Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cornell Rejects Academic Freedom
FPM ^ | May 7, 2004 | Joe Sabia

Posted on 05/10/2004 3:38:17 PM PDT by swilhelm73

After banning the press from videotaping its weekly meeting, the Cornell University Student Assembly (SA) rejected the Academic Bill of Rights. Citing the document’s objectives as “redundant,” “irrelevant,” “insulting,” and “objectionable,” the SA determined that academic freedom was unimportant to the Ivy League campus.

The Resolution on Academic Freedom — based on David Horowitz’s Academic Bill of Rights — was introduced by a bipartisan coalition of Cornell students, including the editor-in-chief of The Cornell Daily Sun. The resolution stated that the “SA affirms [the] principles of academic freedom and intellectual diversity” and went on to cite six principles:

(1) Students should be graded on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the disciplines they study.

(2) Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should provide students with dissenting viewpoints where appropriate.

(3) Faculty should not use their courses for the political, ideological, religious, or anti-religious indoctrination.

(4) All faculty should be hired, fired, or promoted and granted tenure on the basis on their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise.

(5) Selection of speakers [and] allocation of funds should not discriminate on the basis of his or her political or ideological affiliation.

(6) The obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature, or any other efforts to inhibit the civil exchange of ideas should not be tolerated.

Any reasonable person, whatever his political philosophy, should agree with the abovementioned tenets if he is committed to intellectual diversity. Unfortunately, Cornell leftists will do anything — including censorship — to hold on to their monopoly of power.

The debate on the Academic Bill of Rights got off to an auspicious start when SA representative Michelle Fernandes tried to eject Cornell American editor-in-chief Ryan Horn from the meeting. Horn, a well-known conservative journalist on campus, brought a digital camcorder to the event to record the debate. Fernandes raised an objection to Horn’s presence saying, “Point of privilege. I want [him] to stop videotaping.” Horn replied, “Respectfully, no.” Nick Linder, president of the SA, then ordered, “As chair, I have to ask you to leave the meeting. It’s my duty to uphold that. Turn that off or leave”

Horn expressed outrage and cited his First Amendment rights. He defiantly ignored Linder’s decision, remained in his seat, and secretly videotaped the entire affair.

Following the camcorder fiasco, Cornell Democrats president Tim Lim — thinking he was speaking off the record — slammed the Academic Bill of Rights as “a publicity stunt [by] neoconservatives such as David Horowitz.” Lim then went on to claim that promoting academic freedom was a part of a partisan conspiracy engineered by the College Republicans.

The liberal Democrats controlled the entire tenor of the debate. Leftist Brennan Veys amended the resolution by removing two key phrases from the bill: (i) “students should be graded on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects” and (ii) “all faculty should be hired, fired, and promoted, and granted tenure on the basis of their competence.” He claimed that including these clauses in an Academic Bill of Rights was an “insult” to Cornell’s faculty.

When Veys was confronted with certain facts — namely that 97 percent of Cornell’s faculty are Leftists and that 21 of 23 government department professors are registered Democrats — he shook his head dismissively. Ross Blankenship, a co-sponsor of the bill, asked Veys, “How comfortable do you think a Cornell student is in writing an essay in support of President Bush?” At this question, the Democrats laughed hysterically, indicating that Blankenship was paranoid.

When the votes were tallied (8 in favor, 9 against), SA president Linder announced his final judgment, “The chair will cast a vote in, uh, the negative.” He then smirked at the co-sponsors of the bill, waved them off, and said, “Have a nice day.” And with that, the Academic Bill of Rights died at Cornell.

Cornell University has a shameful record on intellectual diversity. There is no tolerance for conservative ideas among the faculty, the administration, or the student government. At every turn, the instinct of radical leftists is to censor those views with which they disagree. They have succeeded, in large part, because their totalitarian judgments are enacted under the cover of darkness. That is precisely why the Student Assembly tried to ban video coverage of its Politburo-style meeting.

The debate (or lack thereof) over the Academic Bill of Rights at Cornell revealed precisely why this measure is so desperately needed here. And that is why Cornellians committed to intellectual diversity will continue to fight for it.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; US: New York
KEYWORDS: 1stammendment; academicbor; academicfreedom; aclumia; ccrm; cityofevil; conservativebashing; cornell; firstammendment; highereducation; horowitz; indoctrination; ithaca; leftismoncampus; liberalelites; liberaltalkingpoints; nofirstammendment; nofreedomofspeech; nofreedomofthought; reeducationcenter

1 posted on 05/10/2004 3:38:20 PM PDT by swilhelm73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
I'd never actually read this Academic Bill of Rights. The principles seem so eminently reasonable, I don't see how anyone could possibly find them objectionable.
2 posted on 05/10/2004 3:42:51 PM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
Is Cornell state-sponsored terrorism or is it a private school? I forget.
3 posted on 05/10/2004 3:42:55 PM PDT by Republicus2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
INTREP - education (?) -universities - academic freedom (and the stiffling thereof)
4 posted on 05/10/2004 3:44:20 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
Here is a link to it;

http://studentsforacademicfreedom.org/abor.html
5 posted on 05/10/2004 3:45:01 PM PDT by swilhelm73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
Liberals and democrat party members are the sworn enemies of Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom.

This represents an amazing historical evolution, at least in the case of liberals. Over the last 100 years, liberals have adapted the complete diametrically opposed opposite of their original philosophy and positions.

It is really amazing to watch, especially in such a 21st Century toilet like Cornell.

6 posted on 05/10/2004 3:46:27 PM PDT by FormerACLUmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73; Behind Liberal Lines
Ithaca is the City of Evil Ping!
7 posted on 05/10/2004 3:51:22 PM PDT by Clemenza (Strolling along country roads with my baby...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
I agree that university liberal arts departments tend to have an anti-conservative slant (as a liberal arts student myself). This is often translates into intolerance for dissenting points of view. But I diagree that David Horowitz would do very many things that were genuinely nonpartisan.

Academic freedom is vital to a university's intellectual culture. When it comes from a genuinely nonpartisan source, then there can be a healthy discussion.

8 posted on 05/10/2004 3:59:11 PM PDT by ggordon22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FormerACLUmember
This represents an amazing historical evolution, at least in the case of liberals. Over the last 100 years, liberals have adapted the complete diametrically opposed opposite of their original philosophy and positions.

It's even funnier that they don't realize it.

9 posted on 05/10/2004 4:02:05 PM PDT by VeniVidiVici (In God We Trust. All Others We Monitor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ggordon22
But I diagree that David Horowitz would do very many things that were genuinely nonpartisan.

Which points on the list do you see as being anything other then "genuinely nonpartisan"?

10 posted on 05/10/2004 4:16:39 PM PDT by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bob
Yeah, seriously! In the absence of the existing thought-control regimes on university campuses, no honest person in the world could find anything to object to in this list.
11 posted on 05/10/2004 4:27:19 PM PDT by thoughtomator (yesterday Kabul, today Baghdad, tomorrow Damascus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
Animal Farm
12 posted on 05/10/2004 4:40:37 PM PDT by samadams2000 (Liberalism is communism one drink at a time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Timesink; *CCRM; martin_fierro; reformed_democrat; Loyalist; =Intervention=; PianoMan; GOPJ; ...
Media Schadenfreude and Media Shenanigans/City Of Evil PING
13 posted on 05/10/2004 4:47:16 PM PDT by weegee (NO BLOOD FOR RATINGS. CNN ignored torture & murder in Saddam's Iraq to keep their Baghdad Bureau.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ggordon22
Academic freedom is vital to a university's intellectual culture. When it comes from a genuinely nonpartisan source, then there can be a healthy discussion.

(1) Students should be graded on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the disciplines they study.

If a student's grade may be reduced for a difference of political ideology there is no academic freedom.

14 posted on 05/10/2004 4:50:46 PM PDT by weegee (NO BLOOD FOR RATINGS. CNN ignored torture & murder in Saddam's Iraq to keep their Baghdad Bureau.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bob
(2) Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should provide students with dissenting viewpoints where appropriate.

The language is that of deceptive neutrality and is obviously disingenuous. I have never been in a university course where dissenting viewpoints were not discussed. When you take a class on Freud, you hear from Freud's critics. When you take a class on existential philosophy, you hear from the critics of that philosophy. What is meant here, if I can read between the lines, is politically or ideologically dissenting viewpoints. As in, viewpoints that espouse a non-Marxist, non-postmodernist, non-liberal point of view. Which is a healthy thing, I think. But I prefer language that says what it means.

And beside that, what about the sciences, engineering, business schools? Academic freedom is easily as threatened, if not more, in those disciplines.

(3) Faculty should not use their courses for the purposes of political, ideological, religious, or anti-religious indoctrination.

Agreed. But the language again is highly politicized. The focus is on faculty and the influence they wield in the classroom. Only certain threats to academic freedom are mentioned -- some of the most pernicious, including government interference in curriculum, and the potential conflict between corporate and academic research interest aren't even mentioned. The focus is exclusively on socio-political considerations, and the sciences are hardly mentioned. There is much more to academic freedom.

There is nothing nonpartisan about it. That being said, there are many good points in it. I just think they would be more credible coming from someone other than Horowitz. I've never liked that guy.

15 posted on 05/10/2004 4:51:06 PM PDT by ggordon22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ggordon22
Get real! Either academia hires conservatives too for liberal arts departments or it's one big fraud. Universities were never so unbalanced in favor of commies and leftists. Many departments are virtually recruitment and hiring centers for the most disgusting feminazis and neo Marxists. Where they hire ONLY THEIR OWN KIND!
16 posted on 05/10/2004 4:51:58 PM PDT by dennisw (Exposing John Kerry--> Swift Boat Veterans for Truth---> http://www.swiftvets.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
Far above Cayuga’s waters,

there’s an awful smell.

Could it be Cayuga’s waters?

No it must be Cornell."


17 posted on 05/10/2004 4:59:57 PM PDT by DeFault User
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republicus2001
Private. Though it was one of what were called the land grant colleges, in the the 19th century, I believe.
18 posted on 05/10/2004 5:09:29 PM PDT by ontos-on (te)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ggordon22
You are foolish to claim that the "source" of these principles is what should determine the response to it. This is precisely why such principles are needed. When neutral principles of freedom are rejected for the "source", you are really dealing with a totalitarian place where one's identity prevents one from getting a fair hearing for what one proposes.

In fact, the content of the principles is what doomed them. The close vote was a sham engineered to look like there is a chance of reasoned debate in the institution. The lack of reasoned debate and insistence that there be no record proves that. The event shows that the left at academic campi throughout America have been captured by totalitarians where freedom, diversity and academic freedom to voice dissenting views, are anathama to the commisars in charge.

19 posted on 05/10/2004 5:17:38 PM PDT by ontos-on (te)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
The principles seem so eminently reasonable, I don't see how anyone could possibly find them objectionable.

Think like a totalitarian.

20 posted on 05/10/2004 5:26:55 PM PDT by Clint Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
The principles seem so eminently reasonable, I don't see how anyone could possibly find them objectionable.

Haven't meet any leftie academics lately, huh?

21 posted on 05/10/2004 5:35:33 PM PDT by radiohead (Over toning the opponent since 2003)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ggordon22
You've never been in a classroom where dissenting viewpoints were not discussed?

Then you must be in one hell of a great institution of higher learning.

I took a class at the Univ of Minnesota called "The History of Cuba and Puerto Rico". The grad student teaching it is an admitted admirer of Castro and other "luminaries" such as Daniel Ortega.

Never once did we discuss the prisons, the oppression of a free press, the crackdown on dissidents.

We never discussed the many who have tried to flee Cuba and died doing so. We never discussed WHY that happened and why it's still happening.

We never discussed Cuba's military involvement in Angola, Grenada, etc. I had to bring up the subject in an in-class presentation. The grad student NEVER did.

These are all legitimate subjects that can definitely be linked to a historical context. But they weren't brought up at all.

I didn't fear the teacher. I'm 40 and didn't particularly care what care I was given...as long as I passed. I asked several pointed questions in class and was given a non-satisfactory answer each time.

I have a feeling that my experience is probably very much like many other students in higher ed.
22 posted on 05/10/2004 5:37:54 PM PDT by MplsSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ggordon22
I read your post # 15 and see I was wasting my time in my previous post to you. You appear to be out of your league in this. You would have to come to see that it is from the person in control of the classroom who students have most to fear in uttering "unpolitically correct" views. Some professors are down right thugish in their exploitation of their leftist political agenda in their teaching which borders upon indoctrination. The government, political science, history, literature, philosophy departments are indoctrination camps for Marxist-feminist theory and praxis. You identify yourself as a current student, and therefore have no idea how even in the 60's there was true and unfettered academic freedom and reasoned academic discussion. The Marxist-feminists drove that all away and now rule via intimidation and thugish tactics which I would be amazed that you are unaware of. These conditions exist throughout the country. Horowitz articulates these points and strives to combat the tyrrranical sway of the regime. His tool here are principles of academic freedom in the classroom. You are naive to the fact that it is you who introduce a extrinsic vein when you want to interrupt the consideration of acadmeic freedom in the classroom to shove the obstacle of the red herring of corporate influence on research.

I suspect that you really do not know the extent to which self-censorship occurs among your peers. Among your professors there is a substantial number who censor themselves and others who censor thier students. I detect in your comments here a form of castigation based on identity or "source" of an opinion which predetermines your ability to listen or consider a position.

What is it you don't like about Horowitz? That he is fearlessly confrontive? That he tells the uncomfortable truths about what exists on university campi today? I doubt yo could reasonably object to position other than in an ad hominem way which objects to the "mess" or offense he causes by speaking out.

23 posted on 05/10/2004 5:40:07 PM PDT by ontos-on (te)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ontos-on
You use the term ad hominem? Here's a quote: You identify yourself as a current student, and therefore have no idea how even in the 60's there was true and unfettered academic freedom and reasoned academic discussion. You have no idea how old I am and no idea what I study. You also refer to "my peers," again with the assumption that I am young. You assume I am a young person who did not live in the 60's; you are also assuming I "have no idea" about the 60's culture of academic freedom, when you couldn't possibly know either of those things.

Also, you seem to mischaracterize what was said in my post. I agree that much of what is taught in the social sciences and humanities is distorted through a Marxist, socialist lens. I said it was healthy to encourage "viewpoints that espouse a non-Marxist, non-postmodernist, non-liberal point of view." What I disagreed with was Horowitz's deliberate effort to couch that truth in depoliticized language. Is this too nuanced a point?

The whole bit about corporate influence being a "red herring" is nice; the conflict between corporate interest (which seeks, often justifiably, to protect and keep secret IP) and academia (which usually seeks to publish information openly) is well-documented and crucial to any serious debate about 'academic freedom.'

BTW, the plural of campuses is not 'campi.' Ironic that you deride my education.

24 posted on 05/10/2004 7:11:36 PM PDT by ggordon22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam; swilhelm73; governsleastgovernsbest; bentfeather; gaspar; NativeNewYorker; drjimmy; ..
I'd never actually read this Academic Bill of Rights. The principles seem so eminently reasonable, I don't see how anyone could possibly find them objectionable.

Of course it is reasonable. However, Ithaca is the City of Evil.


25 posted on 05/10/2004 7:13:08 PM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ontos-on; Republicus2001
Private. Though it was one of what were called the land grant colleges, in the the 19th century, I believe.

It's still a land grant university and about half of it is in the state run SUNY system.

26 posted on 05/10/2004 7:14:59 PM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: FormerACLUmember
So much for being fair and balanced. Interestingly, I bet these same liberals would demand Congress to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine" on Rush & Hannity.
27 posted on 05/10/2004 7:27:48 PM PDT by Kuksool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ggordon22
I said it was healthy to encourage "viewpoints that espouse a non-Marxist, non-postmodernist, non-liberal point of view." What I disagreed with was Horowitz's deliberate effort to couch that truth in depoliticized language. Is this too nuanced a point?

Yeah, I am much more simple than you. I do not believe that you are saying anything meaningful in your objection to "depoliticized language" !

We are talking about a principle of academic freedom to speak without fear of intimidation and improper sanctions for diverse points of view. Do you require that the securing of rights to say things be tagged to a specified political identity of what might be said. No, I have got you right, despite my simplicity. You still want to tag people so as to arbitrate who can say what, when and where. That is why you find the expression of rights in "depoliticized language" so bothersome. It creates too much freedom.

You do not like me perceiving [and stating] what is packed into your position and manner of expression. I think I am right on.

Corporate funding of research is irrelevant to the discussion of student academic rights. To insist on it is to insist on the red herring. Talk about it at another time, if you will. The freedom of students to be exposed to diverse intellectual POV including a diverse intellectual faculty, is what is the topic here. So what that Horowitz sees discrimination and intimidation of certain religious and political POV and proposes principles of specific academic freedoms that would answer the threats that he perceives. Why is that offensive to you? Why? [I suspect you have fallen victim to identity politics and will only allow certain "certified" POV to be heard. If you don't precertify, you may hear something you have not already tagged. I am sorry but this is actually an old Marxist tactic and if you are innocent of its origins, then this only shows the degree of its infiltration into the academy in supposed sheep's clothing. ]

I can only conclude you have some other agenda or purpose for objecting to the "depoliticized language".

I did not deride your education but your naivite' and lack of experience with what true academic freedom really is.

28 posted on 05/10/2004 8:07:18 PM PDT by ontos-on (te)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici
This represents an amazing historical evolution, at least in the case of liberals. Over the last 100 years, liberals have adapted the complete diametrically opposed opposite of their original philosophy and positions. It's even funnier that they don't realize it.

Liberals are in absolute denial of their ferocious opposition to freedom!

29 posted on 05/10/2004 8:22:00 PM PDT by FormerACLUmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FormerACLUmember; All
The term liberal to mean a socialist, feminist, authoritarian is a recent thing.

In the Victorian era, for example, there were three general political movements;

1) Socialists/Communists - the predecessors of the modern left.

2) Conservatives - people who wanted to preserve the traditional order. Generally monarchists in Europe, but primarily interested in keeping the status quo. These people are the predecessors of modern RINOs.

3) Liberals - free market, small government types. Built the industries that made the UK and US world leaders. Believed in spreading representative government. These are our predecessors.

The term liberal is still often used to describe rightwingers in Europe, though it seems even they are beginning to adopt our usage.

For the life of me though, I can't figure out exactly how this transition came to be. Certainly the lines between conservatism and liberalism in 19th century America were rather blurry. But neither had much in common with the current left.
30 posted on 05/10/2004 8:30:27 PM PDT by swilhelm73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: FormerACLUmember
Liberals are in absolute denial of their ferocious opposition to freedom!

I really wonder why this is. Of course, the initial answer is that they are not really liberals, but only propoents of positions which once were held by liberals.

I get that part. But why do people fear freedom so much??? For themselves and for others??? It cannot simply be naivite' or ignorance, but I can't simply impute a cravenness that prefers tyrrany unless it is a psychological fear of chaos or mess that freedom entails.

It would be a type that is uneasy without extrinsic structure. Those who do not have inner structure or an inner demand or search for structure, feel lost and threatened by the lessening of external structure for themselves ... and the others.

31 posted on 05/10/2004 8:31:45 PM PDT by ontos-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ontos-on
I have a feeling we could have a fine debate here, yet I sense a disconnect between what I am sayiing and what you seem to be hearing. I wonder if we are even talking about the same thing. Maybe I haven't been clear enough.

Depoliticized language is the deliberately misleading, agenda-masking language used by people who want their viewpoints to remain hidden behind a patina of objectivity. Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture is one example of this: the name would lead you to believe it is an objective foundation that studies, say, aspects of popular culture. A cursory glance at its contents tells you otherwise. Deliberately misleading, 'depoliticized' language. It makes me sick. Say what you are. Have the courage of your convictions.

Since you seem so intent on psychoanalyzing me (though you know virtually nothing about me), let me subject Mr. Horowitz to a little headshrinking. My impression of Horowitz is that he is stuck in a toxic love/hate relationship with the academy. He yearns to be accepted by it, yet he knows that his own simple-minded and mean-spirited analyses would be ridiculed by academics. He would probably not be published in reputable journals, not because he is being "persecuted" but because his ideas are so intellectually arid. He specializes in whiny, shrill screeds that are characterized more by a petulant rage than a reasoned response. Like many former liberals, he seems poisoned by a sense of betrayal, that the world has somehow let him down.

It is amazing to even have a discussion about the nonpartisan nature of the "Academic Bill of Rights." Horowitz himself lays out his agenda much more honestly and bluntly on the FrontPage website: "I’m eager to continue taking the pro-America message into the trenches to battle the leftists -- and give conservative students the courage to battle back!" Ok, Horry, now your cards are on the table. That's at least an honest response.

You ask, Do you require that the securing of rights to say things be tagged to a specified political identity of what might be said.

I never said anything like this. And no, I wouldn't. I think the problem is when someone refuses to admit the "political identity" of what they are saying. When they use de-fanged language to 'sell' their ideas.

32 posted on 05/10/2004 9:41:13 PM PDT by ggordon22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ggordon22
Simple answer. Dont go to Cornell. There are tons of colleges out there.
33 posted on 05/10/2004 11:45:49 PM PDT by Adam36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ggordon22
Depoliticized language is the deliberately misleading, agenda-masking language used by people who want their viewpoints to remain hidden behind a patina of objectivity.

You mean like the American Civil Liberties Union, People For The American Way, and radio programs named Democracy Now and All Things Considered?

34 posted on 05/11/2004 12:04:45 AM PDT by weegee (NO BLOOD FOR RATINGS. CNN ignored torture & murder in Saddam's Iraq to keep their Baghdad Bureau.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys
fyi
35 posted on 05/11/2004 12:07:24 AM PDT by GretchenM (No military in the history of the world has fought so hard and so often for the freedom of others.-W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee
You mean like the American Civil Liberties Union, People For The American Way, and radio programs named Democracy Now and All Things Considered?

The ACLU says they fight for civil liberties, and that they do, for the Klan or for students' rights (though they're hardly perfect; they had a shameful period of collusion with the FBI). The People For The American Way has the neutral-sounding name of the interest group.

36 posted on 05/11/2004 1:38:10 AM PDT by ggordon22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ggordon22
The ACLU picks and chooses their battles. They were late to come in on Rush Limbaugh's side regarding the privacy of his medical files (late coming in purely voiced support, no legal contribution was needed or requested).

The ACLU fights Chrisitianity in the schools and the "public square" but does not challenge the teaching of Islam in public school curriculum (even including the reading of Islamic prayers) nor did they voice in on the request for a city to permit and amplified prayer call 5 times a day from a mosque in Michigan.

37 posted on 05/11/2004 1:49:30 AM PDT by weegee (NO BLOOD FOR RATINGS. CNN ignored torture & murder in Saddam's Iraq to keep their Baghdad Bureau.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ggordon22
I don't have time this morning for an extended consideration, but you still seem to demand a political confession of motives [what I call "tagging"] as part of the proposal for basic academic rights. You avoid answering why this is necessary. Does a proponent of freedom of speech require a specific revelation of what threats to it, he especially fears? I do not want teachers of any stripe to be able to muzzle and intimidate students over whom they have considerable power. It should be enough to propose that we have that right.

It should be enough that we have the right to have consideration of faculty hrings without regard to political identity--which is exactly what leads to these departments where faculty are all committed marxists or feminists or what have you. Don't you see that you are demandig a political identity test before you consider the rights proposal just as the cadre demand a politicla identification tagging before they will consider a proposed faculty hire.

I would be glad to have a debate. But first you have to respond to why you think political "tagging" is necessary. Without that you have not made any essential response to any of my posts. What more do you have when you have the motive of the speaker or the political leanings of the speaker or candidate? Don't you see that your interest apparently seeks to shift the focus from the consideration of the rights proposal to the attempt to make ad hominem castgiations to confuse the issues?

38 posted on 05/11/2004 4:03:05 AM PDT by ontos-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Republicus2001
It is both private and state sponsored. The engineering and liberal arts colleges are private. The agriculture and hotel management colleges are state sponsored. I can't remember what the architecture and ILR (international labor relations) schools were.
39 posted on 05/11/2004 4:39:54 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ontos-on
ggordon2.....?registered let's see.... 05/09/04-I think we both know with what/whom we're dealing with here...
40 posted on 05/11/2004 4:50:59 AM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: weegee
A choice between hearing Clinton at the 2004 Cornell Commencencement or jumping off the Gorge:


41 posted on 05/11/2004 7:17:36 AM PDT by Helms (Jesse Jackson has been unsuccessfully successful)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Helms
To be fair, X-42 will be the convocation speaker, not the commencement speaker, so his talk will be quite easily avoided.

42 posted on 05/11/2004 8:39:02 AM PDT by Fixit (My Pitiful Blog - http://comedian.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Fixit
Thanks, how long winded do you think he will be in turning this into a Legacy Rehab Event? There is a good reason Cornell has been chosen.
43 posted on 05/11/2004 9:03:00 AM PDT by Helms (Jesse Jackson has been unsuccessfully successful)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ontos-on; ggordon22
gg: i tend to agree with ontos:

if the socialists at cornell (my alma mater and employer)
were truly interested in academic freedom, and the major
objection to the "six points" were that the language was
"too targeted" - they could have easily added phrases
specifying "government interference", "corporate" and other conflict, "the sciences", etc.

that is not the approach they took. they wished to make it
clear that academic freedom is not needed at cornell.

that's the way it is, and the way they like it.

44 posted on 05/11/2004 9:47:50 AM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Helms
He probably just sees it as the first stop on his book tour, assuming he finishes writing it on time.

Cover of Bill Clinton's Book My Life

45 posted on 05/11/2004 11:51:22 AM PDT by Fixit (My Pitiful Blog - http://comedian.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ggordon22
Academic freedom is vital to a university's intellectual culture. When it comes from a genuinely nonpartisan source, then there can be a healthy discussion.

According to the left, the ONLY non-partisan source is another leftist. Conservatives have NO chance to get a fair hearing at most large universities today because their administrations are SOLIDLY in the hands of leftists, and those who drift toward Student Government also trend leftward.

46 posted on 05/11/2004 1:17:04 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys
oh...I think this needs taking one step further....these clowns IMHO, are reveling in the taking of such freedoms from their fellow Americans at their school...and daring them to do something about it..pretty darn near fightin' words...seems a case for FIRE (Foundation for Indivisual Rights in Education-http://www.thefire.org/index.php
47 posted on 05/11/2004 6:52:19 PM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
I'd never actually read this Academic Bill of Rights. The principles seem so eminently reasonable, I don't see how anyone could possibly find them objectionable.

The left finds diversity of opinion objectionable. Propaganda only works if you drown out all dissenting ideas.

48 posted on 05/14/2004 5:58:39 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn't be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest; bentfeather; gaspar; NativeNewYorker; drjimmy; Atticus; John Valentine; ...
Ithaca is the City of Evil.


49 posted on 05/28/2004 5:48:15 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

bump


50 posted on 05/28/2004 6:00:26 AM PDT by Soaring Feather (~The Dragon Flies' Lair~ Poetry and Prose~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson