), real “academic freedom” is endangered.

Aaron Barlow, at 12:35 pm EST on November 16, 2006

Question for Chuck

Chuck, What in blazes does the ACLU have to do with this?

While I realize that people outside academic find it chic to criticize the ACLU, as an academic you must be very careful only to take supported positions. If you choose to lambaste the ACLU, you should probably refer to specific litigating positions.

They post their briefs to their website, so I know that as a serious academic, you have a specific brief in mind. So, I anxiously await your answer.

Larry, at 12:45 pm EST on November 16, 2006

Academic freedom and the First Amendment

Aaron, “Academic freedom” in a constitutional context, is derived from the First Amendment. See, e.g., Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 514 U.S. 673 (1995) (“Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us, and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.”)

Of course, state constitutions might call the freedom by another number, and state statutes might specifically codify it.

Larry, at 1:05 pm EST on November 16, 2006

Two wrongs...

Chuck-the easy answer to you is that two wrongs do not make a right. I provided many examples of double standards applying to right leaning organizations. For you to simply add that left leaning organizations support academic freedom in an inconsistent way is a pretty poor argument. In a lot of cases I’d be inclined to agree with you, but that still leaves the first charge where it was. But I’m not sure you are right about the AAUP and ACLU, witness the formers censor of VA State U for its treatment of a Republican social work professor (among other things) and the latters recent defense of Prof. Hoppe.As to the defense of FIRE I just came from their website. Brown U is attacked on the first page, but Liberty University which has rather absurd speech policy is absent. For shame.

Ken, at 1:15 pm EST on November 16, 2006

Math prof: I’m sure William Sumner Scott J.D. is serious — anyone who espouses the views of a racist (anti-reconstruction) loon such as Vallandigham (not “Vallandenham") no doubt really thinks that Abraham Lincoln was a disaster for the United States. (Of course Lincoln was wrong to suspend habeas corpus, but the fact that you are done an injustice in no way demonstrates that you are in the right.)Even Horowitz would probably be embarrassed by this sort of support.

bob, at 1:50 pm EST on November 16, 2006

Ruses and Dodges from Ken & Larry

Ken & Larry:

Thanks to both of you for corroborating my basic point. i.e., that so-called leftist organizations have shown themselves consistently reluctant to defend free speech for everyone in the modern academy.

I know this remains stubbornly hard for you to grasp, but if you simply focus on what happens to those critics like Horowitz who satirize, ridicule, challenge and rebut the sacred icon and holy grail of “diversity” double standards in admissions and hirings, it may become easier.

I hope you’ll eventually recognize the extremism and intolerance that leftists routinely show to those who dispute their “diversity” pieties.......but I am more sanguine than that, as I’m sure your follow up messages will attest.

Chuck, at 3:15 pm EST on November 16, 2006

Hullo, Larry

” .. in most circles it is considered a shame if your kid doesn’t go to college ..”

While that is probably true .. when 67% of the public does not have a college degree (while half of them took a college class) .. funding cut-offs are always a possibility.

That is: if college allegedly raises incomes — why should the non-college grad pay for it?

(For that matter — if colleges really believe they can raise incomes — why don’t they guarantee it? And lend students the money, themselves? On a risk-sharing basis? Where is the AAUP on this? Are they prepared to put their money where their mouths are?)

B.D., at 3:15 pm EST on November 16, 2006

Grievance procedures, power relations, public exposure

I am agog at this statement:

“Personally, I find it hard to believe that students don’t know about the school’s grievance procedure.”

Speaking with students at any university should quickly clear up this misperception. In all honesty it should not be too hard to believe that poorly documented and undercommunicated if not uncommunicated procedures are known by students. Many faculty don’t know these procedures.

As far as retaliation or other unpleasantries, the students know who is in power at these institutions. That is why many faculty and staff behave attrociously and with impunity.

What is needed first of all is respect for the students and for their opinions, especially in the humanities and social sciences where values themselves are either the subject of study, or deeply embedded in the approach or phenomena.

Until there is respect and care, there will be little progress. However, we cannot simply legislate that respect and care. Few students will make formal complaints, largely because they feel isolated and powerless, but even those that do make complaints, are generally directed to a minority of faculty who continue to behave in ways that have no place in our academic institutions.

The Academic Bill of Rights is a fairly good idea, promulgated by a political lightningrod. Therefore any real debate cannot take place as it does so within the frame of a culture war.

I harbor little hope for progress anytime soon. Meanwhile the students are disrespected, intellectually abused, and generally shat upon in the darkened corners of the academy. We all know who these faculty are, folks!

If only we had videocameras in the classrooms and offices, like they do in central London. That might scare professors into moderating their behavior, namely by public exposure, which seems to be the only thing they fear.

Instructor and PhD Student, Land Grant U, at 3:31 pm EST on November 16, 2006

replies to Chuck, BD, et al.

Chuck, The problem is that, Mr. H, does not provide specifics. I implored him to. He had his opportunity in Pennsylvania. He did not.

Now, of course, he might be ridiculed by people that disagree with him. But, such ridicule does not mean that he is right. Heck, just because people ridicule the “Flat Eath” types doesn’t mean the earth is flat, either.

As I see it, the problem that Mr. H runs into is that he doesn’t want to undertake the rather difficult project to defining the boundaries of certain subject matters. This is a hard task, and, unfortunately, not one well-suited for political discourse. Nevertheless, if he could define the boundaries of one subject matter, we would know what falls outside that boundary, and we could actually isolate political views. Alas, he does not want to do that.

While you point to some pie-throwers, you have not pointed to any actual academic bias. I don’t approve of what the pie-throwers did, but, unfortunately, in any heated political or legal debate there will always be idiots who insist on breaking laws and threatening and assaulting actors.

BD, I like your point: that non-college grads should not pay for the education of the children of college grads. However, as a matter of politics and law, college grads control everything, and non-college grads lack the resources or the intellectual sophistication to address Democracy in with any degree of seriousness. Instead, their emotions are toyed with by the college grads, some of whom might pretend to be as uneducated as they are. It’s sad world, but c’est la vie.

Instructor, Every student I have ever known and every professor I know, knows where to find the grievance procedures. Maybe we just associate with different people. Whatever the case, I will defer to your expertise, and agree that grievance procedures should be well publicized.

Larry, at 5:25 pm EST on November 16, 2006

Is there a problem?

Much of the on going debate in the comments section are beside the point.

There is a problem. Many of our campuses have a very insular political culture that is out of touch with the rest of American life. It holds to a set of political narratives and left/liberal talking points about important issues like affirmative action, gun control, American foreign policy, the Arab/Israeli conflict/ gay marriage, Katrina, and the administration of George Bush.

While there is no formal procedure invoked to prevent the expression of rival narratives, most faculty and students who dissent from the prevailing views do so only in private to avoid becoming marginalized participants in the university.

The case of the Duke Lacrosse players is exhibit A that there is a problem with the existing academic culture. There is now overwhelming evidence that no crime ever took place and that the three students have been the victim of a false accusation by a very disturbed young woman. The three students continue to face a court case that could send them to jail for thirty years for something that never happened. Yet preserving the narrative of white privilege and violence is so important to an influential group of Duke faculty, to the Duke academic administration and to a ruthlessly ambitious prosecutor, that the transparent frame up proceeds with almost no objection from the Duke faculty.

Duke is the tip of the iceberg. Had a similar incident happened at other campuses the reaction would have been the same. So whether the Pennsylvania legislature concluded there were x number of incidents too many or whether Horowitz was vindicated by their report is really beside the point. The campus political culture is appallingly narrow and insular, detached from the experiences of most Americans and it needs public exposure and ridicule to correct its problems.

Jonathan cohen, at 5:25 pm EST on November 16, 2006

A Marketer’s point of view

Instuctor & Phd. Student –“Meanwhile the students are disrespected, intellectually abused, and generally shat upon in the darkened corners of the academy. We all know who these faculty are, folks!”

The average student will change majors more than 3 times and more than 1 in 4 will change colleges. Students can vote with their feet and their dollars. It’s not in anyone’s interest to have a dissatisfied, disenfranchised student body. Don’t think that in today’s competitive marketplace, if college’s believed this was an issue they wouldn’t be moving quickly to address it.

B.D. – “(For that matter — if colleges really believe they can raise incomes — why don’t they guarantee it? And lend students the money, themselves? On a risk-sharing basis? Where is the AAUP on this? Are they prepared to put their money where their mouths are?)”

They do. And they give promising and needy students billions of dollars in scholarships and other aid every year. But more importantly, it’s in our national interest to have a highly skilled and educated work force. I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say that tax dollars invested in the education of our young people are returned many times over by what they contribute to the national economy an our ability to be competitive in an international marketplace.

Chuck – “I know this remains stubbornly hard for you to grasp, but if you simply focus on what happens to those critics like Horowitz who satirize, ridicule, challenge and rebut the sacred icon and holy grail of “diversity” double standards in admissions and hirings, it may become easier.”

The issue with Mr. Horowitz and groups like FIRE isn’t that they are vilified for their opinion, but that they refuse to stick to the facts when trying to force others to adhere to their points of view. Having witnessed first-hand their complete disregard for the truth, I believe their problem isn’t their position, it’s their credibility.

Tom, at 5:25 pm EST on November 16, 2006

Welcome to Oceania

“If only we had videocameras in the classrooms and offices, like they do in central London. That might scare professors into moderating their behavior, namely by public exposure, which seems to be the only thing they fear.”

Mr. Orwell, your table is ready.

Tom, at 5:25 pm EST on November 16, 2006

I think it’s apparent that someone like Chuck is not serious at all about academic freedom or academic values (i.e., having an open mind and objectively trying to find the truth despite its partisan or ideological implications). When provided with hard evidence of the organizations he broadsides defending ideological opponents, and provided with evidence that the groups he supports failing to do so (notice I cited specific cases, websites, etc., one can easily verify) he just repeats his claim and yells “bias!” It’s a goofy charge here since Chuck has no idea I geuss that I am a pretty conservative scholar as academe goes. For example anyone who followed the recent postings here in the wake of the MCRI can see that I adamantly oppose racial preferences (and always have). However, as a scholar and critical thinker I must say I find the claims and acts of Horowitz, NAS, FIRE, Accuracy in Academe to be myopic, self-serving and counter-productive. I’d be happy to entertain evidence otherwise. I doubt I need respond to Chuck anymore, since he never really ‘responded’ to my points. But I’ll point out to those non-partisans out there that folks like Chuck are numerous in support of the groups I lament. Do we want his ilk to define academic freedom and academic values for us?

Ken, at 5:50 pm EST on November 16, 2006

Academic Freedom and the Constitution

Larry, the misuse of the phrase “academic freedom” in a recent Supreme Court case does not itself make “academic freedom,” as it has been considered since 1915, a First Amendment right. Read that first AAUP Declaration and its 1940 reiteration to see what “academic freedom” really is. You’ll find that it is nothing at all like anything covered in the First Amendment.

Aaron Barlow, at 6:01 pm EST on November 16, 2006

What?

” .. They do. And they give promising and needy students billions of dollars in scholarships and other aid every year ..”

AAUP does? When? How? Did someone forget to take Freshman English at Harvard?

” .. But more importantly, it’s in our national interest to have a highly skilled and educated work force ..”

Which, again, bolsters the argument: if college has so many benefits, why should non-college crowd subsidize the former? There is no logic here.

B.D., at 7:30 pm EST on November 16, 2006

Once more. . .

Since some people seem determined to ask why there is public funding for education, let’s look at that issue.

Education is expensive, and a significant number of students who now attend colleges and universities would be financially unable to do so without public funding. Community colleges would effectively cease to exist, debt loads for those who could attend college would rise, and higher incomes would be eroded by that greater debt. Advocating for less (or no) public funding for higher education is effectively advocating for an edu-oligarchy. Worse, it would drive the United States into a greater education deficit with regard to the rest of the world.

If you want to eliminate bias in the classroom, creating a system that caters principally to the monied class is not a solution worth considering.

Andrew Purvis, at 8:40 pm EST on November 16, 2006

Academic Freedom

Ken seems unable, unwilling, unprepared to admit that FIRE and NAS, more than any other organizations, have used evidence, examples, and the wonderful disinfectant of sunshine to expose the absurd attempts to limit freedom of speech at Penn, SUNY campuses, Cal Poly/SLO, Columbia and dozens of other campuses.

The gravest threats to academic freedom of speech absolutely do NOT come objectively (with data, with examples) from outside critics like Horowitz but from the occupants of the ivory tower itself.

John Leo, George Will, Alex Cockburn, Robert Hughes, and many more non-academics have heaped scorn, ridicule and sarcasm on the very folks that Ken seems to embrace.

So be it.

Ken provides a contemporary example of something Swift observed long ago: “It is impossible to reason a man out of something that he was not reasoned into in the first place.”

Chuck, at 8:45 pm EST on November 16, 2006

privatization debates

B.D. (is that a Doonesbury reference?): you may be interested in the debate over privatization of US public higher education over at

http://ovsc.blogspot.com/2006/03/...ting-privatization-of-us-public.html

I think it’s an important debate to have, but you shouldn’t expect it to happen here.

Personally, I wish the conservatives who decry liberal bias in academia would try a few higher ed start-ups based on their principles. Some successful bootstrapping would go a lot further to proving their points than lobbying existing institutions to cater to their views.

The Constructivist, at 12:40 am EST on November 17, 2006

B.D. is SUCH a genius!

B.D. asks, “if college has so many benefits, why should [the] non-college crowd subsidize the former?” Right on! You see, the non-college crowd does not benefit from bridges that don’t fall down and airliners that don’t break up in midair (because they were designed by college graduates). The non-college crowd does not benefit when they appear before a judge who can tell an ad hominem from a red herring (because she learned about basic logical fallacies in a college course). The non-college crowd does not benefit when a newspaper (staffed by reporters who majored in journalism at a college) reports on the bribery trial of the local county commisioner. The non-college crowd never gets sick, so it never benefits from doctors (who took their pre-med classes in the biology department of a college). You see, higher education ONLY benefits college graduates themselves, not society as a whole. Ergo, the costs of college should be borne ONLY by college students themselves. It’s all so clear to me now. Thank you, B.D.

Eveningsun, Small Public College, at 12:45 am EST on November 17, 2006

What brilliance

” .. the non-college crowd does not benefit from bridges that don’t fall down and airliners that don’t break up in midair (because they were designed by college graduates) ..”

.. and which were primarily funded by the post-WWII Defense Department (which, BTW, is no longer the only global super-power, Mr. Genius).

Is a rise in U.S. defense spending being advocated? For better engineering? DOD also paid for ARPANET, the Internet’s precursor, BTW.

” .. I wish the conservatives who decry liberal bias in academia would try a few higher ed start-ups based on their principles ..”

http://www.naples.avemaria.edu/index.asp

I know — not good enough.

Well — start one yourselves, Ms. & Mr. Critics. At that point, there is a greatly reduced exposure to Mr. Horowitz, being private.

It is the smug, self-satisified attitudes of tax-funded academia that are fueling support for Mr. Horowitz and the defunding crowd. The problem looks back at them in the mirror — nowhere else.

B.D., at 6:45 am EST on November 17, 2006

Tom, I don’t think you should conflate Horowitz and FIRE. FIRE, as a group that actually litigates usually sticks to facts that are at least subject to proof. Horowitz speaks to the general public and legislatures, where you can say whatever you want.

Chuck, Unless you can provide specific examples, people on here might accuse you of making things up. Mr. Horowitz cannot. FIRE usually can, but FIRE isn’t Horowitz, and FIRE, being made up of lawyers, is a lot more disciplined. Also, the fact that George Will declares something to be true does not make it so. He is a commentator, and he does not have to submit his views and theories to any kind of scrutiny, because his appeal is to non-academics and non-lawyers.

Mr. Barlow, Okay, I get it. You have a different definition of “academic freedom” then is commonly used in legal and political discourse. While I respect your right to use words as you please, it makes it a tad hard to understand what you are talking about.

Larry, at 7:10 am EST on November 17, 2006

Good morning, B.D.

I don’t understand the problem here. The Horowitzians of the world can send their children to Patrick Henry College or Ave Maria or Liberty U or any vacuum-sealed can of right-wingnuts, and the rest of us can send our kids to horrific re-education like Harvard and MIT and Berkeley. If there are so many of you guys out there, Harvard and Berkeley won’t be able to stand the competition and will be folding their tents any day now. If the taxpayers of the State of California are sick and tired of subsidizing higher ed, and want their kids to be able to attend universities of the caliber of Pensacola College instead of UCLA and Berkeley, all they have to do is vote their wishes. Oddly enough, they have not. If the wealthy are so unhappy with the liberal bias of the Ivies, they can always stop paying for it and send their kids to cuckooland instead. Oddly enough, most choose not to. Maybe they like what they’ve got. Now excuse me, I’ve got to prepare for another day of harassing, berating, and flunking my conservative students.

Eveningsun, Small Public College, at 9:00 am EST on November 17, 2006

FIRE and the truth (or lack there of)

Larry — “FIRE, as a group that actually litigates usually sticks to facts that are at least subject to proof.”

If only this were true. I have first hand experience with FIRE’s wilingness to make up facts and ignore the truth. FIRE has and continues to use a largely untrue story about an incident at my school to illustrate a point about political bias. And while they have been given the facts about the incident, they ingore them. The response I’ve gotten from them is that they believe our speech policy is too restrictive, so therefore it’s okay to use the false story to illustrate a completely unrelated point.

Tom, at 9:50 am EST on November 17, 2006

No one is forcing anyone do to anything

” .. I’ve got to prepare for another day of harassing, berating, and flunking my conservative students ..”

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. One can leave, if one wants. Show the world, how truly talented one is.

Taking public tax money? Expect public oversight. Get used to it — it never goes away.

Can’t take the heat — go. Get out. Take a hike. Everyone — including Mr. Berube — can be replaced. Life has to go on. Have a nice life.

B.D., at 9:50 am EST on November 17, 2006

As a relatively recent grad of Shippensburg Universtiy — one of our PA state-system universities — and someone who works in our state capitol, I can tell you with absolute certainty that many here in Harrisburg thought the hearings were an absolute joke — when they thought about them at all. No one took them seriously. It was probably motivated in part by the fact that Ship had successfully been sued by FIRE a few years ago (I knew the student who started it all, and he was full of it.) But anyone who knows anything about PA state universities is that they are for the most part, like our state, neither red nor blue — I certainly had as many liberal profs as conservative ones, and I was a Journalism major/Speech minor! Horowitz should know that, just as he should know that there are 14 public universities in Pennsylvania, not 17. The 14 PASSHE universities are what everyone in the state thinks of when “public universities” are brought up, and 3 state-related universities (Pitt, Penn State and Temple). There is a big difference in culture, in funding and in attitude between the two types of schools.

Also, a point of clarification above...Penn State

D, at 9:55 am EST on November 17, 2006

Enough is enough!

All public support for public universities should be cut because there should be no public universities or public anything except maybe public videotaping of professors because the Nation Associates and the ACLU and Michael Moore have utterly failed to stop the prosecution of the Duke lacrosse team.

Uh, what were we talking about again?

All IHE Trolls Combined, at 11:15 am EST on November 17, 2006

Tom and FIRE

Tom, If you want to claim that FIRE is “making up facts” you need to provide SPECIFICS. You did not. Perhaps if they sued you, you could show how you prevailed in court. But, apparently none of this happened. (Strangely, the same unsupported allegations are made about most DAs, and the ACLU.)

Of course, we all have different views of the facts.

BD, Eveningsun was being sarcastic.

Larry, at 11:20 am EST on November 17, 2006

Higher Ed. in Pennsylvania

Thanks to the poster named “D” for pointing out the important differences between the “state-related” universities in Pennsylvania and the 14 institutions of the PASSHE. As “D” notes, the PASSHE university faculties tend to be reflective—in the political sense—of the population of the state. In other words, there are some liberals, some conservatives, some independents, some hard-to-categorize people, etc. At the university where I teach, I’ve actually heard far more student complaints about conservative professors espousing their views in the classroom than I have complaints about liberal professors. But none of the complaints I’ve heard, no matter what the ideology of the professor, indicate to me that students’ academic freedom is being compromised. Indeed, it seems that some students, liberal and conservative alike, are uncomfortable in the presence of views unlike their own.

When these academic freedom hearings were first announced, I actually thought they were a good idea, since I was quite confident they would demonstrate the ideological diversity and pedagogical effectiveness of the PASSHE universities. But it became clear as the hearings progressed that Representative Armstrong and most members of the traveling circus he invited to Pennsylvania were not interested in learning what actually happens in our universities. They had apparently decided, before the hearings began, what the final results should be. And for that, they all owe Pennsylvania an apology.

Professor in PASSHE, at 12:45 pm EST on November 17, 2006

Anyone Can Be Replaced?

Very well, I am replacing B.D. Henceforth, any comments signed by B.D. have no legitimacy, as he has been replaced.

Hey, that really was easy, and it only took a little more logic and less of an attack dog mentality than the comments of the one who was replaced.

Andrew Purvis, at 5:35 am EST on November 20, 2006

Facts on the speed of being replaced

This —

” .. I would advise students in the humanities to make sure that they want to enter a doctoral program since about 55% of people in my field don’t get tenure-track jobs ..”

from —

http://www.phd-survey.org/advice/english.htm

http://www.ade.org/facts/SEDreport2003.htm

Facts are annoying, aren’t they? How unfortunate.

B.D., at 8:20 am EST on November 20, 2006

Jobs Related to Who Won the Battle of Pennsylvania?

or search for jobs directly.

Lead Identity Management Programmer Analyst
Temple University

The Lead Identity Management Programmer Analyst is an integral part of the larger identity management team, which will ... see job

Counselor/Psychologist
University of Colorado

Posting Description: The Faculty and Staff Assistance Program (FSAP) invites applications for a full-time ... see job

Faculty, Full-Time, Tenure Track Faculty, Management/HRM/Labor Relations, Fall 2009
Salem State College, MA

Salem State College is an equal opportunity / affirmative action employer. Persons of color, women and persons with ... see job

Professor
University of California, Los Angeles

The UCLA Department of Psychology seeks to appoint a cognitive neuroscientist with expertise in neuroimaging see job

Medical Insurance Billing/Coding Instructor
Corinthian Colleges

Everest Institute, a respected member of the Corinthian Colleges’ network of schools, is dedicated to helping students ... see job

Sr. Laboratory Mechanician
University of California, Los Angeles

Description: Perform mechanical work involving design, fabrication, assembly, modification and maintenance or repair ... see job

Administrative Coordinator (Recruitment Coordinator) (Req. # 0600697)
Georgia Southern University

Careers Services. Serve as the primary liaison between the Career Services Office and the employer community. This position ... see job

Oklahoma State University

Campus:

Job Summary:

Work Schedule: ... see job

Manager-Education Policy and Research
Australian Education International

Australian Education International — an arm of the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace ... see job

Associate Director of Development, Social Work
New York University

NYU’s Office of University Development and Alumni Relations has an exciting, senior level fundraising opportunity. This ... see job