Posted on 08/29/2003 8:56:41 AM PDT by Sparta
In an article entitled “The Problem With America’s Colleges and The Solution”, published on September 3, 2002, David Horowitz outlined the problems that he sees with college and university campuses across America. In a fairly detailed manner, he discussed the lack of diversity concerning political ideologies and viewpoints among faculty members. He correctly said that universities and colleges have an overload of generally liberal professors, and, quite often, only have one or two token conservatives, if that.
In the article, he went on to discuss his ideas for a solution to this problem. His ideas, which are condensed into an Academic Bill of Rights, focus on assuring that there will be an equal number of conservative and liberal professors on any given campus, public and private alike. In his list of solutions, he gives this as an action to take in ensuring academic freedom: “Conduct an inquiry into political bias in the hiring process for faculty and administrators…”
Horowitz is pushing for state legislatures to become involved in this so called Bill of Rights, and Colorado, Georgia, and Missouri are on the verge of doing so. To quote Horowitz’s article again: “By adding the categories of political and religious affiliation to Title IX and other existing legislation, the means are readily available…to redress an intolerable situation involving illegal and unconstitutional hiring methods along with teaching practices that are an abuse of academic freedom.”
I agree with Horowitz’s premise – that having less liberal campuses is ideal and necessary. However, I disagree with his way of doing it. His solution gives the government deep and powerful control of the leadership of colleges and universities. Imagine making it a law that the governments “investigate” the politics of every professor or administrator on every campus in America. Far from freedom, this is a system that would not only allow for the hiring and firing of professionals based on their political beliefs; it is also giving the government too much power and control.
On another note – does Horowitz really buy into the popular notion that the solution to all problems is a new law? This seems not only foolish, but scary. There is the precedent that this sets to consider. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, isn’t it possible, if this becomes a full fledged law that it will expand to other markets? Isn’t it foreseeable that one day we’ll have to check a little box on our job applications - Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Green Party - it would make for a long application.
Yet another question is - how could this be effectively implemented? Would it be limited to voting records, or would interviews be conducted? How far back would they go? How deep would they dig? What about professors who effectively covered up their ideology or simply didn’t want to discuss it? Would there be lie detector tests?
Who would decide whether or not a professor was “conservative” or “liberal” enough to teach a specific course? The government? The school? Would the level of ideology required change from department to department?
I thought that a professor was supposed to be a professor, not a political theorist. I thought David Horowitz wanted to take politics out of the classroom. Instead, however, this solution pushes it to the very forefront of everything that professors do. Instead of freeing the campuses from dirty politics, it makes dirty politics the name of the game from the moment a potential faculty member sets foot on a campus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cathryn Crawford is a student at the University of Texas. She can be reached for questions and comments at feedback@washingtondispatch.com.
Thats what it is right now. TAX MONEY subsidizes Academia, yet they pursue radical politics not representative of the public at large. A conservative proffessor appointment can be vetoed by a single Marxist Proffessor. The only way to make the faculty responsive is to squeeze their funding. Does the author have another plan, or should we just wring our hands forever?
Thought police, literally!
Good article!
ALL, I repeat, ALL of my eldest son's professors, are raving liberals who bring their bias into the classroom.
Horowitz's solution at least attempts to address that problem, absent SOME kind of change, education will continue to deteriorate into brainwashing.....NOT education.
This semester, all of mine are, too. My Constitutional law professor is farther to the left then Howard Dean. He never fails to spend at least half of the class time bashing conservative thought, especially as it relates to the Constitution. Strict constructionists are his worst enemy. He calls Justice Scalia every name in the book, and he does it every class.
Horowitz's solution at least attempts to address that problem, absent SOME kind of change, education will continue to deteriorate into brainwashing.....NOT education.
True. I'm not denying the problem, and I'm not denying that the education system needs change. However, I do not think that involving the government in universities (especially private universities) is the proper solution. I don't want the government choosing my professors.
Most of what I learned as an undergraduate came from the books that I read and not from any personal beliefs of professors. In my particular major, the trick was to really master the underlying principles and to understand exactly how they were derived. Once that was accomplished, the peculiar prejudices of any professor became more or less irrelevant.
Another great column, Cathryn!! You're still the best! ;-)
Thats what it is right now. TAX MONEY subsidizes Academia, yet they pursue radical politics not representative of the public at large. A conservative proffessor appointment can be vetoed by a single Marxist Proffessor. The only way to make the faculty responsive is to squeeze their funding.
IMHO, the only way to end these types of problems is to eliminate government funding for education completely at all levels.
It shares all the same inherent fallacies, myths and therefore implementation difficulties (see the movie Soul Man).
Funny, I remember my own Con Law prof. He was a proud liberal, as most of them are, but we got off on a tangent about Scalia one day. His take on the good judge was that, as an unabashed liberal, he disagreed with virtually everything that Scalia stood for. However, as an honest unabashed liberal, he couldn't help but admit that Justice Scalia was also one of the most brilliant legal minds to ever sit on the Supreme Court.
That's what you need, and what I don't mind - honest and forthright liberal professors ;)
It's odd that you say that. When I had my notebook, writing my inital thoughts for this column, the very first thing I wrote was Affirmative action for ideologies? in big letters.
See, now that's clearly the mark of someone who has abandoned any pretense at objective scholarship. Agree with him or disagree with him if you like, but only dilettantes and fools can deny the intellect of Antonin Scalia. And I don't agree with Scalia on everything, but I can make a very good case that in terms of pure intellectual firepower, there is Scalia and Oliver Wendell Holmes in one camp, and everyone else in the other. And honest liberals who are serious students of the court cannot help but also admit that he is brilliant - as opposed to your professor, who is either a fool, a fraud, or not a serious scholar. Either way, that sort of attitude is the attitude of someone who does not belong in academia.
I very calmly made this point yesterday to him, and he began talking about how Scalia "carrys around a pocket Constitution and beats people over the head with it."
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.