Search News


Browse Archives

News

$500 Fines for Political Profs

February 19, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

To date, 2007 hasn't seen much legislative progress for measures inspired by the "Academic Bill of Rights," the brainchild of David Horowitz that he says promotes diversity of thought on campuses, but that many faculty leaders believe is designed to squelch them. Bills have been introduced in nine states, according to Free Exchange on Campus, which opposes them. But with one exception, those bills haven't been moving.

The exception is Arizona, where a Senate committee on Thursday approved a bill that would go much further than the Academic Bill of Rights, and which has infuriated faculty and student leaders. The bill, whose chief sponsor is the Republican majority leader in the Senate, would ban professors at public colleges and universities, while working, from:

  • Endorsing, supporting or opposing any candidate for local, state or national office.
  • Endorsing, supporting or opposing any pending legislation, regulation or rule under consideration by local, state or federal agencies.
  • Endorsing, supporting or opposing any litigation in any court.
  • Advocating "one side of a social, political, or cultural issue that is a matter of partisan controversy."
  • Hindering military recruiting on campus or endorsing the activities of those who do.

Under the legislation, the Arizona Board of Regents, which governs the state's public universities, and the individual boards of community colleges would be responsible for setting guidelines for the law and for requiring all faculty members to participate in three hours of training annually on their responsibilities under the law.

Punishments could come in two forms. The governing boards' guidelines would need to develop procedures, including suspensions and terminations in some cases, according to the bill. In addition, the state attorney general and county prosecutors could sue violators, and state courts could impose fines of up to $500. The legislation would bar colleges or their insurance policies from paying the fines -- money would need to be paid directly by the professors found guilty.

It is unclear whether the legislation has the backing to become law. It was approved by the Senate Government Committee, on a 4-3 party line vote, amid reports that the Education Committee wasn't prepared to support the legislation. Given that the sponsor of the legislation, Sen. Thayer Verschoor, is Republican majority leader, the legislation is being taken as a real threat -- even by those who expect it to be defeated at some point.

"This is a censorship bill. We are obviously very opposed," said Reyes Medrano Sr., president-elect of the Maricopa Community College District Faculty Association and a business professor at Paradise Valley Community College.

"We can't see what this bill would accomplish," Medrano said. He added that the group was stepping up lobbying efforts against the legislation, and would consider court action if the bill becomes law. "There is plenty to work with there," he said.

Serena Unrein, executive director of the Arizona Students' Association, said that the bill would prevent faculty members from discussing many things that belong in the classroom. "There are so many examples -- an economics professor couldn't talk about the viability of privatizing Social Security. Any time that there are efforts to restrict what college students are able to learn in the classroom, we should take it seriously."

The blog College Freedom has said the bill, if enacted, would be "the worst legislative attack on academic freedom in the history of American higher education." Even David Horowitz is opposed, saying that the bill goes too far. He wrote in a statement that he has never advocated legislative limits on what college faculty members may say in class.

In an interview on Friday, Verschoor defended his bill and pledged to push it. "In our institutions of higher education, students should be learning how to think, not what to think," he said.

Verschoor said that there has been "a problem for quite a while" with professors imposing politics on their students. He said that he hears about this all the time and reads newspaper articles about it all the time. 

Asked for specifics of the professorial behavior his bill would ban, he cited two examples from his own education at Arizona State University, from which he graduated in 1993. One time, he said, a classroom where his course met was next door to a classroom used by a women's studies class, which he entered one day by accident. "I came in and all of the male students were dressed like women, and the purpose was supposedly to see how a woman feels. I don't know how being in a dress and high heels would help with that. That was peculiar," he said.

In another case, he said, his comments offended a professor's political sensibilities. While Verschoor did not remember the specifics of the political exchange or the class, he said that the professor accused him of being "a political plant" and then said that "plants are to be urinated on."

Verschoor said that his intentions were not partisan and said that he had heard that some professors had criticized Sen. John Kerry in classes, and that he was offended by that as well as comments made against President Bush.

He also denied that the bill had anything to do with academic freedom. "You can speak about any subject you want -- you just don't take a position," he said.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on $500 Fines for Political Profs

  • $500 Fines for Political Profs"
  • Posted by Chris Wright-Isak , Professor of Marketing on July 23, 2007 at 12:10pm EDT
  • This quote :He also denied that the bill had anything to do with academic freedom. “You can speak about any subject you want — you just don’t take a position,” he said.

    What kind of speech takes no postion? Is there any such speech? All of education is based on taking positions (also called "hypotheses") and then refuting them or finding them "proved" based on systematic search and evaluation of facts related to the position initially taken. There is no "critical" thinking without asserting positions and then arguing about how accurate they are to observable phenomena. There is no education without the ability to modify one's "position" once more facts have been uncovered. Students who never face a professor whose opinions they disagree with will end up seriously undereducated. Learning to present one's own counter opinion, and the discourse tha tfollows is the core of the educational process, especially in schools of "higher learning." The term "higher" refers to the capability and responsibility of conducting such informed discourse.

  • You're Joking
  • Posted by Moderate Professor on February 19, 2007 at 7:00am EST
  • This story has to be a joke. If not, it is indeed scary that people in Arizona are actually capable of electing lunatics like this who can rise to prominent positions like majority leader of the state Senate. Does this fool have any inkling of what will happen to higher education in Arizona if this were to become law? I can't imagine anyone being willing to be on a faculty under this kind of dictatorship if they have any alternative.

  • Fine me!
  • Posted by Christian Anderson at Penn State on February 19, 2007 at 7:15am EST
  • Even if this passes the state senate and gets through the state house of represenatives, and gets a signature by teh governor (a lot of if's), I can't imagine this would stand up for a minute in court. Pure political shenanigans.

  • Posted by marya on February 19, 2007 at 7:25am EST
  • I totally agree with Moderate Prof -- those faculty who agree to work under these ridiculous conditions would be little better than "Stepford Profs". And the US would yet again become the laughing stock of the world. Here's an idea -- how about a bill fining legislators for each time they proposed unpatriotic legislation undermining American values, like freedom of speech? Better yet, make it an impeachable offense.

  • making the best of a comic situation
  • Posted by Larry on February 19, 2007 at 7:46am EST
  • You folks why there are so many lawyers. It is legislatures like this that want to fine a professor for "'Advocating' one side of a social, political, or cultural issue that is a matter of partisan controversy.'" Without such legislatures, I might need to get a real job.

    Though, maybe we could make biology or physics profs put $.25 into a jar every time they mention something that is related to evolution, which takes a position on a "partisan" controversy. The money would be used for a pizza party at the end of the semester. Everyone would be happy. Professors could speak. Crazy legislatures would have their fines. Students would have pizza.

    Strangely enough, probably everything taught in a law school, at one time, has been part of a partisan controversy, and may well be again. Law professors should probably have to pay $1 a day, and we could have a happy hour at the end of the semester.

    Obviously this is constitutionally infirm. On 1st, 5th, and 14th amendment grounds, but we can indulge ourselves in a few parties first. Okay?

    Marya is a little off the deep-end, however. Applications for student visas are pretty much steady (with some increases and decreases). If all the students want to come to the US for its humorous value, the world is a pretty strange place. Her other idea regarding fining legislatures is equally constitutionally infirm. Also, many other "civilized" countries have even tighter restrictions on speech.

  • The Circus Has Come to Phoenix
  • Posted by Unapologetically Tenured on February 19, 2007 at 7:51am EST
  • Not too much to say here. When even Horowitz thinks you've gone too far, it's time to get fitted for some giant floppy shoes and a big red rubber nose. Still, it wouldn't surprise me if at least one of the trolls who regularly posts on IHE decides to favor us with a rant in support of the bill. Any takers?

    It is sad that the Arizona Republicans, once the party of Barry Goldwater, now have so little talent on their bench that they have to elevate this callow, ignorant boob to a leadership role in the state legislature. The bill by this idiot Verschoor has no chance of becoming law, of course. Nevertheless, the publicity that it generates will almost certainly hurt three fine universities (UA, ASU, and NAU) as they try to attract outstanding new faculty to the Grand Canyon State.

  • First Amendment, anyone?
  • Posted by Chris Sterling , professor at George Washington University on February 19, 2007 at 7:51am EST
  • The previous comments have it right...if this silliness passes it will not survive the inevitable court review. If the First Amendment means anything, and a review of federal court decisions shows that it does, its words surely will underlie an appeal that would see this consigned to the dustbin of Arizona history. But this does make one wonder what these legislative folks have been smoking or drinking . . . for they surely are not thinking.

  • It Happens In Other Venues
  • Posted by Craig C , political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com on February 19, 2007 at 7:51am EST
  • When in the workplace, the employer has the right to put rules in place that would interfere with the progress of business. Most employers have similar rules to this proposed legislation already in place. The employers feel that if their workers are spending time discussing political matters in an adversarial manner that it takes away the concentration of the workers on the tasks at hand. It would be considered by most employers as "stealing time". A 500 dollar fine for stealing time is pretty cheap, considering that some employers will fire their workers under similar circumstances.

  • The Secret Enemy
  • Posted by William Sumner Scott, J.D. on February 19, 2007 at 8:06am EST
  • The violation of US First Amendment rights is obvious. For years the IRS code has done the same thing to charities. Perhaps this attempt at censorship will result in the elimination of all quality political research and impediments to free speech.

    An enemy you may not know of is the legal profession. As curbs have been placed on their abuse of the public that resulted in work for them, they have justified their existence by the forced compliance and prosecution of misdemeanors.

    Imagine how many lawyers it will take for the schools to stay in compliance and to prosecute this nonsense.

    While you voice opposition to this bill, also voice opposition to the poor education provided to lawyers to put an end to the legislative thought process that lead up to the consideration and passage of this bill.

    As an aside, the link of Horowitz to this bill is off target. His complaints are a lack of fairness for the views presented, not that he wants to stop dialog. To my knowledge, he will freely debate and wants others to also express their views.

    William Sumner Scott, J.D.

    Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.

    wss@jefound.org

  • Posted by marya on February 19, 2007 at 8:06am EST
  • However, Craig, in this "workplace" the "tasks on hand" have as their very substance the teaching of critical thinking across the board. Hard to do that if discussion of controversial issues is shut down.

  • Academic Freedom for K-12 Teachers?
  • Posted by John K. Wilson on February 19, 2007 at 8:25am EST
  • It should be noted that although Horowitz opposes the part of the bill for college teachers, he endorses the same provisions when applied to K-12 teachers. So he embraces the silly and repressive provisions of this bill, he just wants to exempt college teachers from it.

    Also, although the regents of universities and community colleges must provide guidelines with professors, it is the attorney general who provides them with "a detailed guideline regarding activities prohibited under this section" and it's the attorney general or a county attorney who enforces the law and the $500 fine.

    It's also not clear what "working in an official capacity for a university" means. Obviously, it includes teaching, but it certainly could also include any professor who takes a stand in a research paper, shared governance, or even commentary on public issues.

  • Circus in Phoenix? Hardly
  • Posted by B.D. on February 19, 2007 at 8:25am EST
  • My, my. So much bleating. One wonders if they doth protest too much.

    Phoeniz, Ariz., is the home of the University of Phoenix, for those who read material attached to the real world.

    For nearly a decade, UoP fought the K-16 Public Education Monopoly (PEM) for the right to accedition and the TAX MONEY involved. Ultimately, it took a ballot inititiative, which UoP won.

    It is at that point UoP -- and with its educational focus on working adults (many of whom had been financially and intellectually abused by the PEM) -- really began to grow. It was about accreditation and the MONEY, Einsteins -- it is always about the MONEY; people who teach for free don't worry about accreditation.

    Want to blame someone about the 2007 AZ bill? Try looking in the mirror -- that is always a good first step.

  • stealing time and the tax code
  • Posted by Larry on February 19, 2007 at 8:30am EST
  • Craig, For better or worse, only people at low-paying jobs are accused of "stealing time" when they talk politics. People with more responsibility and respect are allowed to talk about politics so long as it does not interfere with whatever it is they do. In fact, the whole point of going to college, is to work in a place where you won't be treated with such derision.

    Strangely, the more educated people become, the less they feel the need to be political pundits, because they start to see things in deeper levels of nuance.

    Mr. Scott, I suspect that you really could not make it as a lawyer. I mean, come on, how many lawyers actually call themselves "JD." Heck, I think it is rude to use "Esq." in the first person. On the other hand, the costs of enforcing any law usually make legislatures think twice about it. Unfortunately, there is usually about a five-year lag time between enactment and the budgetary repercussions.

    As to the Internal Revenue Code. Political organizations (E.g. under 26 USC 527 or 501(c)(4), (6) are free to talk politics and can even endorse partisan candidates. In fact, with the exception of certain 501(c)(3)s, anyone can do so without jeopardizing their tax status. But, there is no requirement that people claim 501(c)(3) status, unless they want contributions to them to have preferential tax treatment.

  • marya
  • Posted by Craig C , political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com on February 19, 2007 at 8:41am EST
  • Critical thinking can be taught without professors being advocates themselves. That's what speech classes are for.

  • Simply a Brilliant Idea!
  • Posted by Wilhelm Scream on February 19, 2007 at 8:45am EST
  • I love this idea because it will help U.S. policy makers continue to do really stupid things like invade Iraq over non-existant WMDs.

    We need to stop dissent so that our political leaders can further pillage social security funds w/o any criticism from intelligent people.

    I want there to be gag orders stopping all professors from ever speaking in public about unpleasant things: that way, things will get better.

    This is a great idea!

  • framing the discourse
  • Posted by liberata on February 19, 2007 at 8:45am EST
  • Another example of how a small minority that wields a disproportionate amount of power in this country is able to frame the discourse and put others on the defensive.

    This is not an issue of professors taking sides on political or controversial questions. The issue here is free speech and airing all possible facts and arguments. No colleagues that I know of forbid their students to express contradictory opinions in their classroom.

    It is the right and duty of professors to research facts and figures that will never make it into the press or onto the public airways. If they fail to bring these things to light then there is no point in "higher" education. We may as well just have our young people watch the sanitized network news each evening --all 20-some minutes of it. That way they'll know only what they're supposed to know and learn to be good little rubber stamps.

  • It doesn't mention religion
  • Posted by N Weis on February 19, 2007 at 8:55am EST
  • I notice that the bill does not forbid advocating religious positions. Clearly if it did that it would outlaw the teaching of creationism.

    It is also interesting that if you read the law, Section 15-1881 B. (immediately after the list of prohibitions in 15-1881 A)it reads, "Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as denying the civil and political liberties of any person as guaranteed by the United States and Arizona Constitutions."

    Do the proponents of this bill really not see a contradiction there?

  • faculty public service
  • Posted by George Gollin , Professor of Physics at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on February 19, 2007 at 9:01am EST
  • A sensible definition of faculty public service, an activity required of its professors by a number of public universities, can (and should) include public advocacy.

    The article's second bullet was "Endorsing, supporting or opposing any pending legislation, regulation or rule under consideration by local, state or federal agencies."

    This would ban, for example, an aerospace engineering professor from working with the FAA to improve its regulations and then discussing this work at a university public policy symposium. It would also forbid an Arizona professor serving on the board of a higher education association from describing that association's activities towards the renewal of the Higher Education Act.

    It is not in Arizona's best interest to make this so.

  • Posted by Hoosier Prof on February 19, 2007 at 9:01am EST
  • No disagreement here. Too much cactus juice on the brain down in AZ.

    But a small correction for Larry and WS Scott: *all* nonprofits can participate in political advocacy, and *all* can engage in a certain amount of lobbying (with restrictions for c-3 charities, unrestricted for the 26 other codes). The prohibition on political campaigning is absolute for charities, allowed with restrictions for other codes.

    And I also disagree with Scott that Congress censors charities. Charities have the means to lobby when they need to.

  • Larry
  • Posted by Craig C , political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com on February 19, 2007 at 9:01am EST
  • Personal attacks on myself and Mr Scott definitely show that one's level of education doesn't always lead to civility.

  • George Gollin
  • Posted by Craig C , political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com on February 19, 2007 at 9:11am EST
  • You aren't correct in your assertions that such advocacy would be prevented in all venues. The legislation is intended to be enforced during class time, not at other functions. The whole point is to prevent professors from bullying students into their points of view.

  • Posted by SP on February 19, 2007 at 9:46am EST
  • As a former UofA prof who would have been affected by this proposed Bill, I can safely say the battle between the Legislature and the 3 Universities will continue for some time, even if this Bill is unlikely to get through (how could you possibly enforce it??).
    However the sad reality is that despite good research income and tuition $$ from students, the three major AZ Unis are so starved of State income that many profs would probably have to toe the line in the unlikely scenario that the Bill did pass. Resistance to these sorts of wierd measures concocted in Phoenix is always present, but it is small in scale, overwhelmingly non-Unionised, and often ineffectual.
    I would, however, love to see the National Guard roll in to restore order after mass faculty walkouts and protests..... but it won't happen.
    Rather glad I left. Sad.

  • Truth is stranger than fiction. . . .
  • Posted by Don Heller , Professor at Pennsylvania State University on February 19, 2007 at 9:46am EST
  • One would like to think "only in Arizona," but who knows? Having just testified in front of Congress last week, where I did speak in favor of and against specific legislation, nice to know that I could have been facing some fines if I were a professor in Arizona rather than Pennsylvania.

  • For All ... But Especially For Craig C. ...
  • Posted by RWH on February 19, 2007 at 9:51am EST
  • When it comes to interesting and important academic “discussions,” I am not a big fan of civility. In my experience, “civility” is, more often than not, a euphemism for conformity and insipidness. In “The Community of Scholars,” my mentor, Paul Goodman, wrote ...

    “It is my thesis that the agent of this clinch is administration and the administrative mentality among teachers and even the students. It is the genius of administration to enforce a false harmony in situations that should be rife with conflict. Historically, the communities of scholars have perennially been invaded by administration from the outside, by Visitors of king, bishop, despotic majority, or whatever is the power in society that wants to quarantine the virulence of youth, the dialog of persons, the push of inquiry, the accusing testimony of scholarship. But today Administration and the administrative mentality are entrenched in the community of scholars itself; they fragment it and paralyze it. Therefore we see the paradox that, with so many centers of possible intellectual criticism and intellectual initiative, there is so much inane conformity, and the universities are little models of the Organized System itself.”

    I think if Goodman were alive today, he would argue that there is yet another barrier to the existence of centers of intellectual criticism and intellectual initiative in higher education in the United States ... i.e., a self-selection process that has seen the gravitation of an inordinate number of Casper Milquetoasts to academe, all wishing the academy were much more like the U.S. Senate than the British House of Commons.

  • What would Socrates say?
  • Posted by Robert , Humanities Prof on February 19, 2007 at 10:10am EST
  • The proposed legislation would negate education in any meaningful sense. When you recall that Socrates was put to death for asking tough questions and corrupting the youth of Athens, one realizes that what is at stake in the attempt to create "value-neutral" education is thinking itself. The proposed legislation is not conservative, it is un-American, and it needs to be attacked as such. The similarities to academic life in the former Soviet Union and Germany in the 1930s need to be drawn. No one should assume these kinds of initiatives will go away just because of their surface craziness. They occupy space in our political discourse, take time away from signficant issues, ever so slightly move the needle toward censorship. The legislation is a product of a time that looks at higher education in terms of mere career training, not education in the Socratic sense.

  • Lead discussions, not sway discussions
  • Posted by S.D. on February 19, 2007 at 10:15am EST
  • I agree wholeheartedly with Craig C and have been saying this over and over in many blogs... "Critical thinking can be taught without professors being advocates themselves."

    I see professors as serving in a capacity of presenting both sides and encouraging the students to think and discuss - with the professor as an advocate for both sides to encourage critical thinking.

  • Inevitable?
  • Posted by Richard Zuma , Inevitable? on February 19, 2007 at 10:16am EST
  • Perhaps this is inevitable given government funding of universities. After all, when your boss wants to manage its funds and manage its workforce, this isn’t unusual. When your boss is the state, then it is censorship. Perhaps the ultimate solution is to follow the example of Hillsdale Collage and separate from the state.

  • Remarkable
  • Posted by Joseph Duemer , Professor at Clarkson University on February 19, 2007 at 10:50am EST
  • It is remarkable how consistently American "conservatives" reproduce & wish to impose the forms & processes of Soviet Communism & other discredited totalitarian systems. No doubt there will have to be a Party member in each class to report on the professor's conduct.

  • Remarkable, again
  • Posted by B.D. on February 19, 2007 at 11:50am EST
  • " .. remarkable how consistently American “conservatives” reproduce & wish to impose the forms & processes of Soviet Communism ..

    Sure -- and college English departments are filled with Republicans.

    Want to talk about one-party rule? Try soft-side academia, first. There's your laugh.

  • Posted by marya on February 19, 2007 at 11:50am EST
  • Value-neutrality, presenting both sides, etc. -- these are indeed valuable tools for teaching critical thinking. But there are issues where there aren't or shouldn't be two sides presented neutrally by anyone, let alone a teacher. Holocaust deniers, anyone? Neo-nazism? Racism of any kind? Child pornography? Flat-earthers? Creation "science"? (Etc?) Of course each proponent of these values has his/her own "side," but part of teaching critical thinking is a recognition that not all "sides" are equally valid, whether for historical, scientific, moral, or other reasons.

  • English Departments and Republicans
  • Posted by T.R.M. on February 19, 2007 at 12:30pm EST
  • Anyone familiar with these IHE message boards probably knows that the poster identified as "B.D." never actually responds to what others have claimed or argued. Instead, B.D. is the master of the "red herring," or, in other words, the unrelated argument or claim designed to shift the topic of the discourse.

    Still, I can't help myself here. I teach in an English department at a public university, and I'm a Republican. There are at least eight other Republicans among the 25 full-time professors here. (There may be more; I just don't know everyone's political registration or persuasion.)

    As a Republican, I find the proposed Arizona legislation short-sighted, dangerous, and malicious.

    Take a look at National Review Online's "Phi Beta Cons" blog today. This legislation gets trashed there too--and rightfully so. I think academics of all stripes should be alarmed.

  • Posted by afdtk , Associate Professor of English at University of Alaska Anchorage on February 19, 2007 at 1:16pm EST
  • The last paragraph caught my attention:

    "He also denied that the bill had anything to do with academic freedom. 'You can speak about any subject you want — you just don’t take a position,' he said."

    I don't think you have to be a poststructuralist to wonder if such a thing is possible.

  • Calm down, everyone
  • Posted by Dry Heat , Professor at Some Arizona U on February 19, 2007 at 1:20pm EST
  • It is important to bear in mind that in Arizona we have a part-time legislature that is paid a ridiculously low wage of $24000 per year. As a result there are a large number of retired ranchers and wealthy conservative dilettantes who don’t have a lot better to do than cook up conspiracy theories about communist plots down at the university, create legislation to allow people to carry concealed weapons in bars, and figure out if there really isn’t some way to lay mines down at the Mexican border. It’s kind of amusing, if embarrassing. Fortunately for us, we have many sane legislators, a good governor, and a judicious Supreme Court who normally manage to keep these hare-brained schemes from actually hurting anyone. So there is an approximately zero probability that this whacko bill will become law.

    That, said, it’s also important to note that these efforts don’t come from nowhere. I have watched over the years as certain departments (and you know who you are) have slowly filled with a breed of academic who is an activist first and a scholar second. Right wing blogger Craig C is wrong to assert that universities are just like businesses; but they are also not soap boxes for pet political causes, be they liberal or conservative. As a taxpayer I too am uncomfortable with them being used as such.

    Laws are not the answer to this, but the professorate would do well to engage in more self-regulation to avoid endorsing positions and make sure all sides of controversial issues get a respectful hearing. If they don't they are asking for, and can expect more of, this kind of legislation, and not just in Arizona.

  • Posted by College teacher on February 19, 2007 at 1:20pm EST
  • Make a list of kinds of teaching that could be construed as supporting “one side of a social, political, or cultural issue that is a matter of partisan controversy.”

    Standard microeconomics, which is the basis of neoclassical trade theory, is set up to give you free-trade results. Free trade is patently a matter of partisan controversy, so you’ll be fining your economists pretty regularly.

    Evolution, the age of the earth, and, we learned last week, even heliocentrism can be matters of partisan controversy. Not that this comes up in my classes too often, but if asked I’ll absolutely take the position that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old and orbits the sun.

    And let’s not get started on the humanities. Verschoor is the same guy who was quoted almost exactly a year ago complaining about people teaching Rick Moody novels.

    http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/02/17/ariz

    So if I teach a novel that’s been denounced by Verschoor am I taking a position on teaching such novels? If I teach Plato's _Republic_, I'm going to have to advocate pretty hard for Plato to get students to take his political views seriously. And so forth.

    Most of us are, for the record, pretty careful about how we use our position in the classroom. And Verschoor is way too easy a target. But the idea that there is a bright line between presentation and advocacy is silly, especially because a vigorous controversialist can turn *anything* into “a matter of partisan controversy.”

  • Sounds good to me
  • Posted by Marty , Professor at Ohio University on February 19, 2007 at 1:21pm EST
  • I like the idea of this legislation. Now we can fine professors who approve of military recruiting, say anything nice about Sen. McCain, mention anything good about UofA basketball, etc. It would be interesting to see what content in Political Science, Sociology or Economics is not contentious. Even Family Studies might go overboard by stating that intact families are better than single moms or dads, and Health could be fined for claiming that marijuana is damaging to the body. All of these are controversial. What the legislation COULD do is drain Arizona of competant faculty members with an option, and keep the State from hiring new ones. I have students being recruited to go to Arizona for their doctorates, and I will be recommending tomorrow that they go to California instead. If I am not alone in this, it could be very painful for Arizona universities, which contain many spectacular faculty members.

  • Un-American Indeed
  • Posted by Acupuncture School Teacher on February 19, 2007 at 2:25pm EST
  • Any issue can become partisan if a legislator or pundit spins it that way; one needs simply to claim an issue as a Democratic one, or a Republican one. And what would be the statute of limitations? Is it safe to talk about an issue that has become ostensibly resolved? How about a pre-partisan issue ... more of a partisan tiff: would those be forbidden territory for expression of opinions from the lectern? Taken to one logical extreme, this legislation provides baby-steps to future goose-steps. Un-American, indeed!

  • Posted by College teacher on February 19, 2007 at 2:25pm EST
  • Dry Heat, have you actually gathered CVs to make the case that "certain departments (and you know who you are) have slowly filled with a breed of academic who is an activist first and a scholar second."?

    It's easy for stereotypes to flourish about "certain departments."

  • The fault, dear Brutus, is not with the Legislators
  • Posted by zwurman on February 19, 2007 at 2:45pm EST
  • However well or badly drafted the suggested law is, the professoriate should better look at its own behavior--it is what caused this, and many other to come, reactions along these lines.

    The heated classroom partisanship, more often than not coupled with lacking intellectual capacity, lies behind such justified backlash. Most responses here ignore this and attack the various small or large deficiencies of the particular proposal, ignoring or denying the real underlying cause.

    It is not good to have the state constantly peek at classroom higher-ed teaching, but it is also not good to have anti-intellectual preaching in the classroom. But the worst is to have almost all of the academia abandon its responsibility and hide behind its academic freedoms, rather than apply its own existing rules of good scholarship. This is the direct result of having highly skewed political faculty compositions, which creates a climate allowing and condoning such behavior.

    The faculty can disingenuously keep protesting that "there are not enough qualified academics of the other persuasion", or that "the grossly skewed faculty composition doesn't affect their teaching." You reap what you sow.

  • Posted by George Gollin , Professor of Physics at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on February 19, 2007 at 3:15pm EST
  • Craig C. said:

    "You aren’t correct in your assertions that such advocacy would be prevented in all venues. The legislation is intended to be enforced during class time, not at other functions. The whole point is to prevent professors from bullying students into their points of view."

    George Gollin comments:

    Consider this rephrasing: "This would ban, for example, an aerospace engineering professor from working with the FAA to improve its regulations and then discussing this work in a public policy seminar course. It would also forbid an Arizona professor serving on the board of a higher education association from describing that association’s activities towards the renewal of the Higher Education Act in a graduate seminar in an Educational Leadership program."

    Our instructional activities do not cease when we walk out the door of a classroom: we retain our obligations as educators in our interactions with students and colleagues persist. Further, our non-teaching professional activities (research, for example) enrich our in-classroom time with our students. See the NY Times op-ed piece "'Top' University Scientists Do Teach" by Thomas J. Devlin (Rutgers):
    http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~devlin/op-ed.html.

  • Here's your data
  • Posted by B.D. on February 19, 2007 at 4:30pm EST
  • " .. I teach in an English department at a public university, and I’m a Republican .."

    Reminds me of the comment about Gov. Arnold: "even our Republicans are Democrats!"

    Janet Donald in her book "Learning How Think" notes how English instructors endless critique (and critique, and critique, and critique .. ad infinium).

    Unfortunately, when it comes to actual empirical data, math frightens them, so they never produce any of value. Here's something to help them --

    http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2/

    Looking someone to blame for the AZ bill? Look in the mirror -- the reason is there.

  • Posted by jmai , assistant professor French Film at Clemson University on February 19, 2007 at 4:35pm EST
  • We do have a strong responsability for fostering in our classrooms an atmosphere in which students can think freely about controversial subjects. To do this, however, we do not need to limit the political speech of professors. I have every right to teach a course on the history of Iraq from a point of view condemning the American invasion. But I must do so bearing in mind that good arguments might show me to be wrong.

    In other words, I must allow my students the same rights that I demand for myself. In fact my conviction, coupled with an opposite conviction, will simply make for a more stimulating course. The proposed legislation calls for silence on all sides in the one place in which we can truly take the time to analyze thorny issues.

  • Ivory Tower vs. Political Caucus
  • Posted by Dry Heat , Professor at Some Arizona University on February 19, 2007 at 5:55pm EST
  • jmai says: "I have every right to teach a course on the history of Iraq from a point of view condemning the American invasion."

    You may have a "right" to do it, but there is such a thing as an abuse of rights, and this is an example. You are confusing the Ivory Tower with a political caucus. In the classroom you are not in a discussion with peers. You are a powerful authority figure and your power distorts the discourse (surely a french film critic has read Foucault). Your students might be afraid that they can't disagree with you without suffering negative consequences. Others might just figure that whatever you say should be taken as fact. This is not and cannot be a situation of equal rights.

    For another thing, I happen to agree with your perspective on Iraq, but you are employed by a lot of people who don't. Why should they pay you to give a one-sided political indoctrination to their kids?

    What you should do with your course on Iraq is present both sides of the story, then encourage your students to voice *their* opinions about the merits. Save your personal beliefs for situations where you are interacting with your peers or government representatives on your own time.

  • Dry Heat
  • Posted by jmai , assistant prof French Film on February 19, 2007 at 7:45pm EST
  • I am paid to teach students, as best I can, the truth about a subject I know about (by the way, Iraq is just an example, I would only teach something in my domain). I am not paid (as you imply) to teach my employers' point of view.

    Foucault (and Bourdieu would perhaps be even more pertinent here) says that power relations obtain in the teacher/student relation. This is very true. However, this happens whether you talk about politics or grammar. Pretending you are neutral doesn't make you so. I think it is far better to admit to those power stakes and deal with them.

    If students feel afraid to express themselves, then I have failed. But I have not failed because I have discussed a touchy subject; I have failed because I have not fostered an environment of free exchange. Failed precisely because I have acted like some preacher of pure truth rather than like a human being in a human interaction. That failure, which would continue if this legislation is passed tomorrow, has nothing to do with my free expression. In a way you are right, the power can't be abused. But if you tell me I can't say Iraq was wrongly invaded when I am teaching Iraq (note I am not "imposing" my view), then it is you who abuse power.

    This, by the way, goes for Left and Right. However, it truly is difficult to find professors who espouse things like Intelligent Design, religious views of history, or who deny global warming (as people on the Right do all the time). But this is not because of professorial orthodoxy; it is because many of these values are inherently contrary to critical thinking and empirical analysis. I could, however, easily imagine an anti-abortion professor teaching an interesting class on abortion, if, of course, s/he runs the class through the necessary channels of reasonable ethical arguments necessary for free exchange.

  • Posted by JBM on February 19, 2007 at 7:45pm EST
  • "I have every right to teach a course on the history of Iraq from a point of view condemning the American invasion."

    Unless you clearly label the course as political propaganda so that student know what they're signing up for, no you do not. You are obliged to address all views and leave opinion and conclusion formation to students.

  • Problem Solved
  • Posted by Rickard Zuma on February 19, 2007 at 7:45pm EST
  • “Why should they pay you to give a one-sided political indoctrination to their kids?”

    Exactly! Yes, I agree with the majority that responding to specific acts of indoctrination with fines is unwise. However, as the current notion of “academic freedom” is a sham and a “liberal arts” education is a mere shadow of what it once was, we should completely end the funding of higher education. Fear not the “academic” police squad! Fines, arrests, and trials – all the practices of a police state – will be avoided! Problem solved!

  • jbm
  • Posted by jmai on February 19, 2007 at 8:25pm EST
  • It seems again irresponsible for me to leave "opinion" and especially "conclusion formation" to students when I am the so-called authority in the class. A class on Iraq taught from my own point of view (what other point of view do you think it would be taught) does not eliminate the other side. It would be a stupid class if it did. Do stupid classes take place? Yes. Will the proposed legislation change that? No. Is limiting my freedom of expression going to change that? No, it will just turn unchallenging positions into fact.

    That's propaganda: unverifiable, unreasoned, political opinion presented as fact, beyond discussion. Nothing about my hypothetical course fits that description.

  • no problem
  • Posted by Larry on February 19, 2007 at 8:25pm EST
  • First of all folks, this law has not passed. It has not been tested constitutionally. Therefore, the people that say that this is a 1) problem or a 2) solution are immature. This is a proposal. It is probably not a serious one.

    Craig, I was not personally attacking you. After all, it isn’t every day that we get to meet a licensed political pundit, or a “JD.”

    BD, I am really confused how you see everything as a question of “Democrat” and “Republican.” I mean, isn’t it a little immature for academics to see things on as simplistic a level as other people do. I know that you can do better.

    College Teacher, I think that Dry Heat just made that up, anyway. Faculty hiring simply isn’t done that way.

    Finally, it is funny that people think that professors can really “sway” a discussion. If someone notices that someone is partisan then they have failed. The truly effective advocates have so much credibility that they can advance their position without people even noticing that they are advocating for something. For this reason, most partisan political speeches and rallies are nothing more than preaching to the choir. So, any of this so-called “classroom advocacy” if it exists in the way that people claim it does, is simply ineffective. Indoctrination is far too subtle for most people to notice.

  • Topic Example - Preemptive Strike
  • Posted by Quizzical on February 19, 2007 at 9:00pm EST
  • Following is isolation of a topic that would result in a fine under the proposed law and argument why the proposal must be defeated.

    Is professor opinion directly linked to peer review of the topic? If so, then why is the opinion that preemptive strike is wrong based upon the German - Poland example not equally applicable to the United States – Iraq action?

    Is the action of one or more governments based upon admittedly false intelligence off limits for expression of opinion by professors?

    If so, tell Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, leaders in their fields, that they may no longer teach their beliefs in class.

    Once that is done, all formal education to attempt to achieve peace based upon analysis of past government action will be useless.

  • Posted by Jerry on February 19, 2007 at 11:10pm EST
  • Certainly it is wrong for professors to use their authority to force students to express agreement with them. But this rule restricts professors' freedom of speech. The argument that this is to make sure professors spend the whole period on their subject doesn't hold up too well. I once had a professor who liked to talk about football during class time. This rule doesn't penalize him, nor should it. What is being restricted is only political speech.

    There was a time when Germany produced some of the greatest philosophers and scientists in history. That ended with the nazis and their pattern of eliminating those who disagreed with them.

    Of course if a teacher abuses his grading prerogatives it should be investigated. In absence of that, why not tell college-aged students that listening to different ideas cannot hurt them. If they are interested, they can research the ideas and they can form their own opinions. Or do we assume that different ideas do hurt and that the answer is censorship?

  • Of course
  • Posted by Bob on February 20, 2007 at 4:25am EST
  • This comment makes a valuable observation:

    However well or badly drafted the suggested law is, the professoriate should better look at its own behavior—it is what caused this, and many other to come, reactions along these lines.

    We all remember what happened to our former Greek colleague, Socrates. At least, the majority leader in the Arizona has not appealed to this precedent.

  • are there any windmills left ?
  • Posted by Larry on February 20, 2007 at 6:31am EST
  • What interests me about the above comments is that people think it is really an easy task to separate “beliefs” from the subject matter. Sure, one can easily demand that professors not state normative beliefs. But, prohibiting the use of the word “should” does not change much. For example, in a Physics 101 class, a professor might never use the word “should” but many of the concepts taught were controversial (and now people don’t understand them), and at some level they rebut the theory that the world was created in six days. In law schools, where students are far less willing to start throwing political stones, I can guarantee that every “rule” (or “standard”) at one point was disputed, but most people now see that is makes “common sense.” Perhaps the only thing that is prohibited is wearing a pin that says “Vote for Bush.” So, along those lines, Quizzical, we need to start by realizing that “peace” is a bit of a controversial topic itself. Some people think that it isn’t a good goal for a country to have.

    For better or worse, there is little record of college professors actually trying to force students to believe what they believe. Why? People can’t be forced to believe things. Indoctrination takes place over years and is much more subtle. Students are indoctrinated by their parents, friends, and TV. Spending 2-4 hours in a classroom won’t change their minds too much. It seems that some students are taking offense to the notion that their prior indoctrination might be different than the indoctrination that occurs over 10-15 years of intense study.

    Finally, many people, including myself, included, have asked for written evidence that students are discriminated against on the basis of their politics. We asked for scanned copies of assignments, and papers that were graded below the rest of the class on the basis of politics. People did not provide them. (In part, I imagine, because, they don’t want to show the world that politics is an excuse of their bad handiwork.)

  • how not to learn fractions
  • Posted by Larry on February 20, 2007 at 6:50am EST
  • How to do no work in college.

    I just realized something. A student could get around any assignment by simply filing suit. In the complaint, he would claim that whatever is taught in the assignment violates his rights under Arizona law. Sure, this is frivolous (within the narrow legal definition). But so what? Then, since it is now pending litigation, the professor would be prohibited from teaching it.

  • the professoriate's behavior
  • Posted by Clark Iverson , Professor of English on February 20, 2007 at 6:51am EST
  • Once upon a time, it was common to believe that victims of rape had brought their problems upon themselves through provocative dress and so forth. I am sad to see this mentality resurrected for the bugbear of the (radical left) indoctrinator, who exists more in the minds of those who would suppress critical inquiry than in the classroom

    An admittedly bad idea is not rehabilitated by invoking flights of fancy or stereotypes.

    Double-plus bad, anyone?

  • Who Elected Him?
  • Posted by Gary on February 20, 2007 at 10:31am EST
  • The very first comment from Moderate Professor wonders how this idiot in Arizona got elected? Are you kidding? What hole did you just crawl out from, insulated from the surreal nightmare of the last six years?

  • refining Hooser prof's argument under 501(d)(2)(C)
  • Posted by Larry on February 20, 2007 at 10:35am EST
  • Hoosier, I agree with you, and I appreciate your correction. Perhaps, to raise the level of discourage here, I should note that under 26 USC 501(d)(2)(C), organizations are free to engage in paid lobbying (even using funds) for the purpose of self-preservation. Finally, as you note, even (c)(3)s can engage in lobbying, but can’t spend money to do it.

    And, it is permissible to “educate” people, so long as people don’t cross that line.

  • A Nightmare Defined
  • Posted by Quizzical on February 20, 2007 at 3:05pm EST
  • The inference Gary made is at the line Larry claims exists.

    The present nightmare existed in Texas before it spread to DC.

    The power of the educator is felt only when the educated reach the masses. Education has been ineffective to prevent incompetence in government. It has tolerated the cover-up of the murders of John Kennedy and Martin Luther King for their opposition to war and the cause of 9/11.

    Molly Ivins is dead, but in her memory, we must try to educate the public on how to elect leaders who will work for the best interests of the public. Not done at present.

    The number and quality of the comments to this article prove the importance of the issues raised.

  • JMAI's sophistry
  • Posted by Dry Heat , Professor at Some Arizona U on February 20, 2007 at 4:20pm EST
  • A postmodern film critic teaching the "truth"? Please.

    I didn't say you can't express your opinion, I said you shouldn't. There's a huge difference there, Professor.

    Rest assured there are plenty of people who don't think the crackpot ideas you list are "contrary to critical thinking." That's the whole point.

    But hey, you have your rights. Enjoy 'em while they last!

  • hot air from dry heat
  • Posted by jmai , prof french film at clemson on February 20, 2007 at 8:40pm EST
  • Who refers to me as "postmodern" (nice try, but just because you read the bible doesn't make you Christian, and just because you've read Foucault doesn't make you p.m. - in fact I'd prefer you'd just use an overt slander).

    Here, however, is a nice example of a post-modern statement:

    Mr/Ms Heat (quoting me) says: "Rest assured there are plenty of people who don’t think the crackpot ideas you list are “contrary to critical thinking.” That’s the whole point."

    A post-modern is so distraught over the absence of absolute truth that s/he replaces it with opinion: truth no longer has any relevance. However, that some have the opinion that crackpot ideas aren't contrary to critical thinking is irrelevant. The last thing it is, is "the whole point." Saying that I "should not" express what evidence suggests, on no matter what subject, is coercive and has no critical value.

  • o rly?
  • Posted by Michelle Day , Student at Arizona State University on February 21, 2007 at 7:41pm EST
  • As a student, I am very offended by this absurdity called a proposal. I had two reasons for going to college: A) to get a better job, and B) to broaden my horizons, and change my views on the outside world, for better or for worse. The most infuriating concept about this entire mess is his rationale and reason. He is STILL upset about situations from 14 years ago. I've taken women's studies classes, and not in a single class were the men paraded around in dresses and heels. I have never taken a political science class where I was called a "plant to be urinated on". The worst situation I've had is a psychology professor who didn't agree with my assessment of my own personality, and gave me a D on a paper. Was I upset? Certainly. Am I going to write to the senate expressing my anger and calling for censorship? No. Its ridiculous. There are good professors, and there are bad professors, this is something that someone should know on applying for college. It really sounds like he is trying to get back at those professors because he is in a position to do it. Pathetic.

    This country doesn't have nearly enough teachers to handle the population growth. At ASU, the number of instructors in general does not grow enough to even begin to match the student population growth. In other words, with 200+ student lecture classes, someone is going to get offended. That one student that cannot handle opposing opinions does not deserve to be senate majority leader.

  • Is it 1984 already?
  • Posted by C Dizz at UIC on February 24, 2007 at 2:15pm EST
  • Come on guys, we can joke about how stupid this is, but you gotta admit, it's feeding into the conspiracy theories quite well. The erosion of all of our rights is quickly picking up momentum, and in due time, as the rest of the planet pays for our greed. Soon our government will start to treat its own citizens as it threats the rest of the world: as expendable, worthless warriors and terrorist. The Iraqi's get shot at, and us tough Americans blog about it....where's the bloody revolution I see in my dreams!?!?! American amnesia is always apparent, and beginning to dig a grave for our society.

  • its B.S
  • Posted by I.M. Incognito on March 4, 2007 at 1:20pm EST
  • As a professor of political science in Arizona I have followed this closely. It is all about pandering to his right wind nut base and has nothing to do with reality. The governor has said she would veto it -- there appears not to be enough support in the legislature and even Horowitz has said he does not support the bill -- he says it goes too far. By getting our undies in a bunch we are playing into the wing nuts.