 |
 |
|
|
by AFT Guild Political Action VP Jim Miller
In the wake of the 9/11 attacks I sought to bring AFT members’ attention to the assault on academic freedom and free speech represented by groups such as Campus Watch, the American Association of Trustees and Alumni, and David Horowitz’s Students for Academic Freedom who were striving to stifle dissenting voices on college campuses across the United States with a neo-McCarthyist campaign to blacklist and demonize thought that they deemed “un-American.” Much of the clamor and debate over such issues disappeared during the year before the close and contentious Presidential campaign, but now the attacks on tenure, academic freedom, and free speech have been renewed not in the form of mere propaganda campaigns, but rather as dangerous legislative attempts which seek to impose a rigid limit on the academic freedoms many of us take for granted.
In California (SB 5) and Ohio (SB 24), legislators are pushing for a “Students’ Bill of Rights” that takes much of its language from David Horowitz’s organization. Horowitz’s right wing jihad against academia is nothing new, but, as these pieces of legislation show, his attempt to purge American higher education of “indoctrination” is starting to make an impact on local and national politics. While the language of objectivity and freedom in the bills seems innocent on a first reading, a deeper consideration of the effects of such legislation raises many disturbing questions. Who gets to determine what qualifies as an ideological “agenda”? Is it the lecture of a scientist who believes in evolution and is engaged, to use the language of SB 5, in “anti-religious” indoctrination? Is it a history professor who suggests that early American history was fundamentally shaped by slavery and racism? Or, given a radically different political climate than the present one, could it be a white male literature professor who teaches the classics and fails to introduce a sufficient number of multi-cultural texts? Who gets to censor campus speakers? Who gets to be the thought police?
Ideology is, as one critic put it, like bad breath—it’s always something the other guy has and never yourself. Even those who claim to be “fair and balanced” sometimes aren’t. Though we all strive to be fair and open to views different than our own, none of us lives outside of history or the ideological fray. There are no perfectly neutral instructors and, if they existed, our students would be bored out of their minds. The myth of objectivity invoked in the service of SB 5 and SB 24 merely underlines one kind of ideology while cloaking another set of ideas. Thus all of us, liberal, conservative, independent, and apolitical should be wary of this sort of unnecessary and divisive government intervention into campus life.
The political agenda behind the current legislation is clear. As Ohio state senator Larry Mumper explains, the thought criminals are the “democrats, liberals, or socialists, or card carrying communists” who comprise 80% of college professors and are an “anti-American group.” This kind of broad-brush conspiracy theory not only flies in the face of political reality (if the leftist elite is so powerful, why is the right in power?), it is so all-encompassing in its definition of the enemy within that it seems only those on the right are capable of ideology-free instruction (although even moderate Republicans with an “un-American” thought or two might be suspect in this Brave New World). Clearly, the introduction of such legislation would not de-politicize American campuses, but make them good places to hunt for ideological deviants whose worldview strays from the current hegemony.
Thus your AFT stands opposed to SB 5 and all other attempts to impose an ideological litmus test on higher education. Particularly offensive is the invocation of freedom, the rhetoric of “rights,” and calls for fairness in a doublethink-heavy attempt to undermine academic rights and freedoms. Our students are not mindless dupes and the professors who teach them should not be demonized for having worldviews of any sort. While it is unlikely that SB 5 will make it out of a committee dominated by Democrats, your AFT urges you to educate yourselves on such issues and contact your legislators because this may just be the first of many attempts to undermine academic freedom.
Below for your perusal is the text of SB 5 which is currently before the education committee, followed by an article from the Columbus Dispatch that gives some background on SB 24 and David Horowitz.
SENATE BILL No. 5
Introduced by Senator Morrow
December 6, 2004
An act to add Section 66015.8 to the Education Code, relating to
public postsecondary education.
legislative counsel's digest
SB 5, as introduced, Morrow. Public postsecondary education
standard: Student Bill of Rights.
Existing law establishes the various segments of the public higher
education system in the state. These segments include the University
of California, which is administered by the Regents of the University
of California, the California State University, which is administered
by the Trustees of the California State University, and the California
Community Colleges, which is administered by the Board of
Governors of the California Community Colleges.
This bill would request the Regents of the University of California,
and direct the Trustees of the California State University and the
Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, to develop
guidelines and implement specified principles, relating to academic
freedom, of a Student Bill of Rights.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 66015.8 is added to the Education Code,
to read:
66015.8. (a) (1) The Legislature makes the following
declarations and findings with respect to public institutions of
higher education:
(A) The Legislature declares that the central purposes of the
university are the pursuit of truth, the discovery of new
knowledge through scholarship and research, the study and
reasoned criticism of intellectual and cultural traditions, the
teaching and general development of students to help them
become creative individuals and productive citizens of a
pluralistic democracy, and the transmission of knowledge and
learning to a society at large.
(B) The Legislature further declares that free inquiry and free
speech within the academic community are indispensable to the
achievement of these goals, the freedoms to teach and to learn
depend upon the creation of appropriate conditions and
opportunities on the campus as a whole as well as in the
classrooms and lecture halls, and these purposes reflect the
values of pluralism, diversity, opportunity, critical intelligence,
openness, and fairness that are the cornerstones of American
society.
(C) The Legislature finds that academic freedom is most likely
to thrive in an environment of intellectual diversity that protects
and fosters independence of thought and speech, and that
academic freedom protects the intellectual independence of
professors, researchers, and students in the pursuit of knowledge
and the expression of ideas from interference by legislators or
authorities within the institution itself.
(D) The Legislature further declares that intellectual
independence means the protection of students from the
imposition of any orthodoxy of a political, religious, or
ideological nature. To achieve the intellectual independence of
students, teachers should not take unfair advantage of a student's
immaturity by indoctrinating him or her with the teacher's own
opinions before a student has had an opportunity fairly to
examine other opinions upon the matters in question, and before
a student has sufficient knowledge and ripeness of judgment to
be entitled to form any definitive opinion of his or her own, and
students should be free to take reasoned exception to the data or
views offered in any course of study and to reserve judgment
about matters of opinion.
(b) To secure the intellectual independence of students, and to
protect the principles of intellectual diversity, the Regents of the
University of California are requested to, and the Trustees of the
California State University and the Board of Governors of the
California Community Colleges are hereby directed to, develop
guidelines and implement the following principles of the Student
Bill of Rights:
(1) Students shall be graded solely on the basis of their
reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and
disciplines they study, not on the basis of their political or
religious beliefs.
(2) Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social
sciences shall respect the uncertainty and unsettled character of
all human knowledge in these areas, and provide students with
dissenting sources and viewpoints. While teachers are and should
be free to pursue their own findings and perspectives in
presenting their views, they should consider and make their
students aware of other viewpoints. Academic disciplines should
welcome a diversity of approaches to unsettled questions
(3) Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly
viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major
responsibility of faculty. Faculty shall not use their courses or
their positions for the purpose of political, ideological, religious,
or anti-religious indoctrination.
(4) The selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speakers'
programs, and other student activities shall observe the principles
of academic freedom and promote intellectual pluralism.
(5) An environment conducive to the civil exchange of ideas
being an essential component of a free university, the obstruction
of invited campus speakers, the destruction of campus literature,
or any other effort to obstruct this exchange shall not be
tolerated.
____________________________________
Bill could limit open debate at colleges
Lawmaker says profs are pushing agendas
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Kathy Lynn Gray
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Legislation that would restrict what university professors could say in
their classrooms was introduced yesterday in Ohio.
Judging from reactions in other states where similar bills have been
considered, controversy won't be far behind.
Marion Sen. Larry A. Mumper's "academic bill of rights for higher
education" would prohibit instructors at public or private universities
from "persistently" discussing controversial issues in class or from using
their classes to push political, ideological, religious or anti-religious
views.
Senate Bill 24 also would prohibit professors from discriminating against
students based on their beliefs and keep universities from hiring, firing,
promoting or giving tenure to instructors based on their beliefs.
Mumper, a Republican, said many professors undermine the values of their
students because "80 percent or so of them (professors) are Democrats,
liberals or socialists or card-carrying Communists" who attempt to
indoctrinate students.
"These are young minds that haven't had a chance to form their own
opinions," Mumper said. "Our colleges and universities are still
filled with some of the '60s and '70s profs that were the anti-American group.
They've gotten control of how to give people tenure and so the colleges
continue to move in this direction."
Joan McLean, a political-science professor at Ohio Wesleyan University,
said Mumper's legislation is misguided and would have a chilling effect on
the free-flowing debate that is a hallmark of democracy.
"This is not the kind of democracy we think we're spreading when we hear
President Bush's words. What we're celebrating is our ability to not
control information."
Besides, McLean said, who would define what issues could not be discussed?
The language of Mumper's bill comes from a 2003 booklet by conservative
commentator David Horowitz that lays out how students can persuade
universities to adopt the "bill of rights." The booklet says it is
"dedicated to restoring academic freedom and educational values to
America's institutions of higher learning."
The issue has gone national.
Horowitz created Students for Academic Freedom, a group based in Washington
that has chapters on 135 campuses, to promote his views.
On the other side, the American Association of University Professors, which
has thousands of members at hundreds of campuses, argues that eliminating
controversial issues from courses waters down academic freedoms.
Mumper said he's been investigating the issue for months and has heard of
an Ohio student who said she was discriminated against because she
supported Bush for president.
"I think the bill asks that colleges and universities be fair in their
approach to their education of students," Mumper said. "They need to have
their rights defended and need to be respected by faculty and
administrators."
In a Kenyon College publication, President S. Georgia Nugent called
Horowitz's thinking "a severe threat" to academic freedom.
"I see this so-called bill of rights, the platform that he has constructed,
as one that would explicitly introduce into college and university
appointments a kind of political litmus test," she said.
Mumper said he will "push this all the way" so that it's approved by either
the legislature or by individual universities.
When a similar proposal was considered in the Colorado legislature last
year, it was withdrawn after state universities agreed to some of its
principles. The issue also has been debated in Indiana and considered in
Congress.