quote:

---

TALLAHASSEE — Republicans on the House Choice and Innovation Committee voted along party lines Tuesday to pass a bill that aims to stamp out “leftist totalitarianism” by “dictator professors” in the classrooms of Florida’s universities.

The Academic Freedom Bill of Rights, sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, passed 8-to-2 despite strenuous objections from the only two Democrats on the committee.

The bill has two more committees to pass before it can be considered by the full House.

While promoting the bill Tuesday, Baxley said a university education should be more than “one biased view by the professor, who as a dictator controls the classroom,” as part of “a misuse of their platform to indoctrinate the next generation with their own views.”

The bill sets a statewide standard that students cannot be punished for professing beliefs with which their professors disagree. Professors would also be advised to teach alternative “serious academic theories” that may disagree with their personal views.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

But Baxley compared the state’s universities to children, saying the legislature should not give them money without providing “guidance” to their behavior.

“Professors are accountable for what they say or do,” he said. “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?”

In an interview before the meeting, Baxley said “arrogant, elitist academics are swarming” to oppose the bill, and media reports misrepresented his intentions.

“I expect to be out there on my own pretty far,” he said. “I don’t expect to be part of a team.”

---

Let's hope, eh?

What a nightmare, and exactly as Orwell predicted, purely rhetorical, just take the labels and turn them upside-down, or apply them to their opposites.

And legislatures giving "guidance" to teachers and researchers? That means politically determined research and teaching. That means an end to all serious discovery and innovation.

quote:

---

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.

---

You know, I find this really interesting, given that right-wing critics of public education often excoriate the education system by waggling a myth that "teachers coddle students" by not being stringent in their marking and basically being carpet-mats for students to walk over if they're not doing well enough.

But now that the shoe is on the other foot, they want students who aren't doing well in school to still be able to force their professor, under threat of a lawsuit, to give them a passing grade?

Bizarro world, meet DrC. DrC, meet bizarro world.

K-12, teachers are expected to be strict disciplinarians who wouldn't take guff from anyone except for an allegedly "all-powerful teachers' union" which is "crippling students" by "marking for self-esteem purposes instead of performance".

But post-secondary, professors are now expected to be the puffballs who should pass a student because they "aren't to be subjected to public ridicule".

quote:

---

The bill sets a statewide standard that students cannot be punished for professing beliefs with which their professors disagree.

---

What's up with that?

quote:

---

Some professors say, ‘Evolution is a fact. I don’t want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don’t like it, there’s the door,

---

If that happens, maybe they'll just rework the law so that it only covers religious beliefs, and only Creationists can sue their professors.

One way or another, these guys are hell-bent and determined to achieve a full-scale fascist theocracy. Unbelievable.

Universities have to be much more than souless degree factories. Open debate and discussion is good.

I watched a professor humiliate a student, repeatedly, through snide references and remarks, for the balance of the course, after the two had a political debate, in which they sharply differed.

The student stuck it out, not wanting to lose his credit/ investment. Vindictive professors can make your life miserable.

I've always appreciated the profs who have given their opinions on a given topic. For instance, I took a 19th Century Religious Literature in French course (Mauriac, etc.) taught by a very conservative priest. Me? Not so much with the religion or the conservative. I wrote two major papers, one directly opposing the prof's view and another more or less sympathetic to the prof's view. I did about the same in both of them, so cool.

However, had I decided to write a paper calling religion junk and Catholicism stupid (not my opinions) I probably wouldn't have done so well. There is something very particular to a certain kind of right-wing student where they think that their "academic freedom" includes the right to receive good marks for unsourced, poorly written work only tangentially related to the course material. As if they're doing the prof a favour by showing them the light.

There are better ways to deal with vindictive professors than to pass a law that means you can assert positions without defending them and still get a passing grade on the assignment. Whether the positions themselves are stupid or completely on-the-mark doesn't matter, if you are prepared to take the position you should be prepared to defend it. Same goes with statements made in class.

What ideology is this bill forcing anyone to conform to?

quote:

---

Originally posted by beluga2:
I can't see this law standing as it is. It isn't tailored narrowly enough. It'll be junked the minute the first left-wing student sues an economics professor for ramming Friedman-ite neocon bullshit down his students' throats.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AppleSeed:
Really, Coyote?

What ideology is this bill forcing anyone to conform to?

I must have missed that part.

---

quote:

---

Liberals are on the chopping block. Period. And people like you provide just the right degree of blithe and willing naivety to allow it to work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AppleSeed:
I think the bill, as I am understanding it, is about respecting differing points of view, not the right to teach, or express them. It's about your right not to be penalized for thinking differently.

---

Then what gives with the quote I posted earlier? To save you the bother of scrolling up, here it is again:

quote:

---

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.

---

[ 11 May 2005: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]

quote:

---

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.

---

In any case, profs can already get in trouble for actively harrassing students. It's happened before. And it doesn't need a sweeping bill like this to work.

[ 11 May 2005: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]

quote:

---

But bullying, agenda driven profs may face legal consequences for harming their students. I think that's a good thing.

---

And of course, in GWB's America, requiring someone to actually back up their beliefs with, y'know, evidence or argument is synonymous with "harming" them. After all, how could millions of Americans stagger around believing there were WMD's in Iraq if they got in the habit of thinking? Can't have that.

OC: I think you missed my point. I agree with you. The whole idea of students suing profs who have differing views is loony, whether it's by "left-wing" or "right-wing" students.

But of course, these Repugs aren't aiming at economics professors, are they? Their use of terms like "leftist totalitarianism" shows pretty clearly where their intent lies.

[ 25 March 2005: Message edited by: beluga2 ]

[ 25 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

Student: "You gave me a bad mark because of my opinion that fossils are animals that died in the Deluge."
Professor: "Um...well, this IS Evolutionary Biology".
Student: "I'm suing!"

Meanwhile, across campus...

S: "I object to my low mark, on the grounds that my OPINION is as valid as anyone else's!"
P: "Well, you wrote that the reason women earn, on average, less than men who do the same work is because God made them more suited for staying home and having babies. This has nothing to do with what we read in class."
S: "Stop persecuting me!"

In the Economist rag some months ago, a columnist complained of the dearth of right-wing humanities and liberal arts academics, as though this was a human rights problem in the same way as having a lopsided gender or ethnic balance. It is an interesting case of the right trying to hijack rights discourse for their own ends.

Guaranteed to be applauded by undergraduates who don't want any of their common-sense assumptions challenged, though. Often the ones who think they have been persecuted because the prof doesn't "agree" with their "opinions" are simply poor students, who haven't bothered to take the material seriously. Their "opinions" are generally exactly what they came in with. I don't know any prof who insists that students agree with him or her, but we do generally require that students engage with the material.

[ 25 March 2005: Message edited by: Mush ]

quote:

---

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.

---

A legislative staff analysis? Who might that be? Again, somone's opinion is expressed.

A court would have to decide any case on it's merits.

[ 25 March 2005: Message edited by: AppleSeed ]

quote:

---

Rep. Eleanor Sobel, D-Hollywood, argued universities and the state Board of Governors already have policies in place to protect academic freedom. Moreover, a state law outlining how professors are supposed to teach would encroach on the board’s authority to manage state schools.

---

quote:

---

Rep. Eleanor Sobel, D-Hollywood, argued universities and the state Board of Governors already have policies in place to protect academic freedom. Moreover, a state law outlining how professors are supposed to teach would encroach on the board’s authority to manage state schools.

---

Most organizations prefer a system where they get to investigate themselves.

"We investigated ourselves, and we have been cleared of all charges!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by beluga2:

OC: I think you missed my point. I agree with you. The whole idea of students suing profs who have differing views is loony, whether it's by "left-wing" or "right-wing" students.

---

David Horowitz, who is the author of many of these Academic Bill of Rights that are in various state legislatures, has claimed:

quote:

---

Wiener and others have also distorted the Academic Bill of Rights by claiming that it would require the teaching of creationism in biology classes. It would not. It specifically requires that students be "made aware of the spectrum of significant scholarly opinion." The last time I checked, the Bible was neither a scientific nor a scholarly text.

---

But the guy who introduced the ABoR in Florida (Rep. Baxley) seems to think just the opposite, using the example of a creationist student suing a biology professor as one instance where the ABoR could be used.

And of course "made aware of the spectrum of significant scholarly opinion" can mean different things to different people. To people like Baxley ID/creationism is significant scholarly opinion, to most biology professors it isn't.

The irony of all this is that conservative Republicans are embracing some aspects of post-modernism,

[ 25 March 2005: Message edited by: Snuckles ]

The entire issue is bogus though. How can one say this without sounding like a jerk? Profs. are really concerned about their personal productivity (i.e. publications and solving problems), not brainwashing students. The reality is that teaching is but a third of what a professor actually does in most institutions. They are more concerned about what other professors think of their solutions to problems rather ensuring that student X thinks exactly as they want them to. Profs. deal with hundreds or thousands of students every year, are they really concerned about one individual who offers a radically different opinion?

Let's be serious. Imagine a geeky professor spending an entire career trying to solve a methodological problem that has plagued them, and a student offers an incredible criticism or insight. What will the prof. do? Would they fail the student or simply co-publish the great idea?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snuckles:
And of course "made aware of the spectrum of significant scholarly opinion" can mean different things to different people. To people like Baxley ID/creationism is significant scholarly opinion, to most biology professors it isn't.

The irony of all this is that conservative Republicans are embracing some aspects of post-modernism,

[ 25 March 2005: Message edited by: Snuckles ]

---

This is pretty much the main reason that I object to it... also, the fact that he doesn't get why when faced he's faced with opposition, instead of listening to what peoples' concerns are he dismisses them as 'leftists', and then doesn't get it when people call him a McCarthyist. This bill is a case where considering the source (and his words) is really important.

AppleSeed, there are other means to deal with nasty instructors, and almost all of them one would have to go through before taking the issue to the BoG. I'm not saying that the BoG route works in all cases, but it (and the appeals process) could be fixed instead of instituting a bill that removes rigor as a requirement for academic debate. Baxley is saying that if I believe something than whatever I say on that topic should be taken at the same level as what someone with a reasoned position on the issue has to say. I've said it before, but that's not what school is about. If I can't handle arguing your position I shouldn't be there. If my position can't stand up to requirements that it is well-reasoned, then why should it be considered a reasonable position to take, and why should someone taking it get the same mark on an assignment?

[ 25 March 2005: Message edited by: Amy ]

HB 0837

quote:

---

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.

---

"graded without discrimination . . . on the basis of religious beliefs." Again, clearly we are opening the door for creationism/intelligent design. No way in hell should the courts be cluttered up with trying to discern this kind of nonsense. How in hell do you determine a "viewpoint-neutral distribution" of student fee funds. Again, a right wing attack.

quote:

---

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.

---

You tell me how a court will make this determination. Define "controversial matter." This is bullshit language and reasoning.

There's more but I've read more than enough.

[ 26 March 2005: Message edited by: Egalitarian American ]

quote:

---

to be graded without discrimination on the basis of their political or religious beliefs

---

If all they're talking about is the religion or political orientation of the student, that's one thing, but that's not what this is about, and Baxley has said it himself. When it comes to this bill, what's so different from walking into a geology class and writing a a paper about different rock dating techniques with the starting assumption that the earth is 6000 +/- years old, and walking into a history class with the belief that the Nazis didn't actually murder millions of people and writing a paper on that? Both would be equally defensible under this law.

[ 26 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

The irony of all this is that conservative Republicans are embracing some aspects of post-modernism

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amy:
That's the way it should be in classes dealing with such subjects. (I hope that's what it sounded like I was saying above, if it didn't maybe I should change the wording.) There are certain starting assumptions with geology, biology, etc., if my goal is to challenge those, the class isn't the appropriate venue.

---