- Pennsylvania Among 'Terrible 10' Most Regressive Tax States
- February 4 Non-Partisan Training: HOW TO RUN FOR ELECTION BOARD IN 2013: HOW TO RUN FOR COMMITTEEPERSON IN 2014
- Republican Governors Opt-In to Medicaid Expansion
- The Reports of Unions' Death Are Greatly Exaggerated
- Ask Allyson Schwartz to run for Governor
- Mind the gap: Opting Out of Medicaid Expansion Leaves Low-income Families Behind
- Jan. 14 Workshop:HOW TO RUN FOR ELECTION BOARD IN 2013; HOW TO RUN FOR COMMITTEEPERSON IN 2014
- Seth Williams on Guns, Jasmine Rivera on School Closures @PFC Meetup Wednesday
- PA Revenue Strong Midway Through Year; Tax Cut Could Have Big Impact
- What to Make of the Fiscal Cliff Deal?
Academic Bill of Rights
It looks like the Conservative proponents of the Academic Bill of Rights had a victory in Pennsylvania. This from Inside Higher Ed:
But on Tuesday, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed a resolution creating a special committee that is charged with investigating — at public colleges in the state — how faculty members are hired and promoted, whether students are fairly evaluated, and whether students have the right to express their views without fear of being punished for them.
The language in the resolution closely follows that of the Academic Bill of Rights, which has been pushed nationwide by David Horowitz, a former 60s radical who is now a conservative activist.
Let’s be honest, not all professors are fair, and some use their position as a pedestal on which to indoctrinate the youth of America. Whether they are wrong or right, we have to make sure that students have the opportunity to freely express their ideas. If only it were about fairness. We all know that this is just another attempt by people like Horowitz to push a Conservative agenda in our higher educational institutions. Fairness is one thing, but they want to be able to not teach the theory of evolution and allow people to teach revisionist history when it comes to the Holocaust. That cannot stand. I also think that the teachers need to come up with some alternative plan. If we say that we are for fairness, then we have to mean it. We can’t just be against things, because then we look like obstructionists.
Michael Berube had some interesting comments on his blog about this. He quotes frequent Young Philly Politics reader Representative Cohen, who lead the fight against the bill:
This pseudo-investigation has the potential to cause intimidation of many professors and to make the investigators a national laughingstock.
Not a single text of a Pennsylvania complaint was released, but the Horowitz web site, Students for Academic Freedom, quotes one student as saying he or she was victimized for conservative beliefs because his or her paper was both spellchecked and proofread and therefore had to be deserving of a high grade.
Concerned Pennsylvania legislators could use back-up support from state and national members of the academic community. We need to know about reality-based practices and principles to be able to win the media war against Horowitz developed theories and fantasies.
Props go out to Ray for pointing me towards this entry and Representative Cohen for leading the fight against this horrible Bill.


Mark Cohen, Daylin Leach
Both Cohen and Leach gave very good speeches about the bill on the floor of the house. Leach's perspective, as a some time college professor, was an interesting one.
The bottom line is that this is bullshit. A job of a professor is not to make someone feel comfortable. And, so while we dont want our profesors to be purely political animals, the whole idea that these professors are practicing indoctrination, whatever that means here, or are !gasp! giving out B's to some students is so silly.
How exactly would a student prove that they got a bad grade for their beliefs anyway? If I were a professor, and a student complained that they should have gotten an A because they spell checked their paper, I would flunk them on the spot.
Not sure I like the bill
Anything that speaks of the government regulating classroom content is sketchy in my book.
But to characterize it as simply "Fairness is one thing, but they want to be able to not teach the theory of evolution and allow people to teach revisionist history when it comes to the Holocaust," I think is a bit disingenuous, no?
yes and no
Pennsylvania is run by a bunch of hick crackpots. You know the saying that we are Philadelphia and Pittsburg with Alabama in between. Well, the state is dominated by the Alabama part. Do you really think that Creationism is not going to peak in there somewhere? Do you think that revisionist historians will not get a platform? I hope not, but I will not bet my money on it.
terrible nationwide, terrible here (but not breaking news)
uh, this was in the news a couple of weeks ago:
http://asmokefilledroom.blogspot.com/2005/07/pa-legislators-to-investiga...
fair enough
I certainly can't claim there's no danger of a slippery slope. I also wouldn't claim that's the authors' intent though. Like many laws and programs, the possibilities of unintended consequences and perversions of the original purpose abound.
So while I would contend that there IS a problem with bias on campuses, it's a mistake to write these things into law like this. Political oversight of academia is generally a negative in my mind. (Which leads inevitably to discussions of school choice and higher ed funding that would get me fried on a blog like this one, so I'll let them go for the moment ;) )
I'm curious as to what
you basis is for stating that "there IS a problem with bias on campus." Simply stating that more college professors are Democrats than Republicans won't cut the mustard. It doesn't prove bias, or the other kinds of prejudice claimed by the proponents of this kind of bill. Have you followed this story and seen what they put forth as "evidence" of bias? I suggest you follow ACM's link as a place to begin looking for more information. This reminds me of conservatives complaining about the "liberal bias" of the "liberal media." Great material for fomenting anger, but doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Even if you accept the stated motivation for this bill as a reasonable goal, it's still necessary to do some research to see just who is and who isn't being disingenuous.
I have no quantitative proof
but my personal experience and anecdotal evidence leads me to believe that there is an "academic echo chamber" that rewards the reiteration of certain points of view at the expense of the development of others. If you choose to dismiss this, I can understand. It's not a point I'd like to dwell on, it's not "fixable" through this law, and it's certainly not worthy of intervention, especially by supposedly "small government" conservatives.