# Florida state legislator trying to tell professors what they can say. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 14, 2005, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-state-legislator-trying-to-tell-professors-what-they-can-say/294409 "2005-03-14T04:11:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2005, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-state-legislator-trying-to-tell-professors-what-they-can-say/294409/141 "2005-03-18T18:01:38Z")
Thanks to **Sample** for making my point even better than I did. > [@eponymous](#): > > The problem is that this drivel often gets lumped in with other academic pursuits and all of this together somehow gets interpreted as academia having a “liberal agenda.” Well, I’d put it this way; certainly not all liberals are postmodernists (_I’m_ liberal on a number of issues), but nearly all of the postmodernists are liberal. Added to that you have the knee-jerk unwillingness of the professoriat to protect their own: “Well, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Western Civilization is blight on the human race, but I don’t think that should prevent us from considering professor X, who does, as chair of the History department.” I’m not saying that makes the conflation of the two necessarily _right_, just inevitable. Ditto the backlash. > [@](#): > > What I hope will ultimately happen is that the humanities will evetually tire of its’ theory fetish. Oh, it’s already happening. A number of leading lights (Stanley Fish, for Og’s sake) are saying that theory has played itself out. But as you observed, there is a lot of inertia involved, and the postmodernists will be in power until they die off. By then the damage will be done. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2005, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-state-legislator-trying-to-tell-professors-what-they-can-say/294409/142 "2005-03-18T22:24:38Z")
> [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](#): > > Ayup. The Academic Bill of Rights set forth by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture is apparently being “considered” in 19 states. Minnesota, too: [http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive/2005/March2005/MNDailyBilltolimitprofspolitics031005.htm](http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive/2005/March2005/MNDailyBilltolimitprofspolitics031005.htm) But, according to this story, the “Academic Bill of Rights” was proposed by David Horowitz’ organization, Students for Academic Freedom – [http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/](http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/). What relationship it has to the Center for the Study of Popular Culture ([http://cspc.org/](http://cspc.org/)) I don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2005, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-state-legislator-trying-to-tell-professors-what-they-can-say/294409/143 "2005-03-18T22:26:28Z")
Correction: I just read on the CSPC’s website that Horowitz is one of the founders – so I guess this “Academic Bill of Rights” is really his baby, whatever organizations are pushing it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2005, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-state-legislator-trying-to-tell-professors-what-they-can-say/294409/144 "2005-03-19T00:09:12Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I don’t think so. Perhaps because I think that they _should be_ represented on campus _in proportion to their representation in the population at large_. To me their one and the same. Now **you’re** asking for affirmative action. What other approach would guarantee the result you want? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2005, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-state-legislator-trying-to-tell-professors-what-they-can-say/294409/145 "2005-03-19T00:16:20Z")
From the Students for Academic Freedom website ([http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/](http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/)), these are the eight points of the “Academic Bill of Rights” proposed by Students for Academic Freedom: > [@](#): > > 1. All faculty shall be hired, fired, promoted and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise and, in the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives. No faculty shall be hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of his or her political or religious beliefs. > > 2. No faculty member will be excluded from tenure, search and hiring committees on the basis of their political or religious beliefs. > > 3. Students will 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. > > 4. Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas by providing students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate. 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. > > 5. Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty. Faculty will not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination. > > 6. Selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speakers programs and other student activities will observe the principles of academic freedom and promote intellectual pluralism. > > **7. An environment conducive to the civil exchange of ideas being an essential component of a free university, the obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature or other effort to obstruct this exchange will not be tolerated.** > > 1. Knowledge advances when individual scholars are left free to reach their own conclusions about which methods, facts, and theories have been validated by research. Academic institutions and professional societies formed to advance knowledge within an area of research, maintain the integrity of the research process, and organize the professional lives of related researchers serve as indispensable venues within which scholars circulate research findings and debate their interpretation. To perform these functions adequately, academic institutions and professional societies should maintain a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements that divide researchers on questions within, or outside, their fields of inquiry. According to point 7, Bill O’Reilly’s campaign to stop Ward Churchill from speaking at Hamilton College could not have been “tolerated.” ---
**Author:** ![Sample\_the\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Sample\_the\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sample_the_Dog)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2005, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-state-legislator-trying-to-tell-professors-what-they-can-say/294409/146 "2005-03-19T01:08:52Z")
On the whole, the ABoR cited above by **Brain Glutton** seems pointless, since these principles are generally accepted. However, #s 4 and 8 seem to me wide open to abuse. First I don’t buy that “all human knowledge in [the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts]” is “[uncertain] and unsettled”. And what exactly are these viewpoints other than my own findings and perspectives that I should be presenting to my students? If my research indicates that there is a definitive known answer to a question (e.g., Was the Holocaust an organized effort by the Nazi regime to exterminate groups of undesirables?) am I obligated to present alternative theories anyway, and present them on a par with my findings? As for “a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements that divide researchers on questions within, or outside, their fields of inquiry,” I foresee attempts to use such language to force teachers to present bogus theories espoused by “researchers” supported by politicians but generally discredited by respected researchers in the field. There will certainly be some who will argue that no one would really interpret this ABoR in the ways I describe. But given the idiocy I see spewed from the floor of the capitol these days, I don’t share that confidence. Remember, I live in a state where there is strong support among people at all levels of government for the teaching of creationism. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2005, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-state-legislator-trying-to-tell-professors-what-they-can-say/294409/147 "2005-03-21T22:53:18Z")
> [@ITR champion](#): > > Horowitz has just admitted that this little incident was a work of fiction: > > [http://mediamatters.org/items/200503160001](http://mediamatters.org/items/200503160001) I think you are misreading that article. It appears that Horowitz’ group said things about the hearing which were not true, but as I read it the article does not claim that the hearing did not occur, that the _Washington Times_ coverage of it (which is what I cited, not any Horowitz’ allegations about the hearing) was not accurate or that the testimony which the _Times_ referred to in its article was not accurate. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-state-legislator-trying-to-tell-professors-what-they-can-say/294409/148 "2005-03-22T00:15:30Z")
> [@manhattan](#): > > I think you are misreading that article. I think you’re misreading the misreading of the misreading of . . . well, anyway, here’s an update on the story: [http://mediamatters.org/items/200503180008#5](http://mediamatters.org/items/200503180008#5) Horowitz is dodging and weaving every which way to try to deny his lies ever happened, but it’s not flying. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-state-legislator-trying-to-tell-professors-what-they-can-say/294409/149 "2005-03-22T00:19:05Z")
No, I understand that part. I offer no defense of Horowitz – I know exactly jack about that and my give-a-crap-o-meter registers low enough not to care. But I believe that the _Washington Times_ article, which I cited, stands unchallenged. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-state-legislator-trying-to-tell-professors-what-they-can-say/294409/150 "2005-03-22T13:35:57Z")
Exactly. The lack of evidence is merely proof of the conspiracy’s effectiveness. ---
**Author:** ![CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crankyasanoldman/32/11670_2.png) [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-state-legislator-trying-to-tell-professors-what-they-can-say/294409/151 "2005-03-22T14:40:52Z")
> [@manhattan](#): > > No, I understand that part. I offer no defense of Horowitz – I know exactly jack about that and my give-a-crap-o-meter registers low enough not to care. But I believe that the _Washington Times_ article, which I cited, stands unchallenged. Well, the Washington Times covered the hearing and the testimony. That doesn’t mean the testimony was all credible. I don’t know what that Pierce kid was doing there, because his professor taped the very lecture he was complaining about. She had a history of clashes with conservative students, especially outside the classroom (her politics are pretty, shall we say, out there, and she had already been cited as biased professort). So, given the difficult climate, she started taping her lectures. Pierce sat in the class for one day, decided to drop the class after hearing the first lecture (for the reasons he gave) and issued a grievance. The professor handed over the tape. As I understand it, the tape was reviewed and the statements he attributed to her were never said. Why Pierce persisted, and why he was invited to speak before the Joint Assembly while the incident was being disputed and was still being investigated, remains a mystery. Perhaps the Times reporter didn’t know the backstory on him; it had, admittedly, just started. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2005, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-state-legislator-trying-to-tell-professors-what-they-can-say/294409/152 "2005-03-29T16:38:19Z")
Apologies for the bump. But does anyone remember, way back [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5945045&postcount=22), when I asked how long until some nut decides a student’s rights are being infringed if they don’t learn about creationism in Biology 101? Turns out that [Rep. Dennis Baxley](http://www.alligator.org/pt2/050323freedom.php) is that nut: > [@](#): > > According to a legislative staff analysis of the bill, the law would give students who think their beliefs are not being respected legal standing to sue professors and universities. > > Students who believe their professor is singling them out for “public ridicule” – for instance, when professors use the Socratic method to force students to explain their theories in class – would also be given the right to sue. > > “Some professors say, ‘Evolution is a fact. I don’t want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don’t like it, there’s the door,’” Baxley said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue. There you have it. The author of this bill thinks postsecondary students should have the means to sue if their biology profs don’t talk about Intelligent Design. If this bill passes, it will be a knife in the gut to Florida’s public postsecondary system: potential faculty members who don’t want to have their curricula vetted by teams of lawyers or else get sued by any Scientologist nut who thinks the prof has dissed the Thetans will avoid jobs in Florida like the plague. Someone explain to me how this is a good idea again? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2005, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-state-legislator-trying-to-tell-professors-what-they-can-say/294409/153 "2005-03-29T18:45:42Z")
The Socratic method is the method by which someone (the professor, in this case) asks a series of questions to the student, and in devising the answers the student is forced to clarify and expand their own thinking. So this legislation, then, lets students sue if they get asked any question, in other words. And since the legislation also makes it illegal to state an opinion without providing room for all contrary opinions, and anything can be an opinion and there are always an infinite number of contrary opinions. So a professor, if this passes, would be banned from offering statements or question, and any sentence is a statement or a question. I guess what Republicans want is for a class to consist of the professor standing silently at the front for 75 minutes, making no attempt to communicate with the students. Ah, conservatives, they would be such a great source of comic relief, if not for the fact that they run the country. ---
**Author:** ![Sample\_the\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Sample\_the\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sample_the_Dog)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2005, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-state-legislator-trying-to-tell-professors-what-they-can-say/294409/154 "2005-03-30T00:13:14Z")
While I strenuously object to the blanket condemnation of “conservatives” and “Republicans” above… In case anyone thought post #146 was fantasy, here we have it. A quick reminder: > [@post 146](#): > > And what exactly are these viewpoints other than my own findings and perspectives that I should be presenting to my students? If my research indicates that there is a definitive known answer to a question (e.g., Was the Holocaust an organized effort by the Nazi regime to exterminate groups of undesirables?) am I obligated to present alternative theories anyway, and present them on a par with my findings? > > As for “a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements that divide researchers on questions within, or outside, their fields of inquiry,” I foresee attempts to use such language to force teachers to present bogus theories espoused by “researchers” supported by politicians but generally discredited by respected researchers in the field. > > There will certainly be some who will argue that no one would really interpret this ABoR in the ways I describe. But given the idiocy I see spewed from the floor of the capitol these days, I don’t share that confidence. > > Remember, I live in a state where there is strong support among people at all levels of government for the teaching of creationism. Note that the article cited above mentions holocaust denyers as well as creationists. > [@The Independent Florida Alligator](#): > > The bill sets a statewide standard that students cannot be punished for professing beliefs with which their professors disagree. Professors would also be advised to teach alternative “serious academic theories” that may disagree with their personal views. > > \*\*According to a legislative staff analysis of the bill, the law would give students who think their beliefs are not being respected legal standing to sue professors \*\* and universities. > > Students who believe their professor is singling them out for “public ridicule” – for instance, when professors use the Socratic method to force students to explain their theories in class – would also be given the right to sue. > > “Some professors say, ‘Evolution is a fact. I don’t want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don’t like it, there’s the door,’” Baxley said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue. > > Rep. Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach, warned of lawsuits from students enrolled in Holocaust history courses who believe the Holocaust never happened. > > Similar suits could be filed by students who don’t believe astronauts landed on the moon, who believe teaching birth control is a sin or even by Shands medical students who refuse to perform blood transfusions and believe prayer is the only way to heal the body, Gelber added. > > “This is a horrible step,” he said. “Universities will have to hire lawyers so our curricula can be decided by judges in courtrooms. **Professors might have to pay court costs — even if they win — from their own pockets.** This is not an innocent piece of legislation.” > > The staff analysis also warned the bill may shift responsibility for determining whether a student’s freedom has been infringed from the faculty to the courts. (Emphasis mine) So now you see how this bill will be used. A legislator already admits it’s a Creationist wedge. :mad: ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2005, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-state-legislator-trying-to-tell-professors-what-they-can-say/294409/155 "2005-03-30T03:13:40Z")
You know, supposing that the legislature did take leave of its senses long enough to pass this thing, and the courts did decide that the first amendment doesn’t apply on college campuses, I think I know how the law would really be applied. “So Professor Jones, you gave me an F, but I’m going to make up some nonsense about you pushing political beliefs unless you give me a passing grade.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-state-legislator-trying-to-tell-professors-what-they-can-say/294409.md?page=7)