<p>According to an article in the UFla Gainsville student paper, the "Academic Freedom Bill of Rights" has passed its first committee vote, 8-2. It would allow students to sue "leftist totalitarian" professors who put down students who express their contrary beliefs. </p>
<p>The guy who's pushing this gives the example of a student who is "shown the door" of his biology class when he wants to discuss "intelligent design," but the measure is much more broadly written than that.</p>
<p>This sounds like a variation of David Horowitz' Academic Bill of Rights that would forbid university faculty from hiring, firing, and granting or denying promotion or tenure on the basis of political beliefs. </p>
<p>While the "leftist totalitarian" professor was used as an example, the bill appears to be geenral and only requires equal treatment of ideas. "The bill sets a statewide standard that students cannot be punished for professing beliefs with which their professors disagree." Liberals will likely scream "censure" and "McCarthyism", even though the only thing the bill requires is to not punish students for holding contrary beliefs, whether they be conservative, liberal, or whatever.</p>
<p>This appears to be specifically for state-funded universities, and it simply disallows faculty members from making remarks like "This class is going to have a particular political perspective, and if you do not agree with it, then you are not welcome in the class." I think a state legislature is not only within its rights but also has a responsibility for setting some guidelines for how the state-funded universities will be run.</p>
<p>This is great! To bad it can't apply to my high school. As long as this bill is for free speech for everyone, I think it is great. Teachers should be able to teach whatever they want, even if it is polically biased, but they shouldn't try to silence anyone who wants to give another point of view. I mean that is the beauty of college, getting a bunch of people from all over the world and with all diff. beliefs into the same room and talking about things. How are supposed to learn if you are only getting one side of the story, whether it is , liberal, conservative, communist, etc.</p>
<p>I see nothing wrong with professors laying out their biases upfront, and letting students know what they are getting into from day one, though I support doing it in a "non-rude" way. Should a professor be forced by the courts to discuss "Intelligent design" in a classroom if he does not want to? Should he be ordered to take the student who argues that "the earth is flat" seriously or risk being sued?</p>
<p>I see why a republican historian should not punish a demorat student for differing conclusions about colonialism, for example. </p>
<p>But what about when different ideas do not have the same academic merit, when there is "objective fact" vs. "goofy conjecture"? Is the professor supposed to mislead the class into thinking two ideas hold equal weight if they actually do not?</p>
<p>Take creationism vs. evolution in college bio, for example. Is the teacher compelled to give equal respect and credence to creationism, or is he allowed to say, that discussion belongs in a religion class?</p>
<p>Sometimes LEARNING means seeing the flaws in one's preconceived ideas about things. It is a fine line between not holding someone's views against them (say political views in an econ, history, or lit class) and allowing kids to persist in ignorance when the purpose of education is to enlighten.</p>
<p>Some people will feel denigrated when the ideas they hold are shown to be naive or simplistic.... but maybe the ideas are naive & simplistic. Isn't challenge to and refinement of one's ideas what education is all about?</p>
<p>I don't think the teacher should be allowed to show the student the door because the student is a creationist or a supporter of intelligent design. On the other hand the creationist must in intellectual discourse recognize that his belief is at least in part based on faith. The intelligent design student is more problematic. Many scientists including Crick are taking this seriously without necessarily becoming fundamentalist Christians or short chronology creationists. This is an argument where both sides have to show respect for the other's opinion and reasoned discourse. If the student held up his end of this requirement then the professor should be subject to a suit.</p>
<p>Intelligent design as a concept (not the fundamentalist version of it, e.g., the brochures required at the Grand Canyon visitors center stating that it was created on the 6th Day) is not incompatible with Darwinism. Dude, evolution is, or could certainly be under the umbrella of "intelligent design."</p>
<p>Just don't give me that 7 Days malarky - carbon dating, anyone?</p>
<p>
[quote]
"If the student held up his end of this requirement then the professor should be subject to a suit."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't see where the student has any obligation to "hold up his end" under this law, though.</p>
<p>Do we really want kids suing teachers for not pandering to them? If actual political bias happens, it is the same as racial bias, sexual bias, or similar-- so can't some committee at the college take care of the complaint better than the courts?</p>
<p>There are Christian Colleges that teach creationism, but tthey won't be challenged to provide an equal balance of evolution because <em>non-christians will not be attending these schools</em>. On the other hand, secular schools accept all sort of kids. Are secular schools are obliged to include creationsim just because a touchy evangelical shows up? Why should the curriculum change because a given student with given views happens to register for the course?</p>
<p>I think this has the potential to turn into a McCarthyist witch hunt, if kids with political agendas decide to bait and go after teachers for not giving sufficient respect to fringe viewpoints.</p>
<p>I would like my kid to be free to learn what is widely regarded as correct vs. what is considered a fringe viewpoint rather than to leave the class confused because the teacher was too fearful to de-bunk some ridiculous student viewpoint.</p>
<p>First of all, I don't understand how it helps education to give students (additional?) rights to sue their professors.</p>
<p>Second, "advising" professors to teach alternate views they don't agree with means the state is potentially interfering with the curriculum of every class: "Professors would also be advised to teach alternative 'serious academic theories' that may disagree with their personal views." Do we think that state legislators or judges are better curriculum developers than the professors who teach the courses?</p>
<p>One of the representatives who objected to the bill "warned of lawsuits from students enrolled in Holocaust history courses who believe the Holocaust never happened." The legislation is not just directed at the evolution/intelligent design issue.</p>
<p>And yes, in answer to a previous poster, this is part of the initiative Horowitz is pushing around the country (there's a pending bill in Ohio, for example).</p>
<p>From the article: "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.</p>
<p>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."</p>
<p>So the bill would encourage students to sue professors because the professors don't show enough respect to them or are rude? Or to sue because a professor "ridicules" them by asking them to explain their position?</p>
<p>I like the part where the proponent of the bill assails the fact that he's been called a McCarthyist, then says "I have a list, but I can't repeat the names on it." maybe it's his laundry list?</p>
<p>SBMom, what I meant by the student holding up his end of the relationship is that he doesn't show disrespect for the Prof's assessment of the data. As another poster has poined out, this is easier for the intelligent design proponent as he and the professor are likely to agree on all later events I.e. natural selection, a scientific view of catastrophism etc.. The creationist student on the other hand must show respect for the prof. by admitting that much of his view is based on faith and philosophy e.g. a rejection of uniformitarianism. In other words a creationist who does engage in a respectful dialog is guilty of the same sin (Did I really say that?) as the professor who kicks a student out for disagreeing with the professor.</p>
<p>Step by step, day by day, fascism creeps towards us (or gallops headlong, depending on your point of view). Do you know that you can get a lovely 4-bedroom house north of Vancouver with a view of Victoria Island for under 375K USD? ;)</p>
<p>With the legislators getting so involved in trying to dictate what happens in the state universities, it's instructive to find out just how much state funding supports the schools. For the University of Colorado, the school receives 8% of its funding from the state. That was not a typo. That was EIGHT percent (and going down for two reasons: First, restrictions on how much taxes can be raised; and Second, because of decreases in state budgets compared to the rising costs at CU).</p>
<p>The big controversy in Colorado is Wade Churchill. The cry for getting rid of him has at its basis the rallying cry, "Why should taxpayers pay his salary when we don't agree with his point of view?" The reality is that the state pays less than 10% of his salary. More than 90% comes from tuition, endowments, etc.</p>
<p>This bill is one of the stupidest things I've seen in a while (and a lot of weird things are happening lately). It really makes me ill to see the US lawmakers pandering to certain religious elements in their constituency. You would THINK that most legislators would see the bill for what it is, but the sad part is that the major life purpose of any elected official is to get reelected. So all they see is the TV commercial that will be made by their opponent in the next election if they oppose this bill.</p>
<p>yes, mardad, I completely knew what you meant, it's just that this bill goes only one direction. Profs don't get to sue smartass or one-track-minded kids, so far as I can tell. </p>
<p>Do we really want to legislate politeness? </p>
<p>Because after all, if a teacher is not a diligent, accurate scholar, they should be fired for doing shoddy work. If their scholarship is accurate, they've earned the right to make some judgements: 'approach A as better than approach B, and approach C as quackery...'</p>
<p>The most interesting classes come from professors giving the material their personal spin. When a prof spends decades in a field they don't want to teach every course as a survey course.</p>
<p>I think a student should be shown the door if he or she believes in creationism. There is simply no scientific evidence to support that claim. As for this bill, I think it's purpose is to give a pretext for conservative administrators pandering to the religious right. Research has shown that the more education someone has the more liberal they get. I think it should not be passed. If a professor isnt professional enough to grade work objectively then that is a different matter. But this bill should NOT pass</p>