be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study and shall not be discriminated against on the basis of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs. Faculty and instructors shall not use their courses or their positions for the purpose of political, ideological, religious, or antireligious indoctrination.David Horowitz' Academic Bill of Rights inspired Mumford
The left and Democrats (is that a posimoron?) are having a hissy fit. Here | Here | Here | Here | Google News.
I find it ironic that the Bowling Green State University faculty senate discussed extending benefits to gay/lesbian employee partners that same day they railed against Mumford's proposed legislation.
To be clear: I do not support Mumford's legislation. I do think that Mumford's legislation offers a potent indictment of the academy.
That said, the left would be wise to recognize a shot across the bow when one comes within glancing distance. My liberal academic friends that work for state institutions suggest that the state legislators -- the very legislators that determine the budget for their institutions -- are "dumb" and "don't get it." Familiar rhetoric. Mumford's legislation should give them reason to look in the mirror and ask, "what have we done to precipitate this"?
UPDATE: A student's view:
While professors may feel as though this bill could limit academic freedom or their ability to run their classrooms in a free and unrestricted manner, don't we, the students, deserve an unbiased education?Hmm ... sounds reasonable to me. An education consumer expecting an education.
The Marion Star sounds off. The ACLU steps in.
Update 2 (Feb6 @ 2:15 p.m.): Welcome Instapundit readers!
Posts
Jon, No offence taken. I interpret this legislation as evidence that the higher education community is not doing its job. I have no problem with delivering what my students expect. Unfortunately, some do have a problem with that. Many shouldn't be in a classroom, IMHO.
ReplyDeleteAs an Ohio taxpayer, why should I pay these guys six figure salaries to indoctrinate their students. As a parent, why should I fork out $100 - $200K+ to have my kids mind filled with leftist drivel. Still don't think there's a problem - check out this site - http://www.noindoctrination.org/.
ReplyDeleteA lot of lefties think that universities exist primarily for the benefit of professors. Myself, I think that universities should be considered to exist primarily for the benefit of the students. -- Steven Den Beste
ReplyDeleteIt's really enough to rethink the idea of state universities -- choose now, academic freedom or reasonable utilization of tax money, NOW. Gah.
ReplyDeleteNone of my professors at Ohio State seemed to grade me down for disagreeing with them (I did get a 1/2 grade point drop for writing a 17 page paper when they asked for 12 pages, once... sigh). And most were good about covering whatever it was they said they'd cover at the beginning of the year -- I always thought that was a function of the department's head.
I did have some major problems with professors at Long Beach City College (in California), though -- my World Regional Geography teacher, who was supposed to be teaching, you know, national capitals and who has a representative democracy and where all the dictators are and which countries are in the EU (and so forth), spent 8 of our 16 lessons on how evil Israel is. We were also assigned to defend World System Theory (as he presented it, a revised Marxist concept -- "no current struggle against the inequities of capitalism poses a 'fundamental ideological challenge'") on two of our four exams. But I got the highest grade possible in the class despite arguing against him in nearly every class, and challenging WST in both of those exams (and refusing to go soft on my group's project, which was on the recovery from Soviet influence in the Baltic states vs. Yugoslavia). I was mostly just annoyed, because I took the class expecting to finally get the geography class I'd never really had at any point in school. After that I just gave up and started reading the CIA World Factbook entries for any country named in the news. I also found the fact that he couldn't spell "Tuesday" properly to be... very irritating (he always wrote it on the board, because that's when the student/teacher world-peace-is-good-and-George-Bush-is-evil meeting took place; he was a faculty advisor for the group).
Anyway, I do think teachers ought to teach what they say they're going to teach -- a 5 credit course at Ohio State or Bowling Green costs more than $500, before books. It's more a matter of false advertising when you call something "Introduction to Literature" and spend the entire 11 week period cursing at your students to "challenge their paradigms about women and authority" (my English teacher only did that the first day: she was very creative, and I was homeschooled before that, with the result that she said something so offensive even the guys were blushing, but I wasn't embarassed because I'd never heard the word before).
I teach at a small Catholic college and our faculty handbook presents a view of academic freedom that's a bit different from the normal view. It is perhaps overly limited, but I like the spirit of it.
ReplyDeleteOur sense is that academic freedom is limited within the confines of ones own discipline. Since I teach medieval literature, and have specialized education and continued study in that field, I can say whate'er I want about Dante or Chaucer in the classroom. But I don't have the license to pontificate about the war in Iraq, tax cuts, education reform, or anything else extraneous to my classroom calling.
I suppose there are ways around that -- I could, I suppose, suggest that Dante would be anti-Bush, or that Chaucer would decry one abuse or another. After all, both poets were social critics, and projecting their vision forward is part of a literary education. But were I to do so in a blatant or indecorous fashion, at students would have technical grounds for a grievance (although I can hardly imagine any of them figuring that out and actually filing one).
That's 'cuz when they pay for their three credits of Chaucer, they expect three credits of Chaucer.
After that I hope there's legislation to get rid of the professional-victim courses being taught in the universities.
ReplyDeleteThis discussion is a very useful one, both here and
ReplyDeletein society more generally.
Some not-so-random thoughts:
While it is pretty clear what "teach your discipline"
means in the physical sciences, it is not so clear in
the social sciences. Some folks, not all of them
thoughtless or stupid, think that neo-classical
economics, which is what I teach and what you will
get in most university classrooms, is a political
creed and not a scientific endeavor. I disagree,
which is why I teach it, but it is not clear to me
who should decide, other than the intellectual "market"
broadly defined.
I do think that truth in labeling is very appropriate
and that students should be able to complain, and
profs should be punished, for not teaching the material
advertised in the list of courses and on the department
webpage. If the prof wants to bash Isreal for 13 weeks,
that should be made clear so that students at least
know what they are getting. Relatedly, departments
(and deans and university administrations) need to
make sure that *required* courses have either profs
with a balanced view or multiple, clearly labeled
sections.
I am not entirely sure that this is a left/right issue.
I had a real lefty for a poli sci class as an undergrad,
whom I disagreed with actively in class almost every
day (though in a polite and scholarly way). This was
during my anarcho-capitalist phase (I got more moderate
by doing my Ph.D. in economics at Chicago!). I had
a chat with him about it one day and he said that he
really liked having me in class because I was not a
drone like most of the other students. I was actually
listening to and responding to what he said on an
intellectual level. Having now taught undergraduates
for a decade myself, I could not agree more.
Finally, to the person who got counted off for turning
in 17 pages instead of 12. Following directions is
part of life. Learning to say what you need to say
clearly in a limited space is also a very useful skill.
You should be thankful for being taught a valuable
lesson.
Jeff Smith (or, if you prefer, Prof. Smith)
Re: 6 figure salaries.
ReplyDeleteDo you know how few faculty make greater than six figure salaries? The salaries of people at most major state run institutions are available via a FOIA request. For example, at the University of Michigan, the state institution considered one of the most 'left', I as the department computer guy, making just barely $60,000, make more than 90% of my department. Some of your assumptions are faulty, I'd say...
The problem here is the same problem that exists in most areas of our society: the failure to understand that rights cannot exist without concurrent responsibilities. Yes, educatiors should have academic freedoms, but at the same time, they should have to acknowledge the responsibilities of exercising those freedoms. There are some issues that are sensitive, even damaging to society as a whole, that must be addressed carefully. The problem with many "academics" is that they only see the 'rights' portion of the equation, and ignore the 'responsibilities' portion. It's incumbent on the administration, and in the case of State-run schools, the legislature, to clearly define the goals and limits of academic behavior.
ReplyDeleteA university is still a consumer-oriented organization. Its primary function is to provide an advanced education to its students. That's why it was originally created, that's why it's funded (whether it's by state funds, grants, or alumni donations), and that'sy the SOLE reason it continues to exist. The "publish or perish" philosophy originated to ensure that teachers kept up with the latest developments in their field, and contributed both to the current debate and the future development of the field they're teaching. The existence of a university strictly to exist is both insane and untenable. Having members at any level that don't understand both the primary reason for the university itself, and their role in it, fails both the university and its students.
According to the Chronicle's table for faculty salaries, 2003-2004, a full prof at the U of M makes
ReplyDelete$117,800.
It's true that only a minority of professors make more than $100,000/yr. The point that is relevant is that, regardless of the salary, professors are not being paid to impose their opinions on students and should not punish students when they don't regurgitate the professor's propaganda.
As a professor who is getting his Ph.D. in May, I got the lowest grade in one class for defending Christians in the South as not all being slaveholders in spite of having out-published the other 23 T.A.'s combined. There is very real political and religious discrimination that goes on, especially in the humanities.