<p>I don't know why this sort of thing cannot be handled with grievance procedures. Colleges should make sure they have something in place that will address the occasional abuses by professors who cannot separate their own political leanings from their ability to be pedagogically fair. It seems crazy to me to legislate this, especially when I have seen little evidence that these problems are so widespread or are interfering with students' education.</p>
<p>First of all, I do not see this as a well written bill (at least as the article drscribes the bill), and so I do not believe it should be enacted as written. However, if you read up on the Academic Bill of Rights movement being lead by David Horowitz, you will realize the the primary emphasis is NOT on SCIENCE courses but rather on liberal arts courses where a professor forces his political opinions on students, not allowing them to voice opposing opinions. Dismissing legislation related to faculty members being held accountable for unfairly ridiculing students and not allowing them equal access to discussion by making "straw man" arguments of students not believing in certain scientific ideas is a waste of time. Granted, the referenced article emphasized science courses, but this is certainly not the primary emphasis of the Bill of Rights movement.</p>
<p>There is a HUGE difference between the Socratic method (asking someone a question and ALLOWING them to defend their ideas) and ridiculing someone's ideas without allowing any rebuttal. Currently, roughly half the population of the US votes Republican and half Democratic. At least judging from political party affiliations and voting patterns, academia is overwhelmingly more liberal than the general public. A significant number of students have made complaints of unfair treatment by liberal faculty members who allegedly treat them unfairly do to political differences. There are certainly poorly written papers that do a bad job of defending conservative opinions and which therefore deservedly receive low grades. However, if a particular professor refused to consider any paper that argued a conservative opinion, that is unfair treatment. Similarly, if a conservative faculty member refused to allow a liberal student to participate in class discussions or to submit a paper that argues a liberal position, that would not be fair either. This type of bill is only a method of requiring a bit more fairness into academia. </p>
<p>I agree with SBMom: "For example if you have a different idea and a badly reasoned proof, you should get an F. If you have a different idea and excellent reasoning, you should get the A." </p>
<p>Remember, this bill (although it appears to be poorly written) gives a student the right to sue a faculty member, NOT a guaranteed victory. Without a bill like this, students have no recourse over blatantly unfair treatment by a tenured faculty member.</p>
<p>I essentially agree with the recent posting of mardad of what should be expected of a faculty member and student in a science course when there is a difference of opinion when religion is an issue.</p>
<p>digmedia notes that modern science accepts the simplest explanation as probably the "correct" explanation. However, the further statement that "Ptolemy's view - inspired by Biblical faith" is incorrect. While this view was certainly avidly defended by some religious leaders around the time of Galileo and following, it is in no way promoted in the Bible, principally because the choice of a sun-centered versus earth-centered solar system reference frame is not addressed in the Bible (digmedia, please provide relevant Bible verses commanding that mathematicians and physicists only use earth-centered reference frames) . First of all, the choice of a reference frame is a kinematic, as opposed to a dynamic, question. When the Bible mentions the sun moving, or setting, or being stopped in the sky (which would obviously have required miraculous intervention), nowhere is dynamics mentioned anywhere. Even in the year 2005, weather reports refer to sunrise and sunset, because it is the reference frame that we all live in - FIXED ON EARTH. A choice of a reference frame is neither right nor wrong, just more or less convenient for a particular application. When a TV weatherman talks about sunrise and sunset, he uses the same earth-centered reference frame as the Bible because it is convenient for us earthlings. When a physicist wants to derive the equations of motion of the planets, he would likely select some non-accelerating reference frame, also because of convenience. Neither choice of reference frame is either right or wrong. </p>
<p>When digmedia sarcastically suggests that earth-centered and sun-centered "views" should both be presented to students, it raises an interesting point. Most current science courses (elementary school through college) emphasize that people used to be stupid because they thought that the earth was the center of the universe, but now we KNOW that the sun is the center of the solar system. What is not presented to students, but what is actually true, is that what we now know is that the dynamic equations of motion of the planets can be much more easily written (but NOT easily solved, even for only a three-body system) using Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. There is an implication that anyone who uses an earth-centered reference frame is somehow stupid and doesn't understand that the only allowed reference frame is the sun. A choice of a reference frame is only for convenience. What would be REALLY stupid would be for a weatherman to insist on discussing the rotation and revolution of the earth, rather than the more convenient earth-centered reference frame and sunrise and sunset.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A significant number of students have made complaints...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How many are we talking here? What's significant?</p>
<p>Now I'd argue that if it happens ONCE that's one time too many. But does it happen so often that it can't be handled on campus? Why get state legislatures involved? Is the level of concern over this warranted? How many students are affected? What evidence do we have that students are so grossly harmed that we need new legal protections for them?</p>
<p>I don't think it is a good idea to get the courts involved in how a professor grades papers. It is at best, a somewhat subjective process. </p>
<p>S was home for spring break (left to go back to UChicago today) and we were discussing the "academic freedom" bill at dinner. He said that he has heard that one of the biology profs there won't give a reference for grad school unless the student signs something saying that he agrees with the evolutionary theory. I don't know whether that is hearsay or not, but what do you all think? (Now, be polite, please!)</p>
<p>A good teacher welcomes hard questions and alternate theories. Good teachers welcome debate. But-- I repeat-- not all ideas/beliefs are of equal merit. </p>
<p>To give another extreme illustration: Are gynecology professors supposed to give respectful treatment to pro-clitorectomy beliefs if a radical Ethiopian is present? Or are they <em>allowed</em> to call it mutilation, and condemn it?</p>
<p>Some of my best classes involved opinionated teachers; radical feminists, crusty conservatives... Part of college is growing up and not only dealing with the fact that you're not always right but embracing the challenge of incorporating new ideas.</p>
<p>This seems like either a whiner law, or one designed to intimidate teachers from taking strong positions. </p>
<p>Again, abusive treatment or biased grading can and should be dealt with on campus.</p>
<p>So the government should restrict the right of seriously injured and permanently maimed patients to sue doctors for negligence/malpractice, but allow students to sue professors when the latter hurt their feelings?</p>
<p>Wow! It sounds like a wild rumor. It's very possible that a biology prof would think that people who do not believe in evolutionary theory should not go to grad school for biology. That is his private opinion and he is entitled to it. But I can't give credence to the rumor. One has to assume that any student who did not believe in evolutionary biology would know of the prof's biases (they must be well known if this rec story is circulating around campus) and thus would not take the class in the first place. And if the student hid his belief in some other theory than evolution well enough to pass the class, apply to grad school and solicit a rec from the prof, then one has to assume that the student could continue to hide his beliefs throughout grad school.
This is not about what a student should or should not do, or what a prof should or should not do (I am against profs demanding anything but excellence from their students), but an attempt to guess at the veracity of this rumor. On the face of it, it does not sound very plausible.
There's an article today in the NYT about Middle Eastern Studies at Columbia. I'm far more ready to believe that profs with strong political views might clash with students who hold opposite views. I think it's fair for profs to be open about their views and not hide behind a facade of objectivity. I would also expect them to respect oppositve views while asking of <em>all</em> their students and of themselves rigorous standards of evidence and argument.</p>
<p>Marite--I'm assuming it is hearsay, now that I've thought about it. Probably shouldn't have posted it. I can't imagine a prof actually asking a student to sign something like that. It would not surprise me, though, if a prof or someone else made a joke/offhand remark about requiring something like that, and maybe that's how the rumor started.</p>
<p>Marite,</p>
<p>The professor is from Texas Tech. His web site explains that he will not write letters of recommendation from students who cannot provide a scientific explanation for the origin of the human species. (<a href="http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm</a>)</p>
<p>Although I am not in favor of lawsuits and would much prefer things like this to be handled by a FAIR university committee, I think what this professor is doing is unfair and should not be allowed. Why should students have to avoid a professor?</p>
<p>I should clarify my last post. The professor actually says he asks the following question: "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?" If you do not give a "scientific answer" then he will not write a recommendation.</p>
<p>If he simply asked the student to recite how most biologists account for the scientific origin of the human species, I would have no problem with it. It is that he requires that students believe his explanation that is unfair. His justification is that a student who does not completely buy into Darwinian evolution cannot be an appropriate physician or researcher.</p>
<p>dadoftrojan, </p>
<p>What prevents a student from providing a purely scientific explanation, as requested, but having personal, private religious beliefs about the possibilities of a divine hand in it? </p>
<p>I think the professor is just asking that his students not confuse science & religion, and not use biblical teachings in place of empirical scientific evidence. He's just asking for intellectual rigor and a division between objective physical facts and personal opinions. </p>
<p>I would like to know my doctor had the ability to take his own personal beliefs out of my medical care and stick to the science, leaving the personal belief part of medical decision-making to me.</p>
<p>Oh, Texas Tech--I'll e-mail that to my S. </p>
<p>But--should a prof be sued becaise he won't write a recommendation? Shouldn't profs have the right to say no to writing recs if they choose?</p>
<p>SBMom,</p>
<p>It may be just the wording, but asking "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?" to me is not the same as asking "How do scientists account for the origin of the human species?" A student who knows but does not accept the Darwinian explanation would be compelled to either compromise his integrity or forego a recommendation.</p>
<p>Would it be appropriate for a born-again Christian psychology professor in a state school to ask all students looking for a recommendation "How do you account for human sin?" and then to refuse to write recommendations for students who do not attribute it to the fall of Adam and Eve? The professor may in fact believe that only those psychologists who have such a belief will be effective as psychologists, but I do not think it is appropriate for him to impose this requirement on a student in a secular school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Although I am not in favor of lawsuits and would much prefer things like this to be handled by a FAIR university committee, I think what this professor is doing is unfair and should not be allowed. Why should students have to avoid a professor?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But we're not talking about how he is educating students. Nor how he is grading them. </p>
<p>All I've heard is an account of his personal process for providing a favorable recommendation. </p>
<p>This does not tell us what he is like in the classroom, how he handles controversial topics in the curriculum, or how he grades his students.</p>
<p>And back to an earlier post--would you share your information on the number of students--and do you know how many have complaints about incidences within the classroom as opposed to thing like recommendations, advising of student groups (which was an issue in Colorado, for example) and so forth?</p>
<p>Many of the new research-based approaches to the treatment of cancer in the past decade have come from applications of evolutionary theory. I would not like to be treated by a cancer doc who personally rejects Darwinian explanations, because if she does, it would mean she is not making use of the most current treatment modalities. Or if she does, it would mean she is a quack, prescribing therapies without any attempt to understand the source of their therapeutic powers. </p>
<p>I'm with the Texas Tech prof, but if a student doesn't like it, she can get someone else to write - he did her a favor by giving her advance and rather detailed explanations of whom he will write recommendations for. Heck, she can even pay someone. ;)</p>
<p>(And what makes it a "scientific theory" is not the fact that is true - many scientific theories turn out to be false, but it doesn't make them any less theories. What makes them scientific theory is that there is a falsifiable hypothesis - that is, they could actually be proven incorrect. I have yet to hear a falsifiable hypothesis for creationism or for intelligent design, which is why they may be true, but they aren't theories.)</p>
<p>Well, in philosophy or literature or wherever, there is much more wiggle room for personal interpretation or belief. The intellectual question might more appropriately be "How does Hawthorne view human sin?" I doubt your question would be raised except in a divinity school or maybe a religious studies class-- because "sin" itself is a subjective concept. But if this question was asked, since there is NO objective scientific fact to support a "right" answer, then the prof should be evaluating the strength of the argument, not its conclusions.</p>
<p>In science, when there exist objective scientific facts one must know and rely on them first. </p>
<p>I think the difficulty arises from people using Biblical text as "fact." (I know that, for a believer, it is "fact," but the belief part is essential to this... because, for example, Native Americans or Zulus or Maiori all have different belief-based scenarios about the origins of human life.) </p>
<p>Whereas "water boils at X degrees" is an objective fact, measurable, and provable to all, irrespective of belief. </p>
<p>Theories that are fact-based are <em>academically</em> superior to theories that are belief-based. If a belief-based & unproven theory is actually correct, facts will be found, over time, that support it-- and it will rise to the top by the same objective system. </p>
<p>Academics need to remain in the realm of real, objective facts. Personal beliefs can drive the search for new facts, as people seek to prove what they believe or imagine or intuit. But provable facts are the gold standard. </p>
<p>It reminds me of the typical red-pen comment on a HS paper: "Show Your Work." You may have a great conclusion but the teacher needs to see how you got there-- and whether or not it was a chain of argument that could convince others who do not necessarily share your beliefs.</p>
<p>mini,</p>
<p>I am certainly not an expert in the area of cancer, so I welcome your education. Your statement that "Many of the new research-based approaches to the treatment of cancer in the past decade have come from applications of evolutionary theory" is interesting. Does the science behind these developments require an acceptance that humans evolved from some other species X-number of years ago, or does it simply require an acceptance that species and organisms evolve over time? If the former, do you have any references to studies which prove that? Thanks.</p>
<p>Most of the more recent developments have occurred at cellular or even subcellular levels. Others have to do with the evolution of behaviors, and various immune protections, which can be tracked back pre-sapien speciation. (I think, but am not positive, that an example of this is how the gene for sickle cell anemia, which is also found in other primates, serves as a protection against malaria. (Let the MDs on this list comment - I'm in public health, not medicine.)</p>
<p>By the way, if you're interested in some great layperson's books on evolutionary epidemiology, all the books by Paul Ewald, who teaches at Amherst, are GREAT!</p>
<p>Did anyone else see those cool photos (Lennart Nilsson, or his style) of embryonic chicken, pig, & human-- and the physical commonalities between them, until certain points in gestation when differentiations were made? I am not a scientist but it seemed to point strongly to common origins. Ditto the amount of DNA we have in common with all sorts of other organisms...</p>
<p>Dadoftrojan. Thanks for the clarification. I'm still in shock from thinking about the chain of events that would cause the prof to put such statement on his website.<br>
While I believe it is part of a prof's duties to write recs, it is not a prof's duties to write recs for every student who asks. In fact, it is desirable for a prof who does not feel able to write a positive rec to decline such a request and suggest that a student asks someone else. So I believe the prof is within his rights to refuse to write recs for some students and to explain his criteria for doing so. He is a prof of biology, not theology.</p>