<p>mstee, </p>
<p>The origin of the bill was a David Horowitz campaign; his were more political than religious concerns. Because so many profs are liberal politically, conservative political views might be supressed.</p>
<p>The fundamentalist issues discussed above are illustrations of the abuses easy to envision under this law.</p>
<p>SBMom,</p>
<p>Good. We basically agree. </p>
<p>I do not completely agree with your statement that "If something beyond the pale occurs, other kids present would defend the student." Although this would likely occur the VAST majority of the time, not always. I can conceive of a scenario in which a professor and a majority of students decide jointly decide to exclude certain opinions in class discussions. You should watch a documentary entitled "Campus Culture Wars, Five Stories About PC" (made around 10 years ago) that relates, among other examples, what happened to a young man who was taking a course in women's studies at the University of Washington.</p>
<p>dadoftrojan,</p>
<p>I suppose it is possible for an entire room of kids to gang up on a student-- but this would still be easy to verify. The student could bring a few friends to the next class as witnesses.</p>
<p>The link to the law was good, marite, thanks.</p>
<p>If a school, under student pressure, divested its assets from companies doing business with South Africa (a big issue when I was in school), and some students were against divestiture, would the school have violated "neutrality"?</p>
<p>In thinking about this, I remember hearing a strange story not too long ago from an older student (close to my age, in her 40's) about sitting in a science class at one of the local state colleges. She was sitting in the class with a bunch of young people (19 yr olds) and as she was listening to the prof lecture realized that the prof was literally making stuff up (she has taken similar classes and recognized that it was nonsense). The younger students were just sitting there soaking it in. I can't remember the outcome exactly--I know she went to the advisor--I think she was told it is a prof that the school is trying to get rid of, so she was asked to document what was going on. Perhaps that is the type of situation that would warrant a suit at some point. I still wonder if an "academic freedom" bill is needed to allow that to happen.</p>
<p>Conservative political agenda. We've had some incidents at our local high school. Both ways. Both involving gay rights. One teacher was trying to push a liberal agenda and the parents threatened to sue the district because their son was being intimidated for not supporting a gay agenda, I guess, and they got a settlement of $100,000 from the district. Then the teacher sued the district and took it to court and got something like $1,000,000 (well, actually the lawyers got about half). What a mess. And our cash strapped district lost over $1,000,000. Another teacher tried to push a conservative political agenda (or was it fundamentalist Christian agenda?--I think maybe both!) in a math class and attacked a Christian (non fundamentalist) student who was defending gay marriage. That teacher was fired, I'm told. I don't know how this happened in a math class. Even more strange, a man running for school board (happens to also be a lawyer) was visiting the class that day, and the teacher was completely aware of who he was and still went off the deep end in math class anyway. </p>
<p>Although these incidents happened at a high school, is this the type of thing we are talking about?</p>
<p>Scientific American's (sarcastic) take on the issue of "balanced" presentation of evolution. From the April issue:</p>
<p>"Okay, We Give Up
. . . In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it... .</p>
<p>Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong." </p>
<p>The Florida bill may not pass but even the prospect of its passing might deter some professors from taking positions there. Defending yourself in a lawsuit takes money.</p>
<p>im studying Intelligent Design right now in philosophy --</p>
<p>"How We Believe" by Michael Shermer goes into great detail on it</p>
<p>Mstee: What's a "gay agenda"?</p>
<p>Lipstadt WAS sued, by David Irving, and lost.</p>
<p>Why is everyone so litiginous these days?? So many frivolous lawsuits. Why should anyone legislates whether a person can or cannot file a suit if they think they were libeled, slandered or defamed in some way?? But why, too, does a student think that suing the professor is the solution to a class discussion issue? Seems a bit over the top to me?? Hew do we know that this student wasn't being disruptive in the fashion in which he/she expressed his/her opinion, or wasnt being insulting to the professor? It goes both ways. What ever happened to common courtesy?? Rather than suing, we should teach a class to faculty and students alike on appropriate communication skills. There is nothing wrong with differences in opinion. That's what makes horseraces, as they say. What matters is how these opinions are expressed. If, by chance, the student was being disruptive or disrespectful in class, showing him the door might have been more than appropriate. We do not need to fix minor dents with sledgehammers. Litigation is an overreaction. And legislating rights for litigation seems unnecessary. Just my 2 cents.</p>
<p>Kluge--I don't remember exactly, but I think teachers and kids at the school were asked to wear a symbol in support of gay rights, and I believe the child in question did not go along and the teacher (allegedly) made him feel uncomfortable for questioning this. I don't remember details, but there were a few articles in the local papers. The question came up as to whether discussing gay issues (I really don't know how else to say it, and do not know exactly what specific things were discussed in the class) is appropriate in the high school English class. The district directed the teacher to not discuss these things deemed unrelated to the teaching of English in his class and put some sort of disciplinary remarks in his file. The teacher felt he should be able to bring up things he deems topical in his class and went to court. And won. And the district was out $1,000,000+. Poorly handled, IMO.</p>
<p>"Evil is militant ignorance."</p>
<p>-Goethe</p>
<p>I'm curious about the potential implications of item #4: "(4) Students have a right to expect that freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of conscience of students and student organizations will not be infringed upon by postsecondary administrators, student government organizations, or institutional policies, rules, or procedures. "</p>
<p>Not sure I see all the potential implications here, but it certainly seems like broad language. Would a professor, who does not have a law in place allowing him/her to enforce some kind of order in the classroom, be able to actually ask a student to be quiet, when the student has a law saying he/she has freedom of speech that cannot be infringed upon by "institutional policies, rules or procedures" ?</p>
<p>To clarify my previous post, Irving sued Lipstadt for libel and lost.</p>
<p>"Abstract: On April,11th 2000 British High Court Judge Charles Gray issued a scathing ruling in the libel trial of David Irving versus Deborah Lipstadt and her British publisher, Penguin UK. Deciding firmly in the defendants's (Lipstadt and Penguin) favor, Gray described Irving as "a racist, an anti-Semite and an active Holocaust denier." Irving had brought the libel action because he claimed that Lipstadt's characterization of him as "one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial" in a 1994 book damaged his reputation and threatened his livelihood. In his 300-page decision, Judge Gray ruled that this characterization was, in fact, justified." (ref: Charles Gray: Irving v Lipstadt).</p>
<p>That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard in my entire life.</p>
<p>unluckycharms-
Can you clarify? Which do you consider ridiculous. The whole iea of suing your professor? If so, ditto.</p>
<p>bump, </p>
<p>folks this is a featured thread but there's nobody posting!</p>
<p>I still haven't seen much evidence that suggests this is a terrible problem.</p>
<p>I know that there are measures that suggest that many professors in the humanities and social sciences lean liberal. How this ultimately affects students, their education, their critical thinking, or their own attitudes and opinions hasn't been substantiated. </p>
<p>I know there have been scattered stories about professors introducing their views into the classroom in ways that are boorish, unscholarly, and unfair, but other than one vague claim (in this thread) that there are a "significant number" of students who have reported this, I have seen no evidence to suggest that this is widespread or unable to be handled via regular grievance processes.</p>
<p>I agree with you, hoedown, that this is not a "terrible problem"--and one that can be addressed by the university itself.</p>
<p>But Baxley and the other Florida legislators that OK'd the bill in committee disagree, and if the bill passes is what they think that matters. Baxley, as quoted in the article:</p>
<p>"Freedom is a dangerous thing, and you might be exposed to things you don't want to hear." (Isn't that the essence of a college eductation?)</p>
<p>"Professors are accountable for what they say or do. They're accountable to the rest of us in society....All of a sudden the faculty think they can do what they want and shut us out. Why is it so unheard of to say the professor shouldn't be a dictator and control that room as their totalitarian niche?"</p>
<p>Thanks to the poster who put up a link to the legislation. What's not clear to me from the wording is how this would be enforced. What would a student be suing and getting damages for--emotional distress?</p>
<p>I don't think Baxley understands higher education's traditions. He thinks the concept of academic freedom is an "all of a sudden" thing? That a professor's control of his courses, his grading, his lectures is the same as a "totalitarian" regime? </p>
<p>My eyes can't roll hard enough. He sounds like a politician who is all about the soundbite.</p>
<p>I don't have time to read over this entire thread right now, but I will go back later. I apoligize if I am repeating anythying, but my test-studying is a higher priority! :) But I do have a RL example that I would like to throw out here.</p>
<p>I've taken an English class at the local community college since the fall; I've taken the same teacher for three classes now, including that one. At the beginning of the semester, we started by discussing issues in the articles we read for each class. The teacher would solicit comments. She would call on students--then immedietally, as it seemed to us, attack whatever that student just said. She would ask probing, Socratic questions over every statement, especially the unfounded or weakly stated ones. I have a suspicion that a few students dropped because they felt insulted. Many were unhappy. I'm not sure that anyone reached the suing stage, and the teacher was never insulting, but she certainly challenged all and any statements. </p>
<p>It seemed offensive, harsh, and biased at first, especially when it was my own views subjected to the the microscope. However, after only a few weeks, the caliber of the discussion shot up. We were forced to examine our viewpoints and construct much better arguments to defend them.
Now, well through the second semester of that class, we have fun, insightful debates, even with the teacher. Students know how to express themselves, both in speech and in writing. Even those that just joined the group this semester caught on quickly.</p>
<p>Coincedence? I think not. I think everyone else has stories like this, too.</p>
<p>My point is that not all students understand the environment the teacher is trying to build, especially at the beginning of the semester. High-caliber discussions come when students realize that they will be challenged, especially on their opinions. If teachers can be sued for that, then our classes will simply churn out unthinking mobs. </p>
<p>That said, I have to add a qualification. Teachers do have to be respectful of their students, at any end of the political spectrum. But I do not believe that more law suits can solve any percieved insult.</p>
<p>there aint no such thing as a free lunch is correct</p>
<p>my econ teacher would give us extra credit every time we saw her outside of class and recited it tanstafl all the way!</p>