What this would mean would be that if a professor said that he felt that the war in Iraq could foment resentment toward the United States, he would also have to say that others feel that it could earn the United States appreciation from those same countries. If the professor says that the Big Bang created the universe, he’d also have to say that there are other ideas, like the Judeo-Christian idea that God did it in six days, or the Jainist idea that the universe is merely a dream in the mind of another being that will disappear when that being wakes up. If a professor says that Nazis was an obscene blight on humanity, he’ll also have to point out that some people felt it was a great idea that would advance a better, superior version of humanity.
Rep. Baxley’s point is that he feels that conservative ideas are persecuted on college campuses. This is his idea of affirmative action for conservative thought. Obviously, I think it’s crap, as you can tell from my previous paragraph. Does anyone think this guy has a point? Should we be marching into universities to tell professors what they can or cannot say? Would this mandating of ideas actually lead to a better learning environment, or would it water down thought and make students intellectually lazy? Is he for real about this “conservative persecution” business? It’s not like this is the first time I’ve heard them claim it. But you’d think that since conservatives control the legislative and executive branches in both the United States and Florida, that they’d come up with a new lament.
I’m going to sit back and laugh and laugh when the first professors and schools hauled into court on the issue are those who are promoting right-wing agendas. (I am aware that there are both left- and right-leaning teachers who abuse their positions, but this sort of government intrusion is heavy-handed and stupid and I suspect that, if passed, we will see people on the “wrong side” of the legislator’s views lodging complaints, just as a number of white men launched anti-discrimination suits as soon as they felt that they were being edged out by policies intended to promote diversity.)
Sadly, many students might not mind this, since a good number of them don’t like the hard work of thinking, let alone thinking about things that make them uncomfortable. I was stunned and saddened to see some of my students respond to an article on free speech “zones” on college campuses by saying that it’s a good idea to restrict speech so somebody somewhere doesn’t get their feelings hurt.
It's crap. I want my students to feel free to write essays and research papers on hot topics, if that is their desire. Granted, as an English prof I don't have to deal with so many issues as I would if I were teaching history or poli sci.
In one of my classes, a very conservative fellow sits in front of a gal who is fervently opposed to our dealings in Iraq. And that's how it should be. People should be able to display their political differences without being afraid to.
Jeez, Baxley – have you never considered the possibility that, if the academic community is hostile to conservatism, that says more about conservatism than it says about academia?
Personally, I think a lot of the concern is overblown. Certainly there is a liberal bent among faculty and it may shape what’s taught in some disciplines and said in some classes. I’d like to see less of it (even as a liberal academic myself). However, it’s a bunch of hooey that students are being brainwashed somehow. I see little evidence that this is the case. What’s troubling is those instances where students have felt they were actually graded on their adherence to certain subjective viewpoints, or where students felt like they were better served not thinking and debating but rather by parroting what the professor believes. I don’t know how widespread it is, but whenever it happens it’s regettable and antithetical to higher learning.
I think legislating what goes on in the college classroom (as has been proposed in several states) is a wild combination of hilarious futility coupled with a troubling and inappropriate legislative encroachment on higher education. I don’t think many of these measures will see life as an enacted law. However, perhaps these efforts will create some discussion on college campuses. Optimistically I hope that will spark some of the worse offenders on college campuses to reform. I suspect some colleges will quietly amend their grievance procedures to address the abuses (such as grading bias).
Of course, the best way for you to encourage this is to not express an opinion of your own. Otherwise, they might feel too intimidated to disagree (or even worse, they might feel resentful). A good lecturer should encourage debate on a broad variety of viewpoints, while favoring none of them.
Of course, this should not be enforced by law - they possiblities of abuse are limitless. Universities should regulate themselves, preferably via a strong student body.
It says that academics live in a fantasy, theoretical world, where they are free to suck at the public teat for funding without producing much in the way of real-world results – just like liberalism, for which they naturally have an affinity.
I work in a highly regulated industry which also has extensive self-regulation. Over and over and over again, I hear exactly the same mantra from our industry’s leaders. ‘We can fix this problem ourselves, or Congress can fix it for us. Your call.’
My sympathy level for academia is accordingly very very low – asymptotic to zero, in fact. Tell 'em I said welcome to the Sarbanes-Oxley world.
I work in the Sarbanes-Oxley world, too. This is an industry that self-regulates because it knows that Congress will swoop down and fix problems, if things get out of hand. Which it has done before.
The financial industry needs regulation, of course. But the ideological regulation that is being proposed for academia in Florida is a wholly different matter, and is dangerous. It also assumes that ideas, like financial assets, are a quantifiable commodity, which they are not.
Further, when the financial industry doesn’t like a rule, they’ve got more clout in Congress to change those rules than academia does—and they do use that clout. Remember the Glass-Steagall Act? It was stripped away by financial lobbying back in the '90s. I’d like to see a group of university professors with that kind of muscle…
Oh, I understand. I’ll even say that a) I like most of our regulation, annoying as it is at times (after all, the more crooks get smoked out the easier it is for honest folks like you and me to make an honest buck ) and b) no way should acedemia get put on our level of regulation.
But I still think the analogy holds generally, even if academia hasn’t even had its '33 Act yet. When a college professor goes on the radio and encourages people to kill me, personally, and gives some ideas on what the best way is to do it, “well, we’ve got this tenure thing, see…” is not one of the optional answers from the academy. The optional answers are either “we will fix tenure” or “Congress will fix tenure.”
My preference, just as my preference is for our industry, is that the academy will take these bills as a shot across the bow which gets their attention and encourages them to fix their problems. But if they don’t then they shouldn’t be surprised when the next shot tangles their rigging and the shot after that pierces their hull.
I don’t quite understand the point that conservative ideas are being persecuted on college campuses (if that’s really what Rep. Baxley feels). First, what exactly is meant by “conservative ideas?” Depending on the discipline or course involved, what may be considered a conservative idea in one might not be in another (and vice versa).
Second, who gets to decide what a “conservative idea” is? The legislature? The courts? Faculty? School administrators? Students? Who?
Here’s something to think about - if the persecution of conservative ideas is such a problem, why limit it to just universities and colleges? Why not extend it to cover other areas where the persecution is rampant?
Again, I don’t quite get the point as to why some people feel that conservative ideas are being persecuted at colleges/universities. It very well may be that conservative opinions are being persecuted, but I hardly think that just because someone holds a particular opinion that it should afford them some sort of special protection over someone else who holds a contrary opinion.
Now, of course, if this conservative opinion is being held against someone (say a student expressing one in a class being punished by the instructor for expressing it), then of course there’s a problem that needs to be dealt with. But this needs to be done within the college/university itself (the student has every right to go to the school’s administration and complain/ask for redress in their complaint against the instructor).
I think a more effective bill by Rep. Oxley might be to force colleges/universities to have procedures for students to redress their greviences against instructors they feel have penalized them for their views unfairly (instructor gave them a poor grade based on their opinions alone). But I think most already do.
But to protect students from being exposed to views/opinions that are contrary to their own, or to have their views given some sort of protection over others is just silly.
In other words, you can’t in good conscience defend this, so you’ll resort to name calling. Typical conservative - turn off your brain, refuse to think critically, retreat safely into ad hominems and forget that it was liberals that got us civil rights protections, weekends, minimum wage laws, got rid of slavery, got rid of child labor and on and on. As opposed to conservatives, which um, have done nothing to help anyone. But apparently they live in the real world and produce things, so…
Excellent and fair questions. Here’s the text of the bill as introduced, according to the group promoting these laws (I don’t think I’ll have a chance today to wade through the Florida Legislature pages to confirm that the text matches, so I apologize in advance if the group has erred or otherwise misstated the text). I’d encourage you and others to give it a look and, if it needs attacking, attack it on the basis of what the bill actually says and on reasonable interpretations of how it might actually work.
It’s amusing to hear that sentiment expressed so belligerently by a lawyer, and seconded by a financial manager.
manhattan, it’s even more amusing to see you defend a bill you admit you don’t know anything about, and aren’t going to try, either. But it was filed by a Republican, and you hear it attacks liberals, so it must be good, huh? :rolleyes:
Good link, Manny. After looking over the bill, it looks like toothless, feel-good schlock. It’s sufficiently vague that I don’t think that it’s going to change anything, really. The only bit that might have an effect in the classroom may be the part about not introducing controversial subject with no correlation to the subject at hand, and I think that’s a good idea. Stick to the topic at hand and all that.
Was the sentence, “My preference, just as my preference is for our industry, is that the academy will take these bills as a shot across the bow which gets their attention and encourages them to fix their problems” invisible to your browser, or was this just another worthless dishonest drive-by like substantially everything you post?
I don’t mean the usual grousing and anecdotal evidence from lawyers that schools are “so liberal.” I mean actual evidence of a real, definable problem.
I don’t know why some of you think the easy answer for higher education is tighter regulation, more rules, more government intervention. Maybe that’s the good answer for some industries (oddly, though, I would have thought some of you would be on the other side of that argument). You’d have to convince me that it’s good for higher education. Does someone want to take a stab at that?
Manny, I love the nautical imagery and it makes me long to be listening to the Patrick O’Brian audiobook that’s in my car, but c’mon, you guys gotta give me something I can work with, here.
It’s easy to have this attude when it’s your side that is winning the game. Envision what would happen if the situation were reversed and 85% of college proffessors were conservative and actively working to promote a conservative agenda in the classroom. The left would be shreiking in outrage! The media, democratic politicians of all stripes, leftists in general, and certainly the liberals on the SDMB would all be demanding action be taken to correct such a horrible injustice.
However, as long as it’s your views that are holding the monopoly, then everything is just fine.
) and b) no way should acedemia get put on our level of regulation.