<p>
[quote]
The bill, whose chief sponsor is the Republican majority leader in the Senate, would ban professors at public colleges and universities, while working, from:</p>
<p>Endorsing, supporting or opposing any candidate for local, state or national office.</p>
<p>Endorsing, supporting or opposing any pending legislation, regulation or rule under consideration by local, state or federal agencies.</p>
<p>Endorsing, supporting or opposing any litigation in any court.</p>
<p>Advocating “one side of a social, political, or cultural issue that is a matter of partisan controversy.”</p>
<p>Hindering military recruiting on campus or endorsing the activities of those who do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why in the world would you want to restrict college professors from expressing opinions. Makes no sense.</p>
<p>There is a movement within conservative ranks to "reclaim" universities from their perceived liberal biases. This sounds like an extension of that.</p>
<p>When are professors working? Only when they're in class? holding office hours? at meetings? or preparing their lectures at home?</p>
<p>I remember the shock an assistant professor experienced in his first year at a state university. He was expected to report on the amount of time he worked for the salary he drew. The 20+ hours he put into preparing EACH lecture did not count as work. But liaising with colleagues did. This was a great way to encourage endless lunches...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Endorsing, supporting or opposing any litigation in any court.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How can you teach American history or American politics with this constraint? It is very difficult to discuss the role of of the American judicial branch without expressing some opinion about certain landmark historical decisions.</p>
<p>Or, as Tim Burke points out, at $500 per violation, it would cost a Biology professor a full year's salary to teach a course on evolution.</p>
<p>Silly me. I thought the whole point of higher education was to discuss ideas. It seems to me that you have to have people taking stands in order to have a meaningful dialog. I would scream in a Poli Sci class where the professor never expressed and explained opinions.</p>
<p>Once again I have to ask, "Is that serious or a spoof?"</p>
<p>Is the bill's sponsor trying to make a point? I can't believe it's a serious bill that has a chance of being passed. </p>
<p>Do they have any law schools in Arizona? How could you not either "endorse, support, or oppose" any litigation, legislation or rule? Any discussion could be construed as "endorsing, supporting, or opposing" if not by word then by tone or gesture. It would be too risky for a professor to even discuss a covered topic. That's why I'm calling bs.</p>
<p>OMG!!! Did you read the article?? This is the funniest thing I have seen in a long time. It CANT be real!! (Unfortunately, it seems it is...) Here is the bill's sponsor, explaining his experience in college that inspired this bill: (warning, don't read this with food or liquid in your mouth - risk of choking)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Asked for specifics of the professorial behavior his bill would ban, he cited two examples from his own education at Arizona State University, from which he graduated in 1993. One time, he said, a classroom where his course met was next door to a classroom used by a women’s studies class, which he entered one day by accident. “I came in and all of the male students were dressed like women, and the purpose was supposedly to see how a woman feels. I don’t know how being in a dress and high heels would help with that. That was peculiar,” he said.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>hint: It is not at all clear to me that this bill would have prevented that life changing event from happening anyway.</p>
<p>This proposed legislation would pretty much require that Arizona colleges quit teaching Economics. How could you teach tax policy? Fiscal policy? International trade? All of those things are hotly contested political issues and even attempting to work through the ramifications of policies is "advocating" a side.</p>
<p>If this bill became law, how would professors do their job? I'm not referring to teaching per se, but to research and publication of articles. In most journal articles I've read, the author, who is usually a professor, usually discusses an issue having two or more "sides" and endorses one side over the other after presenting each side's argument in their article. With this law in place, wouldn't publishing articles in peer-reviewed journals be next to impossible? I don't know about other universities, but at mine, if an associate professor wants to upgrade to full professor status, they have to conduct research and have the results of their research published. Adding to that, once they reach tenure, they still have to keep publishing or they run the risk of being fired. (Keep in mind, I attend a state university.) Therefore, in order to do his or her job, a professor must be able to take sides on an issue. </p>
<p>Did the author of this bill even attend college?</p>
<p>All this reminds me of is how the VC used to kill the village teachers to set an example. Of course it's not that extreme here, but only because we have laws against it and it would be hard to overturn them.;)</p>
<p>If you can control education, you control a population. If I can control what you learn, I can control you. pretty basic.</p>
<p>
[quote]
With this law in place, wouldn't publishing articles in peer-reviewed journals be next to impossible?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It certainly would end publishing and research in most fields.</p>
<p>Social sciences (Economics, Poli Sci, Sociology, Psych) would be impossible. Actually, I think colleges would be forced to close these departments.</p>
<p>Law would certainly be out. I don't think you could even have a law school under this proposed law.</p>
<p>Humanties would be very difficult. Most publishing in literature, religion, history, philosophy, and art history would end. Music and dance would probably be OK. I don't see how a drama department could continue. </p>
<p>The study of foreign languages would be OK. However, discussing literature would be banned. Of course, you couldn't even think of teaching or publishing on contemporary foreign cultures. For example, how could you talk about China or India without discussing trade with the US ("outsourcing" being a contemporary political debate)? How could you discuss Latin America without touching on immigration policy?</p>
<p>Math would be OK. Physics could probably continue. Astronomy would be very difficult since most work is that field deals with dating stars and raises questions about whether the origins of the universe conflict with creationism. Chemistry would be releatively safe. Bio would have to addressed on a case by case basis.</p>
<p>I would suggest that the state would probably want to form a Cultural Revolution Review Panel to approve each course or paper, perhaps publishing a little red book of guidelines, and establishing a special police force to deal with transgressors.</p>
<p>Many states similar have codes covering state employees and political activity and many of those were passed in the socalled "Progressive" era. Nothing in there would hinder theoretical discussions of economic theories, etc. Only limited as it relates to active partisan political issues.</p>
<p>Our legislators are the best argument for limited government. Very limited.</p>
<p>Lawmaker Tries To Ban Naked Lady Mudflaps</p>
<p>The state House on Thursday rejected a Democratic amendment that would have banned splash guards with images that are "obscene or hateful."...</p>
<p>Democratic Rep. Theresa Ulmer of Yuma supported the amendment and said it fit with lawmakers' other efforts to crack down on pornography and sexual predators.
"I personally am tired of explaining to my 11-year-old son why they (women) are depicted on mudflaps , but not all women are 36Ds. He's very confused by that," Ulmer said. "But seriously, this is about family values -- what are we going to send out as a message to our children."
<a href="http://www.nbc4.com/automotive/11048220/detail.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.nbc4.com/automotive/11048220/detail.html</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
Nothing in there would hinder theoretical discussions of economic theories, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How do you have meaningful teaching of "theoretical Economic theories" without looking at concrete real-world applications of those theories?</p>
<p>For example, how could you conceivably consider the theory behind government subsidies without looking at specific implementations and ramifications? To attempt to do so removes any possibility for academic engagement and enthusiasm, IMO.</p>
<p>Naked women on mudflaps?? Have you ever seen those over sized scrotums hanging on the back of some people's cars? Oh, you haven't? Well, take my word for it... they exist! (ok, a little google research reveals they are called "Truck Balls" )</p>
<p>Here, isn't this much more offensive than naked women mudflaps??</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Barrons, I think there are some important other concerns at play with respect to the limits on state employees -- most importantly protecting THEM from being required to do political work by their politician-bosses, and also the potential for confusion when executive-branch employees who may wield power speak in their personal capacities.</p></li>
<li><p>I want someone to link this thread to the one where people were saying that ASU's Honors College was the equivalent of an Ivy League education. You can't have it both ways.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
I want someone to link this thread to the one where people were saying that ASU's Honors College was the equivalent of an Ivy League education. You can't have it both ways.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am not a party to the argument you refer to, but I will point out that the law has only been voted out of one committee. It is far from becoming law and, if it did, it would likely be challenged in court. So I don't see how the proposed law reflects on the value of the education provided now by Honors College at ASU.</p>
<p>"It is unclear whether the legislation has the backing to become law. It was approved by the Senate Government Committee, on a 4-3 party line vote, amid reports that the Education Committee wasn</p>
<p>The Arizona bill was actually introduced and sent out of a committee to be considered by the full senate. It is not actually believed to have any chance of passing. It is basically one senator along with some others demonstrating that freedom of expression is never safe in the hands of elected officials. The bill is actually a lot broader than the article indicates. It sets up the same restrictions for all teachers in public schools not just colleges. It is also applies some of its provisions to all employees of any educational institution or body. The restrictions on speech apply anytime a teacher or prof is either "working" OR "acting as an agent." The latter means if a prof is traveling anywhere to give a speech or go to a meeting involving school matters, he better be very careful about stopping for lunch on the way and saying anything in the restaurant, because legally he is an "agent" of the school while so traveling. The bill would also effectively prohibit any school or university from doing any lobbying or contacting of government personnel to advocate views on bills effecting education, e.g., if the legislature is considering a funding bill apllicable to schools or universities, those schools and universities would effectively be prohibited from having any profs contact legislators to express views on it. If local government bodies were considering lowering funding for local schools, the schools and teachers would effectively be prohibited from complaining about it. Teachers and profs can be fired and fined for violations. A high school or lower teacher can have his state teacher certification voided, thus effectively preventing him from ever teaching again in the State of Arizona.</p>
<p>I guess I am just waiting for soemone on these boards to actually defend this bill so I can be reassured that the reason the First Amendment was created is because the founders knew there would always be people who want to stifle the speech and thoughts of others.</p>
<p>There are many published studies on government subsidies and their impacts that present verified facts and could be taught. I think what the bill intends is to stop profs who present unverified theories as facts with the intent to indoctrinate in a political fashion. Most students lack the knowledge to separate facts from opinions when presented by a prof.</p>
