Florida state legislator trying to tell professors what they can say.

[eponymous]

Well, let’s break this down point by point

(7) STUDENT ACADEMIC FREEDOM.–As detailed in s. 1004.09, students have rights to a learning environment in which they have access to a broad range of serious scholarly opinion, to be graded without discrimination on the basis of their political or religious beliefs, and to a viewpoint-neutral distribution of
student fee funds.

“to be graded without discrimination on the basis of their political/religious beliefs” is the only part in this sentence that makes sense (and is reasonable, as far as I’m concerned. But I’m wondering if this isn’t already part of many college’s policies anyway. I certainly don’t evaluate my students based on their political/religious viewpoints alone, and I suspect that most other instructors don’t as well).

The first part is too vague (after all, colleges/universities are, by most people’s definition, and environment where one has access to a broad range of serious scholarly opinion; if you can’t get it in a particular class, there’s always the library!). The third part I have no idea what is being stated.

(1) Students have a right to expect a learning environment in which they will have access to a broad range of serious scholarly opinion pertaining to the subjects they study. In the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, the fostering of a plurality of serious scholarly methodologies and perspectives should be a significant institutional purpose.

Not quite sure why the humanities, social sciences, and the arts are singled out here. If your espousing “a learning environment in which they will have access to a broad range of serious scholarly opinion”, why not include others (hard sciences, law, medicine, business, etc.?)

(2) Students have a right to expect that they will be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects they study and that they will not be discriminated against on the basis of their
political or religious beliefs.

Seems reasonable - most professors/instructors do this anyway. However, not quite sure was is meant by “discrimination” - I thought protection against religious discrimination is already codified. Do they want to extend this to include political discrimination? If so, then why limit it to academia?

(3) Students have a right to expect that their academic freedom and the quality of their education will not be infringed upon by instructors who persistently introduce controversial matter into the classroom or coursework that has no relation to the subject of study and serves no legitimate pedagogical purpose.

Appears reasonalbe - although it hinges on what is meant by “persistently” and “controversial matter”. In addition, it may conflict with other, broader institutional goals/policies (like fostering “critical thinking”). For example, a controversial topic introdued by an instructor not directly related to the subject at hand may appear to be tangentital to students, but actually may be used by the instructor to foster critical thinking skills that are applicable for other issues taught for that particular course.

To use myself as an example, the topic of abortion to many could be deemed as a controversial topic. And students may not understand the relevance to the issue with regards to the courses that I teach (geography). However, I may want to use the topic to help illustrate to students how given socities address population concerns (high versus low population growth), or how it may affect the demographic makeup of a particular socieity (China), or how it make affect the choices that certain cultures make with respect to it (technology allowing to determine sex of fetus prior to birth - socieities where males are favored have a higher incidence of aborting female fetuses).

While abortion itself may not be directly related to the course itself, by using aspects pertaining to it, students can gain a better understanding of the issues surrounding it in other, broader contexts.

(6) Faculty and instructors have a right to academic freedom in the classroom in discussing their subjects, but they should make their students aware of serious scholarly viewpoints other than their own and should encourage intellectual honesty, civil debate, and critical analysis of ideas in the pursuit of knowledge and truth.

Not quite sure was is meant by “but they should make their students aware…” I guess they haven’t had any experience in trying to teach undergrads. It’s hard enough getting them to be aware of what I want them to know - never mind what someone else has to say.

(7) Faculty and instructors have a right to expect that they will be hired, fired, promoted, and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in their fields of expertise and will not be hired, fired, denied promotion, or denied tenure on the basis of their political orreligious beliefs.

(8) Faculty and instructors have a right to expect that they will not be excluded from tenure, search, or hiring committees on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

Again, my understanding is that religious freedom is already protected. And it’s not like when someone is hired or promoted that there’s a section on one’s resume/vitae identifying their political affiliation. And if political discrimination is such an issue, why limit it to academia? For those Doper’s who are lawyers, can someone legally discriminate against someone else based on their political persuasion? If not, in what areas can’t one do so? Or has the issue ever been addressed before?

(9) Students, faculty, and instructors have a right to be fully informed of their rights and their institution’s grievance procedures for violations of academic freedom by means of notices prominently displayed in course catalogs and student handbooks and on the institutional website.

Seems reasonable, but I think many (if not all) instututions have something like this already.

[Orbifold]

@Bricker

Yes.

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.

“Free to suck at the public teat for funding without producing much in the way of real-world results…” You know pretty much nothing about academia, do you? Even if I had tenure, which I don’t, my ability to get any kind of research funding other than my own basic salary would still depend on my continued, demonstrated ability to produce meaningful research. Since I don’t have tenure, my continued employment depends on that ability.

So don’t come in here spewing bullshit like this when you clearly have no idea what the hell you’re talking about.

@manhattan

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.

Okee-dokee. From the bill:
" (1) Students have a right to expect a learning environment in which they will have access to a broad range of serious scholarly opinion pertaining to the subjects they study. In the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, the fostering of a plurality of serious scholarly methodologies and perspectives should be a significant institutional purpose.
[…]
(6) Faculty and instructors have a right to academic freedom in the classroom in discussing their subjects, but they should make their students aware of serious scholarly viewpoints other than their own and should encourage intellectual honesty, civil debate, and critical analysis of ideas in the pursuit of knowledge and truth."

Right there is a huge problem. Is creationism a “serious scholary viewpoint”? Who decides? How long after this bill gets passed will it be before some nut decides student’s rights are being infringed if they don’t learn about creationism in Biology 101?

And I’d also like to repeat RickJay’s question. What evidence is there that there’s a problem?

And on preview, I’d like to address that same question to Debaser as well.

[manhattan]

@CrankyAsAnOldMan

You’d have to convince me that it’s good for higher education. Does someone want to take a stab at that?

Well, again, my preference is for self-regulation. What I’m saying is that it’s time for some. When Nat Hentoff of all people thinks the balance of free speech has tipped too far in your direction, you’ve got a problem (aside to RickJay: The Columbia thing is an excellent example of what we’re talking about here; often the problems, at least as I see them, fall outside the traditional “liberal/conservative” divide. There are no small number of pro-Israel liberals (he understated). The concern is more about a) groupthink which cuts off open inquiry on any number of subjects and b) “out-of-department” stuff like hearing a tirade about welfare policy from your biology prof.). When places are rejecting students for holding a belief widely held among Americans, you’ve got a problem.

Why is self-regulation a good thing for higher education? Because complacency is not one of the options available to it any more. The choices are self-regulation or outside regulation. That’s it. To switch metaphors, the bus is leaving. Academia can be on the bus or under it.

Stuff like the above bill, which I think Neurotik correctly identifes as a feel-good measure (it has no enforcement mechanism, for example), is how legislatures start to get their hooks in you. Trust me, it’s not a fun road. It’s time for universities to get together and establish best practies for student grievances, for out-of-department speechifying and grandstanding, for including students in “academic freedom” and other things. I can’t tell you the right way to do it, nor do I think legislatures will do a good job of it. But I can tell you that if you don’t, they will.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

@manhattan

Well, again, my preference is for self-regulation. What I’m saying is that it’s time for some.

Well, I guess we’re on the same page. I too think it’s time for colleges and universities to get serious about cleaning up their problems and looking/acting more like the intellectually responsible organizations we expect them to be.

As I said before, I’m cautiously optimistic. After the first flurry of hysterical knee-jerk defensiveness, I hope academe will settle down enough to see the validity of these concerns and decide to put their own houses in order. I don’t think they’d need to much, really, because I think the majority of professors are capable of separating personal politics from pedagogy. A little more attention to the real principles of academic freedom, some additional grievance procedures (and while we’re at it, fewer assholes like Churchill slipping through the cracks and getting tenure).

Now, if Bricker would be so good as to excuse me, I’ve got a large public teat to go suck on some more.

[PatriotX]

@Bricker

Yes.

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.

Wow- a sweeping generalization and stereotype. I wonder if it has as much value as others of its kind?

[eponymous]

@Debaser

It’s easy to have this attude when it’s your side that is winning the game.

WTF? Since when did having an opinion (and/or expressing an opinion) constitute some sort of game to be won or lost?

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.

How do you know that 85% of college professors aren’t conservative? You don’t, and neither do I. Sure, many in academia are (likely) liberal, but then again, what’s “liberal?” And who decides what’s liberal? Likewise for conservative - what’s “conservative”? and who decides?

You may think my views/opinions are liberal, but what if my students think my views/opinions are conservative? What then? What if the body of my research is largely “conservative” (again, whatever that may mean) - does that make me conservative, even though I may have other (personal) views/opinions that are liberal? What then?

And their is no “liberal agenda” (I have no idea what that phrase actually means). There’s no secret meetings where a bunch of academics get together to outline their “agenda” to “indocrinate” students to their point of view. It’s sounds as you think academia is some sort of vast conspiracy where the “liberal agenda” is spread to unsuspecting/impressinalbe youth.

[ITR_champion]

@Debaser

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 your evidence that 85% (or any percent) of college professors are liberal and actively working to promote a liberal agenda in the classroom is what, exactly?

So far this thread has clearly demonstrated that conservatives love to fling around accusations that the academic world has a left-wing bias. It has also demonstrated that when asked to provide any evidence of this left-wing bias, beyond individual annecdotes, those same conservatives will run away and hide. Since no evidence of any problem has yet been presented, I see no reason why the problem needs to be addressed by legislation or by introspection and self-regulation on the part of professors.

[BrainGlutton]

@manhattan

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.

The difference being, manny, that in the securities industry there was a problem, and in academia there is not.

[BrainGlutton]

(At least, not a problem of the kind Baxley thinks he sees.)

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

@eponymous

How do you know that 85% of college professors aren’t conservative? You don’t, and neither do I. Sure, many in academia are (likely) liberal, but then again, what’s “liberal?” And who decides what’s liberal? Likewise for conservative - what’s “conservative”? and who decides?

eponymous, I generally agree with you, and your point is well-taken that what’s “liberal” and “conservative” may be subject to some debate. Some professors probably cross over depending on the issues at hand.

But even if you contend (as do many people, myself included) that Horowitz’s study of the political leanings of faculty was methodologically flawed, there is evidence that under most conventional definitions of “liberal” and “conservatives” professors in the humanities and some social sciences do tend to lean in the liberal direction. I think you’ve got some good points to argue, and good on ya, boy. But arguing that 85% of faculty might be conservative ain’t the dog you want to hunt.

[BrainGlutton]

@Bricker

Yes.

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.

Or maybe it says that conservatism is intellectually and morally indefensible from the perspective of any thinker who does not have a direct material interest in it.

[Debaser]

@Orbifold

And I’d also like to repeat RickJay’s question. What evidence is there that there’s a problem?

And on preview, I’d like to address that same question to Debaser as well.

Are you asking for evidence that most college faculty are biased to the left? I’m surprised that anyone would even attempt to deny this.

Or are you asking why this would be a problem?

[manhattan]

@ITR champion

So far this thread has clearly demonstrated that conservatives love to fling around accusations that the academic world has a left-wing bias. It has also demonstrated that when asked to provide any evidence of this left-wing bias, beyond individual annecdotes, those same conservatives will run away and hide.

Here’s some testimony under oath from Colorado.

[eponymous]

@CrankyAsAnOldMan

But arguing that 85% of faculty might be conservative ain’t the dog you want to hunt.

Wasn’t necessarily trying to argue that they are, but rather to illustrate the point that Debaser or anyone else for that matter doesn’t really know what the percentages are. Again, how does one define what’s “liberal” or “conservative”? And who makes that determination? And by what criteria is each defined? One’s discipline? Body of research? Personal views held? Personal veiws/opinions expressed? Political affiliation? What?

One could make the argument that academia is one of the most conservative working environments there is - more so then in the supposed “conservative” environment of the business world. If so, does this factor in the evaluation process? If not, then why not?

[Debaser]

@ITR champion

And your evidence that 85% (or any percent) of college professors are liberal and actively working to promote a liberal agenda in the classroom is what, exactly?

Ivy League school faculty members voted for Gore 84% of the time, Bush got only 9% of the vote. Nationwide, each candidate got 48% of the vote.

Another newer study shows the bias continues:

There are no Republicans in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s faculty, according to a 2003 study done by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture. There are two at Brown University. Yale University has five, and Columbia University has four. As far as the study could find, the four schools’ combined ratio of registered Democrat faculty to registered Republican faculty was 196 to 11.
The study examined 32 of the nation’s top colleges and universities, including the entire Ivy League. Of the faculty and administrators who were registered to one party or another, 1,397 were registered Democrats and 134 were registered Republicans.

I’m not saying that this proposed bill has any merit, mind you. I just think it’s decidedly odd that anyone would try and argue that there isn’t a huge, obvious and consistent bias at America’s colleges and universities.

[wonky]

@manhattan

When places are rejecting students for holding a belief widely held among Americans, you’ve got a problem.

So often lately I feel as if I’m in Backwards World.

A college doesn’t want to accept a student who advocates teaching methods the college does not support–corporal punishment. The teachers a college churns out reflect on the college.

I’m just baffled. Conservatives suddenly want one of their tried and true mantras–Freedom of Association–to be thrown out the window.

Seriously, this is troubling. One of the big issues that everyone harped on in the 90s was responsibility and the cult of victimhood. Why in the hell are conservatives embracing victim status? What’s going on?

[Debaser]

@eponymous

Wasn’t necessarily trying to argue that they are, but rather to illustrate the point that Debaser or anyone else for that matter doesn’t really know what the percentages are. Again, how does one define what’s “liberal” or “conservative”? And who makes that determination? And by what criteria is each defined? One’s discipline? Body of research? Personal views held? Personal veiws/opinions expressed? Political affiliation? What?

…and I’m attempting to ilustrate the point that if the situation were reversed and college faculties were overwhelmingly conservative then you would have no such problems with finding a measuring tool to make the determination.

It’s an interesting phenomenon. I’m reminded of how for decades the liberals made similar arguments about how it’s impossible to tell for sure how biased the news media is one way or the other. No way of knowing, etc, etc. Then Fox News comes onto the scene and we’ve got liberals screaming about how conservatively biased it is. The complaints from the left about Fox News are louder than any complaints from the right when the shoe was on the other foot.

It’s just so dishonest and silly. I’m conservative. This doesn’t prevent me from acknowledging the simple reality that if you walk into a church or a military barracks in this country then you are going to get a conservative crowd. For some reason, many liberals have trouble with this. Despite the overwhelming obvious liberal domination of the media and college faculties they claim ignorance when confronted with it. It’s like a three year old with icing all over his face looking at you with total honesty in his eyes and saying “What cake?”. One can’t but help wonder if he’s lying to me or lying to himself.

[PatriotX]

@Debaser

Ivy League school faculty members voted for Gore 84% of the time, Bush got only 9% of the vote. Nationwide, each candidate got 48% of the vote.

Another newer study shows the bias continues:

I’m not saying that this proposed bill has any merit, mind you. I just think it’s decidedly odd that anyone would try and argue that there isn’t a huge, obvious and consistent bias at America’s colleges and universities.

How does one go about demonstrating that this the result of some sort of bias and not the product of careful reasoning?

[Orbifold]

@Debaser

I’m surprised that anyone would even attempt to deny this.

I’m surprised that anyone would think they can get away with unfounded assertions in GD.

Ivy League school faculty members voted for Gore 84% of the time, Bush got only 9% of the vote. Nationwide, each candidate got 48% of the vote.

Hmm. RickJay asked for evidence of a real, definable problem, one worthy of measures such as the Florida bill. I repeat this question, ITR champion asks for evidence that the majority of professors “are liberal and actively working to promote a liberal agenda in the classroom”. And you reply with this, and another cite concerning voting habits of professors.

Do you think that the fact the professors in the study you quoted mostly vote Democrat is a “real, definable problem”? Do you think that their voting habits somehow constitute evidence of “actively working to promote a liberal agenda”?

manhattan at least provided anecdotes that suggest actual problems at specific universities, where students have complained about being unfairly punished for their political views. I note that in two out of three cases, the universities in question are actually looking into the problem, which seems to be just what manhattan wants based on his other posts in this thread. (Just thought I’d mention that.) But evidence that professors vote Democrat is not a problem worthy of legislative action, to say the least.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

@Debaser

I just think it’s decidedly odd that anyone would try and argue that there isn’t a huge, obvious and consistent bias at America’s colleges and universities.

Your stats show that professors tend to vote for Democrats.

They don’t show that there is a huge, obvious, and consistent bias.

I’ll bet that a lot of the time, as far as the classroom is concerned, as far as research is conducted, as far as the student academic experience, it doesn’t matter how professors vote, what their party is, or who they gave money to.

It bothers me when it does seem to matter. But how widespread is that problem? Those surveys won’t tell us.