The Academic Bill of Rights

Uh, yeah. Maybe a few complaints, but certainly no calls for intrusive legislation.See, that's the funny thing about freedom. People are occasionally going to use it to do or say things you don't like. Being pro-freedom means accepting this. So I guess we know where you stand, now don't we? Unless, of course, they're gay. That's when the gloves come off.

Yeah, the bill of rights is designed to promote freedom and end oppression of a dependent weaker class by people in power. Again, that's a LIBERAL value. I guess we know where all YOU guys stand. Foursquare behind intimidation tactics by the tenured Establishment.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-09-2005 10:02 PM

You wrote: "Unnecessary legislation is very dangerous and it is suprising that a conservative would be in support of such a thing."This is simply a bill of rights. It is not legislation in the typical sense. I posted David Horowitz's address to a state legislature, explaining why it is necessary. Only those who recognize that there is a distinct leftist bias might see that there is also a problem. So, before responding any further: Do you recognize an overwhelming leftist bias on campus?

I think you are skipping a step.First, why is there a problem if the education system is biased against any students point of view or beliefs?Why wouldn't you want the education system to challenge EVERY belief?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I agree with you that the marks awarded in a class must come from the demonstartion of a graps of the course content. No problem there.However, if a professor dismisses a 6,000 year old earth with a degree of humour I would say that is totally reasonable. It is laughable nonsense. It has been reviewed and discussed dispassionatly without ridicule here and in many other places and books. If someone wishes to enter a geology classroom with an idea so thoughly discredited without haveing done any research on the topic then a humourous dismissal is the most cost effective and reasonable answer.Would that be counter to this legislation?

I agree that creationism is not science, and cannot be expected to be treated as such in a science class; it belongs in theology. But when a biology prof screens Farenheit 9/11, neither is that science - as I'm sure you agree. Likewise, when English profs teach political science, or political science profs demand agreement that the war in Iraq proves Bush is a war criminal, things are out of whack.

You wrote: "I think you are skipping a step. First, why is there a problem if the education system is biased against any students point of view or beliefs? Why wouldn't you want the education system to challenge EVERY belief?:You were right to stress "Every belief." The problem is that the system does not challenge leftist beliefs, only conservative ones. Moreover, the challenge should be bias free. So...The prof who asked students to prove that Bush is a war criminal should have, instead, asked students to take a stand for or against that position. Instead, he demanded that they agree with it. What might have been acceptable would have been this: He prefaced his question with: "Some people hold the controversial position that Bush is a war criminal," then wrote: "Whether you agree or not, defend that position." However, in another exam or class exercise, we'd expect him to demand that studentss argue against that position. Then we'd have balance. Such was not the case. The prof was indoctrinating students to agree with his personal view. Such a prof would, in all liklihood, mark down a student who disagreed - and, apparently, did exactly that.

I'm not assuming the student has done no research on the subject to answer that part of your post.As for when humor might become intimidating ridicule I can't judge. I suppose that would have to be decided case by case.You'd have to ask the framers of the bill about this, as I don't know all the thinking that went into it, but again I don't see why in principle there should be any problem, and again if it seems it could be a problem then I think the hegemony of evolutionism should be protected by an amendment to the text of some sort. I'm a creationist but I know evolution is not going to be overthrown any time soon and there's no point in creating conflict over it. Creationists simply have to put up with it and learn it as taught, but they don't have to put up with personal attack.{EDIT: P.S. I decided *I* should ask the people who are behind the bill and again wrote to the Students for Academic Freedom site about this particular concern, to ask if it's come up before and if they think it might help to include something in the text to prevent possible nuisance complaints by creationists about evolutionist curricula.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-10-2005 01:30 AM

Yes, that's the point. There IS no balance. This IS indoctrination. Both sides are NOT presented, and the anti-Bush teaching was not just an exercise in thinking to say the least, it was propaganda plain and simple.

I just used to the site's Search facility to see where this was first raised and your post appears to be the first time this example has been quoted.Can you provide some sort of reference to where it happened and in what context?

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

Canadian Steve quoted it in #284 of the forum
Should those of religious faith be allowed to run this country?where he also provided the link to the source at Students for Academic FreedomThe quote:

The thread where you originally said you'd done this reached 300+ posts and was closed down before I had the chance to acknowledge it - I think you are to to be congratulated for 'doing the right thing'.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

Thanks for the info.This seems to be another case which isn't quite as cut and dried as it first appears. Putting "Explain Why President Bush Is A War Criminal" into Google gave me 12 hits, one of which was from Inside Higher Ed. It begs some interesting questions mostly about the intervention of David Horowitz but one crucial one about the studentsforacademicfreedom reference.How accurate was the studentsforacemicfreedom and Horowitz version of events and just how left wing was the professor?: The crucial one - what exactly was the question: Was it really a required question?: I'm no lawyer - even I have standards - but that version of the question seems a long way from the one quoted by studentsforacademicfreedom.The Inside Higher Ed article overall makes intersting reading. Of course with only the Web as a tool neither of us is going to be able to definitively prove one way or another what happened but I would contend another of your examples of left wing bias is on dodgy ground.EDIT: I'm off to hospital for a few days soon so I won't be able to respond to any replies for a while.This message has been edited by MangyTiger, 06-10-2005 02:43 AM

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

Thank you. I care about this bill of rights and want them to do it right.

Here is Horowitz's answer to that article. I tried to find relevant excerpts to quote but it's a convoluted story and I'd have copied out most of it.The main thing is that the professor had destroyed the evidence and there was no way to prove what the original exam question was or what grade the student was given. The one you quote is said by the student to be a different exam question made up after the incident. She also says she did get an F on the exam and had to do extra work to get a B in the course.Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David HorowitzThis is the last article published at FPM on the subject but there are four or five other articles on this incident if you go there and search the site-- I searched on "student exam war-criminal F"I wish you well on your hospital experience.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-10-2005 03:39 AM