Capitol bill aims to control ‘leftist’ profs

[DaKCMan AP]

Capitol bill aims to control ‘leftist’ profs
THE LAW COULD LET STUDENTS SUE FOR UNTOLERATED BELIEFS.

By JAMES VANLANDINGHAM
Alligator Staff Writer

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.

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.

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.

“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,’” Baxley said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue.

Rep. Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach, warned of lawsuits from students enrolled in Holocaust history courses who believe the Holocaust never happened.

Similar suits could be filed by students who don’t believe astronauts landed on the moon, who believe teaching birth control is a sin or even by Shands medical students who refuse to perform blood transfusions and believe prayer is the only way to heal the body, Gelber added.

“This is a horrible step,” he said. “Universities will have to hire lawyers so our curricula can be decided by judges in courtrooms. Professors might have to pay court costs — even if they win — from their own pockets. This is not an innocent piece of legislation.”

The staff analysis also warned the bill may shift responsibility for determining whether a student’s freedom has been infringed from the faculty to the courts.

But Baxley brushed off Gelber’s concerns. “Freedom is a dangerous thing, and you might be exposed to things you don’t want to hear,” he said. “Being a businessman, I found out you can be sued for anything. Besides, if students are being persecuted and ridiculed for their beliefs, I think they should be given standing to sue.”

During the committee hearing, Baxley cast opposition to his bill as “leftists” struggling against “mainstream society.”

“The critics ridicule me for daring to stand up for students and faculty,” he said, adding that he was called a McCarthyist.

Baxley later said he had a list of students who were discriminated against by professors, but refused to reveal names because he felt they would be persecuted.

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.

“The big hand of state government is going into the universities telling them how to teach,” she said. “This bill is the antithesis of academic freedom.”

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.”

House Bill H-837 can be viewed online at www.flsenate.gov.

http://www.alligator.org/pt2/050323freedom.php

[Cochise]

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

Sounds like a good idea to me when you strip away all the propaganda in the article.

[DaKCMan AP]

HB 0837

1
A bill to be entitled
2 An act relating to student and faculty academic freedom in
3 postsecondary education; amending s. 1002.21, F.S.;
4 providing student rights to academic freedom; creating s.
5 1004.09, F.S.; providing a postsecondary student and
6 faculty academic bill of rights; specifying student,
7 faculty, and instructor rights; requiring the
8 dissemination of copies of the act to state universities
9 and community colleges; providing an effective date.
10
11 WHEREAS, the principles enumerated in this act fully apply
12 only to public postsecondary institutions, and nothing in this
13 act shall be construed as interfering with the right of a
14 private postsecondary institution to restrict academic freedom
15 on the basis of creed or belief, and
16 WHEREAS, the central purposes of a postsecondary
17 institution are the pursuit of truth, the discovery of new
18 knowledge through scholarship and research, the study and
19 reasoned criticism of intellectual and cultural traditions, the
20 teaching and general development of students to help them become
21 creative individuals and productive citizens of a pluralistic
22 democracy, and the transmission of knowledge and learning to
23 society at large, and
24 WHEREAS, free inquiry and free speech within the academic
25 community are indispensable to the achievement of these central
26 purposes which reflect the values of pluralism, diversity,
27 opportunity, critical intelligence, openness, and fairness that
28 are the cornerstones of American society, and
29 WHEREAS, the freedoms to teach and to learn depend upon the
30 creation of appropriate conditions and opportunities on the
31 campus as a whole as well as in the classrooms and lecture
32 halls, and
33 WHEREAS, academic freedom is indispensable to American
34 postsecondary education and, from its first formulation in the
35 General Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure
36 of the American Association of University Professors, the
37 concept of academic freedom has been premised on the idea that
38 human knowledge is the pursuit of truth and that there is no
39 humanly accessible truth that is not in principle open to
40 challenge, and
41 WHEREAS, academic freedom is most likely to thrive in an
42 environment that protects and fosters independence of thought
43 and speech and, in the words of the general report, it is vital
44 to protect as "the first condition of progress, [a] complete and
45 unlimited freedom to pursue inquiry and publish its results,"
46 and
47 WHEREAS, because free inquiry and its fruits are crucial to
48 the democratic enterprise itself, academic freedom is a national
49 value as well, and
50 WHEREAS, in Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University
51 of the State of New York, a historic 1967 decision, the Supreme
52 Court of the United States overturned a New York State loyalty
53 provision for teachers with the words, "Our Nation is deeply
54 committed to safeguarding academic freedom, [a] transcendent
55 value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned,"
56 and
57 WHEREAS, in Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957), the Supreme
58 Court of the United States observed that the "essentiality of
59 freedom in the community of American universities [was] almost
60 self-evident," and
61 WHEREAS, academic freedom consists of protecting the
62 intellectual independence of professors, researchers, and
63 students in the pursuit of knowledge and the expression of ideas
64 from interference by legislators or authorities within the
65 institution itself, meaning that no political or ideological
66 orthodoxy should be imposed on professors and researchers
67 through the hiring, tenure, or termination process or through
68 any other administrative means by the academic institution nor
69 should legislators impose any such orthodoxy through the control
70 of postsecondary institution budgets, and
71 WHEREAS, from the first statement on academic freedom, it
72 has been recognized that intellectual independence means the
73 protection of students as well as faculty from the imposition of
74 any orthodoxy of a political or ideological nature, and
75 WHEREAS, the General Report of the Committee on Academic
76 Freedom and Tenure of the American Association of University
77 Professors admonished faculty to avoid "taking unfair advantage
78 of the student's immaturity by indoctrinating him with the
79 teacher's own opinions before the student has had an opportunity
80 fairly to examine other opinions upon the matters in question,
81 and before he has sufficient knowledge and ripeness of judgment
82 to be entitled to form any definitive opinion of his own," and
83 WHEREAS, in 1967, the American Association of University
84 Professors' Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students
85 reinforced and amplified this injunction by affirming the
86 inseparability of "the freedom to teach and freedom to learn"
87 and, in the words of the joint statement, "Students should be
88 free to take reasoned exception to the data or views offered in
89 any course of study and to reserve judgment about matters of
90 opinion," and
91 WHEREAS, the academic criteria of the scholarly profession
92 should include reasonable scholarly options within the areas of
93 discipline, and
94 WHEREAS, the value of the life of the mind was articulated
95 by Thomas Jefferson when he stated, "We are not afraid to follow
96 truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as
97 reason is left free to combat it," and
98 WHEREAS, the education of the next generation of leaders
99 should contain rigorous and balanced exposure to significant
100 theories and thoughtful viewpoints, and students should be given
101 the knowledge and background that empowers them to think for
102 themselves, NOW, THEREFORE,
103
104 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
105
106 Section 1. Subsection (7) is added to section 1002.21,
107 Florida Statutes, to read:
108 1002.21 Postsecondary student and parent rights.--
109 (7) STUDENT ACADEMIC FREEDOM.--As detailed in s. 1004.09,
110 students have rights to a learning environment in which they
111 have access to a broad range of serious scholarly opinion, to be
112 graded without discrimination on the basis of their political or
113 religious beliefs, and to a viewpoint-neutral distribution of
114 student fee funds.
115 Section 2. Section 1004.09, Florida Statutes, is created
116 to read:
117 1004.09 Postsecondary student and faculty academic bill of
118 rights.--
119 (1) Students have a right to expect a learning environment
120 in which they will have access to a broad range of serious
121 scholarly opinion pertaining to the subjects they study. In the
122 humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, the fostering of
123 a plurality of serious scholarly methodologies and perspectives
124 should be a significant institutional purpose.
125 (2) Students have a right to expect that they will be
126 graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and
127 appropriate knowledge of the subjects they study and that they
128 will not be discriminated against on the basis of their
129 political or religious beliefs.
130 (3) Students have a right to expect that their academic
131 freedom and the quality of their education will not be infringed
132 upon by instructors who persistently introduce controversial
133 matter into the classroom or coursework that has no relation to
134 the subject of study and serves no legitimate pedagogical
135 purpose.
136 (4) Students have a right to expect that freedom of
137 speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom
138 of conscience of students and student organizations will not be
139 infringed upon by postsecondary administrators, student
140 government organizations, or institutional policies, rules, or
141 procedures.
142 (5) Students have a right to expect that their academic
143 institutions will distribute student fee funds on a viewpoint-
144 neutral basis and will maintain a posture of neutrality with
145 respect to substantive political and religious disagreements,
146 differences, and opinions.
147 (6) Faculty and instructors have a right to academic
148 freedom in the classroom in discussing their subjects, but they
149 should make their students aware of serious scholarly viewpoints
150 other than their own and should encourage intellectual honesty,
151 civil debate, and critical analysis of ideas in the pursuit of
152 knowledge and truth.
153 (7) Faculty and instructors have a right to expect that
154 they will be hired, fired, promoted, and granted tenure on the
155 basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in their
156 fields of expertise and will not be hired, fired, denied
157 promotion, or denied tenure on the basis of their political or
158 religious beliefs.
159 (8) Faculty and instructors have a right to expect that
160 they will not be excluded from tenure, search, or hiring
161 committees on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.
162 (9) Students, faculty, and instructors have a right to be
163 fully informed of their rights and their institution's grievance
164 procedures for violations of academic freedom by means of
165 notices prominently displayed in course catalogs and student
166 handbooks and on the institutional website.
167 Section 3. The Chancellor of Colleges and Universities
168 shall provide a copy of the provisions of this act to the
169 president of each state university. The Chancellor of Community
170 Colleges and Workforce Education shall provide a copy of the
171 provisions of this act to the president of each community
172 college.
173 Section 4. This act shall take effect July 1, 2005.

[DanT]

Classic example of a government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. This country has thousands of universities, both private and public, and any school that compromised its teaching function by letting dogma substitute for education would be at a competitive disadvantage relative to other schools, enforced by the wishes of the consumers who would leave the dogmatic school in favor of the less dogmatic one.

[KCTitus]

While in college I was forced to endure the incessant liberal dogma that conflicted with my philosophy of life. It reached a pinnacle in the final semester of my senior year when my last required class was 'liberation theology' -- which was nothing more than the prof preaching the greatness that is socialism and how latin america would be fixed if the govts when socialist and redistributed wealth and land.

I found that the easiest way to pass the class was to recite the rote back to the prof like he wanted to hear it and get the grades. It was probably one of the largest wastes of my time in my entire college life, but I needed it to get the sheepskin so I did it.

[Amnorix]

While in college I was forced to endure the incessant liberal dogma that conflicted with my philosophy of life. It reached a pinnacle in the final semester of my senior year when my last required class was 'liberation theology' -- which was nothing more than the prof preaching the greatness that is socialism and how latin america would be fixed if the govts when socialist and redistributed wealth and land.

I found that the easiest way to pass the class was to recite the rote back to the prof like he wanted to hear it and get the grades. It was probably one of the largest wastes of my time in my entire college life, but I needed it to get the sheepskin so I did it.

That's a poor professor indeed.

I went to a pretty liberal college, but in the classes I took nearly all of the professors respected individual thoughts/beliefs and valued legitimate debate.

I remember one of my best (but most liberal) professors in my senior year assigned a research/writing assignment. I decided to write on "whether the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified". My research led me to believe they were justified, but I was somewhat conflicted as I thought the professor would probably prefer me to go the other way.

I stuck with my principles and wrote the paper the way I wanted, basically saying that based upon all information available to the US leadership and Harry Truman at the time, the bombings were in fact justified.

A+, with complimentary commentary. :thumb: THAT is a good professor.

[Amnorix]

This policy seems to be relatively insane and unenforceable for a number of reasons, but I guess we'll see.

Without reading the entire act, which someone was kind enough to post but which I don't have time to review thoroughly, it seems to me you've got 1st amendment speech concerns, 1st amendment separation of church/state concerns, and issues relating to governmental intrustion into private business (for private universities) which are beyond the government's power.

A judge might have a problem with this.

[KCTitus]

That's a poor professor indeed.

Possibly, I really dont recall much of the class...since not only was it almost 15 years ago, but I didnt pay much attention. I had another class called 'War and International Ethics' and I remember a discussion or topic in that class about the justification of terrorism. Again, I just recited it right back to the prof for the grade...

I wasnt in school for that tripe, I was in school for accounting and it was pretty cut and dried.

As far as this policy is concerned...I think it's worded incorrectly. Since the O'Conner court has decided that diversity is a 'compelling state interest', diversity of thought is what should have been played upon in the bill.

[Cochise]

While in college I was forced to endure the incessant liberal dogma that conflicted with my philosophy of life. ... It was probably one of the largest wastes of my time in my entire college life, but I needed it to get the sheepskin so I did it.

I got the same thing from a literature professor. The entire class consisted of us reading his hand-picked propaganda and discussing the evils of everything that did not proceed out of the mind of Marx and Engels. For the final exam (this was the spring of 1998) we were to come in and read an article sight-unseen and essay on the topic ourselves. He picked an article from The Nation on the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal and had us write what we thought about the whole situation.

Knowing his leanings, I greatly moderated my position to one of "this is an embarassment but the government doesn't need to waste time on it" The point of it was that we should be able to expect better from our elected officials but that they should be attending to the business of the people and not grandstanding on this. On the 1 to 5 scale (5 highest) it was graded on, I received a 1.

Now, far be it from me to suggest that I'm some sort of literary prodigy, but I felt that the essay was very well written, fair, and not deserving of a failing grade. In fact, I received a 5 on the retest (which was graded by another professor).

I think this bill sounds like a good thing, when you take it out of this (ironically) biased column, and read what its intentions are. Perhaps if there was at least the threat of some repricussions, professors wouldn't be so apt to have it in for people who disagree with them and fewer people would have to go through what I did.

It wasn't that big of a deal I suppose. I had to take another 2 hours out to retake it and still ended up getting an A in composition. But it really cheesed me off that he decided to inconvenience me like that because I didn't agree with his opinion on the appropriateness of sexual contact with subordinates in the workplace.

[penchief]

That's a poor professor indeed.

I went to a pretty liberal college, but in the classes I took nearly all of the professors respected individual thoughts/beliefs and valued legitimate debate.

I remember one of my best (but most liberal) professors in my senior year assigned a research/writing assignment. I decided to write on "whether the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified". My research led me to believe they were justified, but I was somewhat conflicted as I thought the professor would probably prefer me to go the other way.

I stuck with my principles and wrote the paper the way I wanted, basically saying that based upon all information available to the US leadership and Harry Truman at the time, the bombings were in fact justified.

A+, with complimentary commentary. :thumb: THAT is a good professor.

My experience is similar. I can't say I've ever been in a college course where questions, discussion, disagreement, and debate weren't welcome for the sake of encouraging students to use their own minds. Fortunately, I can't relate to the bad experiences that some of you have had.

[KCTitus]

My experience is similar. I can't say I've ever been in a college course where questions, discussion, disagreement, and debate weren't welcome for the sake of encouraging students to use their own minds. Fortunately, I can't relate to the bad experiences that some of you have had.

You're a liberal, Im not suprised that you can't relate. The overwhelming majority of profs are liberal so you wouldnt have occasion to disagree.

[Brock]

You're a liberal, Im not suprised that you can't relate. The overwhelming majority of profs are liberal so you wouldnt have occasion to disagree.

He was obviously not a business major.

[keg in kc]

You're a liberal, Im not suprised that you can't relate. The overwhelming majority of profs are liberal so you wouldnt have occasion to disagree.You're thinking of this from a first person perspective when his comment was about "encouraging students to use their own minds". Whether he's a liberal or not wouldn't have any impact on his perception of other students being able and even encouraged to question, discuss, disagree or debate based on their own philosophy. I attended a liberal arts college, and I thought my most interesting course was a religion and ethics course led by an extrememly liberal professor who was not at all shy about asking the opinions of the conservative students in the class, several of whom were actively involved in the campus' Young Republicans organization.

It's just my opinion, but it's not a matter of political bent, it's a matter of the individual professor. Some people are comfortable enough to listen to other views, some aren't. That's true of everyone, liberal or otherwise.

[Amnorix]

Possibly, I really dont recall much of the class...since not only was it almost 15 years ago, but I didnt pay much attention. I had another class called 'War and International Ethics' and I remember a discussion or topic in that class about the justification of terrorism. Again, I just recited it right back to the prof for the grade...

I wasnt in school for that tripe, I was in school for accounting and it was pretty cut and dried.

As far as this policy is concerned...I think it's worded incorrectly. Since the O'Conner court has decided that diversity is a 'compelling state interest', diversity of thought is what should have been played upon in the bill.

The dumping of tea into Boston Harbor was, under certain definitions, a terrorist act. The Founding Fathers engaged in a number of them.

"Terrorism" is in the eye of the beholder. "Freedom Fighters", "Insurgents", "terrorists", "rebels", "revolutionaries", etc., are just a bunch of labels to slap on people involved in a conflict against a greater military power, depending on your particular point of view with regard to that conflict.

[Amnorix]

You're a liberal, Im not suprised that you can't relate. The overwhelming majority of profs are liberal so you wouldnt have occasion to disagree.

Law school, especially Con Law, was an out and out WAR between students, moderated by the Professor. To this day I don't know what the philosophy of the professor of that class was. That is the best kind of professor...

[KCTitus]

You're thinking of this from a first person perspective when his comment was about "encouraging students to use their own minds"....

Actually I was responding to the quote 'Sorry, I can't relate'...the operative term being 'I'.

Aside from that, Im glad not everyone shared my experiences, and really, Im not complaining. Quite the contrary...all I had to do was recite the mantra/rote the liberal prof wanted me to and I got the grades. I didnt give a damn about the material then and have since formed my philosphies in the real world.

My most challenging classes were from profs who didnt make their class a political lecture room when I was required to actually demonstrate actual knowledge of material and think...it didnt happen in the 2 classes I cited.

I dont feel cheated, quite the contrary, I was relieved that it was so easy.

[KCTitus]

Law school, especially Con Law, was an out and out WAR between students, moderated by the Professor. To this day I don't know what the philosophy of the professor of that class was. That is the best kind of professor...

Totally agree...I had a B-Law class in a very similar fashion, which touched on a little law especially commercial paper law. Some of the most entertaining discussions on the most dry subject matter on earth, but I dug it at the time.

[KCTitus]

The dumping of tea into Boston Harbor was, under certain definitions, a terrorist act. The Founding Fathers engaged in a number of them.

"Terrorism" is in the eye of the beholder. "Freedom Fighters", "Insurgents", "terrorists", "rebels", "revolutionaries", etc., are just a bunch of labels to slap on people involved in a conflict against a greater military power, depending on your particular point of view with regard to that conflict.

True...I should have been a little more verbose, we were discussing mideast (palestinian v. israeli) terrorism at the time. I think an analogy was made or attempted to the tea party but it was so many hops ago, I honestly cant remember...without re-arguing the point, I would say violence against humans is a little different than violence against boxes of tea, but I digress.

[the Talking Can]

sweet, now we have the mullahs attacking scholars...peachy

[Amnorix]

True...I should have been a little more verbose, we were discussing mideast (palestinian v. israeli) terrorism at the time. I think an analogy was made or attempted to the tea party but it was so many hops ago, I honestly cant remember...without re-arguing the point, I would say violence against humans is a little different than violence against boxes of tea, but I digress.

:shrug: The whole American Revolution was an "insurgency" by a bunch of "rebels".

Then we won, so the labels changed. If the British had won, the "rebels" (a/k/a the Founding Fathers) would've been hanged by their necks until they were dead.

[KCTitus]

:shrug: The whole American Revolution was an "insurgency" by a bunch of "rebels".

Then we won, so the labels changed. If the British had won, the "rebels" (a/k/a the Founding Fathers) would've been hanged by their necks until they were dead.

I do appreciate the attempt to redefine terrorism...Im not buying it, but whatever makes you sleep better at night.

[Amnorix]

I do appreciate the attempt to redefine terrorism...Im not buying it, but whatever makes you sleep better at night.

It doesnt' affect my sleep either way, but thanks for your concern.

I'm not redefining terorrism, just pointing out that it's just a label.

[HolyHandgernade]

True...I should have been a little more verbose, we were discussing mideast (palestinian v. israeli) terrorism at the time. I think an analogy was made or attempted to the tea party but it was so many hops ago, I honestly cant remember...without re-arguing the point, I would say violence against humans is a little different than violence against boxes of tea, but I digress.


Ever hear of tar and feathering? Not all their activities were against inanimate objects. I believe Ben Franklin's son, who was a loyalist, was run out of town after such a treatment. He survived, but if the tar covers enough of the body, it will kill you.

Granted, this is not on par with strapping explosives onto children. The biggest difference I can discern from the two "resistances" is that the American Revolution had a goal of securing more freedoms for individual citizens whereas many of the Mideast terrorists die for heavily coated religious ideals and autocratic type governments.

Of course our revolution gives rise to secularism which gives rise to liberal professors which gives rise to totalitarian government bills which eventually drags us down into an autocratic regime that people support because they are oppressing our opinions.......but then I digress.

-HH

[KCTitus]

Granted, this is not on par with strapping explosives onto children....

Thankfully, you get my point. The two are not comparable regardless how you wish to label the acts, but I do appreciate the irony of your last paragraph--or at least the lesson in thermodynamic law--for each action there is an equal but opposite reaction.

[KCTitus]

It doesnt' affect my sleep either way, but thanks for your concern.

I'm not redefining terorrism, just pointing out that it's just a label.

You're right...it is just a label. Why is it that I infer some sort of moral equivalence between the two acts. Surely we could agree, like with HH, there are demonstrable differences between the two acts regardless of label.

[Braincase]

The overwhelming majority of profs are liberal so you wouldnt have occasion to disagree.

Link please? Also, do you have a breakdown of liberal vs. conservative by discipline?

[Cochise]

Link please? Also, do you have a breakdown of liberal vs. conservative by discipline?

With the exception of a very few disciplines it is obvious to most who went to college I believe. At least, those who were not liberal enough not to notice.

[|Zach|]

Bearcat2005 is gonna nut when he sees this.

[Simplex3]

Classic example of a government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. This country has thousands of universities, both private and public, and any school that compromised its teaching function by letting dogma substitute for education would be at a competitive disadvantage relative to other schools, enforced by the wishes of the consumers who would leave the dogmatic school in favor of the less dogmatic one.
ROFL

...but they SHOULD stick their nose into your family matters...

ROFL

[Simplex3]

The dumping of tea into Boston Harbor was, under certain definitions, a terrorist act. The Founding Fathers engaged in a number of them.

"Terrorism" is in the eye of the beholder. "Freedom Fighters", "Insurgents", "terrorists", "rebels", "revolutionaries", etc., are just a bunch of labels to slap on people involved in a conflict against a greater military power, depending on your particular point of view with regard to that conflict.

How many innocent civilians died in the Boston Tea Party again?

[DanT]

ROFL

...but they SHOULD stick their nose into your family matters...

ROFL

The government sticks its nose into all sorts of family matters. Violence from one family member against another is as old as the story of Cain and Abel, as are disputes about inheritances, and government serves a useful function in addressing such matters.

[KCWolfman]

Someone should take a stand for honesty with the leftist professors and how they are being downtrodden for standing up for their honest beliefs.

Perhaps this guy?

http://spot.colorado.edu/~ethnicst/Images/Wardchair.jpg

[Simplex3]

The government sticks its nose into all sorts of family matters. Violence from one family member against another is as old as the story of Cain and Abel, as are disputes about inheritances, and government serves a useful function in addressing such matters.
Abuse would be prosecuted family or not. That isn't a family issue. inheritances are only processed by the courts in the absence of a will.

Of course in your world I assume that the parents should be able to challenge for the inheritance over the surviving spouse.

[penchief]

You're a liberal, Im not suprised that you can't relate. The overwhelming majority of profs are liberal so you wouldnt have occasion to disagree.

Not at all. I've taken part in many vigorous debates with profs and fellow students whom I've had differing views. Promoting the exchange of divergent ideas has always been a part of any college course I've been part of. I guess I've just been lucky. But it seems to me that encouraging independent thought is one of the primary purposes of higher education. I would hope that the bad experiences some of you have had are the exceptions and not the norm.

[penchief]

He was obviously not a business major.

That much is true.

[DanT]

Abuse would be prosecuted family or not. That isn't a family issue. inheritances are only processed by the courts in the absence of a will.

Of course in your world I assume that the parents should be able to challenge for the inheritance over the surviving spouse.

Parents should and are able to challenge for an inheritance and probate laws provides a mechanism for arbitrating those challenges. That's the system we have.

The laws we have provide a default mechanism for establishing inheritances in the absence of the will. They do not use the same mechanism for establishing what types of life-sustaining treatment an incapacitated person would want in the absence of a living will. Instead, the courts are supposed to determine that there is clear and convincing evidence that Terri Schiavo would want to have her life-sustaining treatment withdrawn given her present condition and her prognosis. The courts have said that there is; I do not agree with them.

I do not know whether you think that there is "clear and convincing evidence" on that narrow issue or not. Your arguments seem to boil down to your opinion that the husband is and should be in a privileged position to make decisions about Mrs. Schiavo's health care based on the fact that he is the husband. Is that right?

Do you think there is clear and convincing evidence that Terri Schiavo would have decided to have the feeding tube removed?

[Brock]

That much is true.

I certainly didn't need the confirmation, but thanks anyway.

[Amnorix]

Your arguments seem to boil down to your opinion that the husband is and should be in a privileged position to make decisions about Mrs. Schiavo's health care based on the fact that he is the husband. Is that right?
I'm sorry, it's Florida's law that dictates that "the husband is and should be in a privileged position to make decisions about Mrs. Schiavo's health care based on the fact that he is the husband". That's not someone's opinion, that's the law.

Sorry if that little fact is inconvenient to your "life at all costs" position.

[KCWolfman]

I'm sorry, it's Florida's law that dictates that "the husband is and should be in a privileged position to make decisions about Mrs. Schiavo's health care based on the fact that he is the husband". That's not someone's opinion, that's the law.

Sorry if that little fact is inconvenient to your "life at all costs" position.
Sad that we take the word of a man who took 8 years to remember Terri's position.

[KCTitus]

Link please? Also, do you have a breakdown of liberal vs. conservative by discipline?

Heh...I realize you're never going to accept the premise, at this point, and maybe it's your bias not allowing you to accept it. Academia is THE haven for liberals and if you cant accept that, I guess we should go no further.

I will however humor you with a few links, that naturally, you will question or dismiss outright which will reduce the exchange to 'you cannot prove it as a universal truth, therefore it doesnt exist anywhere', when in reality it's commonly accepted by most.

http://www.ryunlv.com/news/2004/03/18/News/Study.Finds.91.Percent.Of.Unlv.Profs.Liberal-636253.shtml

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/gov/2002/pd090502c.html

http://www.collegegop.org/PressReleases/index.cfm/ID/25.htm

http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/news/2005/02/09/News/Professors.Aware.Of.Liberal.Bias-857362.shtml

I really dont understand the desire to deny it or pretend that it doesnt exist. You should revel in this fact that the 'higher' institutions of learning are rife with your political orthodoxy...

[Amnorix]

Sad that we take the word of a man who took 8 years to remember Terri's position.

The judge was the finder of fact in this instance. I can only assume he made a decision on the facts bsaed on a preponderance of the evidence presented before him.

If there are things that undermine Michael Schiavo's credibility, then I also assume they were presented to the judge to the extent they were admissible, and the judge nonetheless ruled as he did.

[Amnorix]

Heh...I realize you're never going to accept the premise, at this point, and maybe it's your bias not allowing you to accept it. Academia is THE haven for liberals and if you cant accept that, I guess we should go no further.

I will agree that, as a general matter, most colleges/universities have a preponderance of liberal professors.

I will however, note that many institutions of higher learning (not least of which are religious schools) are either moderate or conservative-leaning. The law school I attended was fairly conservative, and definitely very different from the undergraduate institution I attended.

Finally, I think "liberals dominate professorships" is at least more true than the old canard "liberal media" label that conservatives have run about as far as it will go.

[KCTitus]

I will agree that, as a general matter, most colleges/universities have a preponderance of liberal professors.

I will however, note that many institutions of higher learning (not least of which are religious schools) are either moderate or conservative-leaning. The law school I attended was fairly conservative, and definitely very different from the undergraduate institution I attended.

Finally, I think "liberals dominate professorships" is at least more true than the old canard "liberal media" label that conservatives have run about as far as it will go.

I guess it depends on how you're using the term 'many' but I agree there are institutions that are as you say, moderate or conservative leaning...the world famous Bob Jones, Oral Roberts, Falwell's university--I cant think of the name right now--and one I wish I could have attended Hillsdale, just to name a few.

Im not saying they dont exist, just that there are not nearly as many.

[DaKCMan AP]

Pending academic freedom bill comes under fire

By JAMES VANLANDINGHAM
Alligator Staff Writer

TALLAHASSEE — The pending Florida House bill that would establish a statewide code of academic freedom is unnecessary, UF officials say, because the university already has significant safeguards in place to protect student and faculty rights.

UF spokesman Joe Kays said the university’s Ombudsman’s Office investigates student and faculty complaints, and helps enforce existing university policies protecting students and faculty from political discrimination or retaliation — concerns bill sponsor Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, cited as reasons for the law.

The Legislature passed a law mandating colleges and universities to establish similar offices in 2002. UF had one much earlier.

“We feel that the legislature has already addressed this issue, and university procedures already address all the concerns Rep. Baxley has in his bill,” Kays said. “Students are pretty well-protected.”

Baxley recently sent a letter to UF President Bernie Machen explaining his reasons for pushing the bill. Kays said Machen received the letter and is formulating UF’s response.

The House Choice and Innovation Committee approved the bill Tuesday.

UF: Restating the obvious

Bob Jerry, dean of the UF Levin College of Law, said the language of Baxley’s bill restates principles of academic freedom enshrined in opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The problem, Jerry said, is that by codifying these principles as Florida statutes, the bill could have serious consequences.

“It is possible that if this were statutory law, academic freedom principles that we test and apply in university and faculty governance forums could be cited in the courts,” Jerry said. “That would be a very different environment for all of us and not one that, in my opinion, would be appropriate.”

Those concerns were echoed in a legislative staff analysis warning that the bill may allow Florida students to sue their professors and universities if they feel ridiculed in class, or if their professors fail to teach “alternative” theories on controversial subjects.

Making an example

At the Tuesday hearing, an example Baxley cited of when students should be allowed to sue is when biology professors teach evolution as fact, failing to acknowledge Creationism.

UF evolutionary geneticist Charles Baer said while he wouldn’t mark down students for not believing in evolution, they would still be expected to complete course work.

“If I was asking them to write a paper on one aspect of evolution, and they said they didn’t believe in evolution so they wouldn’t write a paper, they would be marked down,” he said. “If someone said, ‘I don’t believe in evolution, but if I did, this would be what I’d write,’ that would be OK. I’m not going to flunk someone for not believing in evolution.”

Baer said even if he knew he could be sued he would continue teaching the same way.

“Students should not be ridiculed in class, and in any context, it’s not appropriate, but some students may be touchier than others,” Baer said. “What seems as discussion to some people may seem inappropriate to others.”

Who teaches the teachers?

In urging lawmakers to pass the bill, Baxley said university classrooms have morphed into “niches of totalitarianism” where leftist professors are “dictators who control the indoctrinization of the next generation.”

UF physics professor Pierre Ramond, who serves as chairman of the Faculty Senate, said that demeans students’ intelligence.

“We’re not talking about 4-year-olds here,” he said. “Students have critical thinking ability. If they don’t like what they hear from their professor, they can ditch it.”

And as far as indoctrinization goes, professors combat that threat when they ask questions and force students to think on their own.

Baer said that if students in his class said they believed in Intelligent Design or another theory of Creationism, he would ask them questions in the Socratic method, forcing them to explain the reasoning behind their beliefs.

According to the UF Faculty Handbook, university policy maintains full academic freedom to discuss subjects frankly, select instructional materials and determine grades.

However, UF policy states that professors have several concurrent responsibilities, including “respect [for] the integrity of the evaluation process with regard to students…so that it reflects their true merit.”

“The establishment always tries to brainwash people, whatever the system,” Ramond said. “The only thing we have is critical thinking skills to see what’s good and what’s bad.”

The last thing Florida’s universities need is more litigation forcing professors to change their curricula, Ramond said.

“There are too many lawyers already,” he said.

“We are the guardians of the curriculum, and I think we do a pretty good job. American universities are some of the best in the world. I don’t think there’s a crisis out there.”

http://www.alligator.org/pt2/050324freedom.php

[Amnorix]

I guess it depends on how you're using the term 'many' but I agree there are institutions that are as you say, moderate or conservative leaning...the world famous Bob Jones, Oral Roberts, Falwell's university--I cant think of the name right now--and one I wish I could have attended Hillsdale, just to name a few.

Im not saying they dont exist, just that there are not nearly as many.

Bob Jones is way out there on the right.

Right-leaning (or at least moderate) would be the Catholic institutions of higher learning, of which there are many (although I'm sure it's not a huge percentage of total universities/colleges, however).

[oldandslow]

Yeah, I kind of think it is a bad idea to force biology or geology profs to teach that the earth is only 6,000 years old....or that the earth's rotation stopped in order to give the Israeli's more time to kill philistines...

but that is just me.

[KCTitus]

Bob Jones is way out there on the right.

Right-leaning (or at least moderate) would be the Catholic institutions of higher learning, of which there are many (although I'm sure it's not a huge percentage of total universities/colleges, however).

Bob Jones is no further out of the 'mainstream' than UC Berkeley...

The school I attended was a Jesuit school...the two classes I cited in earlier thread were taught by Jesuits which made their politics known. Im not saying all the Jesuits were that way, I have no idea what the politics of the Jesuit who taught my two economics classes were (although he did teach Keynsian theory) was.

[the Talking Can]

Bob Jones is no further out of the 'mainstream' than UC Berkeley...



I always knew the set theorists at Berkeley were just little Stalins....damn, when did you become Mann Coulter?

[KCTitus]

I always knew the set theorists at Berkeley were just little Stalins....damn, when did you become Mann Coulter?


LOL...while I appreciate the compliment, I find it no suprise that you're unable to at least acknowledge that there exists a far left wing extreme institution just as Bob Jones is a far right extreme. You got that sand packed nice and tight.... :thumb:

[KCWolfman]

The judge was the finder of fact in this instance. I can only assume he made a decision on the facts bsaed on a preponderance of the evidence presented before him.

If there are things that undermine Michael Schiavo's credibility, then I also assume they were presented to the judge to the extent they were admissible, and the judge nonetheless ruled as he did.
Well, if its right when a judge says it and we simply shouldn't question, why did we ever repeal prohibition?

[DanT]

I'm sorry, it's Florida's law that dictates that "the husband is and should be in a privileged position to make decisions about Mrs. Schiavo's health care based on the fact that he is the husband". That's not someone's opinion, that's the law.

Sorry if that little fact is inconvenient to your "life at all costs" position.

Hey Amnorix,

You offered the above comment after quoting the bolded snippet from amid the following three paragraphs of my reply to Simplex3:


The laws we have provide a default mechanism for establishing inheritances in the absence of the will. They do not use the same mechanism for establishing what types of life-sustaining treatment an incapacitated person would want in the absence of a living will. Instead, the courts are supposed to determine that there is clear and convincing evidence that Terri Schiavo would want to have her life-sustaining treatment withdrawn given her present condition and her prognosis. The courts have said that there is; I do not agree with them.

I do not know whether you think that there is "clear and convincing evidence" on that narrow issue or not. Your arguments seem to boil down to your opinion that the husband is and should be in a privileged position to make decisions about Mrs. Schiavo's health care based on the fact that he is the husband. Is that right? [Boldface font not in original.]

Do you think there is clear and convincing evidence that Terri Schiavo would have decided to have the feeding tube removed?

From what I understand, the courts had to determine that there is "clear and convincing evidence" about what Terri Schiavo would want and, absent the determination that she would want the tube removed, the feeding tube would have remained in place, without any regard for what the husband would wish to decide to do about the feeding tube.

Did you mean by your earlier comment that the law is something different and that there is a Florida law that empowers the husband to make a decision with regard to pulling a wife's feeding tube in the absence of "clear and convincing evidence" about the wife's wishes? If so, I would appreciate it if you would cite said law.

(A few years back, as a matter of fact, the Florida courts had made a determination that there was clear and convincing evidence about Terri Schiavo's wishes would be. Perhaps it was in view of that fact that your comments were intended? )

[DanT]

I found what might be the most pertinent law for what I've talked about in this thead. It's Florida State Code 765.401 (3). If I understand it correctly and if there isn't some other law that overrides it, then it clearly shows that I was wrong. There does not have to be "clear and convincing evidence" about what Terri Schiavo would have wanted before the proxy (Michael Schiavo) can make a decision. There could also be "no indication of what the patient would have chosen". Earlier in that chapter, there is clear priority given to the husband over the parents in determining who the proxy would be. I had already known that. What I hadn't known was that the "clear and convincing evidence" [of Terri Schiavo's wishes] was not necessary.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0765/SEC401.HTM&Title=->2004->Ch0765->Section%20401#0765.401

(3) Before exercising the incapacitated patient's rights to select or decline health care, the proxy must comply with the provisions of ss. 765.205 and 765.305, except that a proxy's decision to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the decision would have been the one the patient would have chosen had the patient been competent or, if there is no indication of what the patient would have chosen, that the decision is in the patient's best interest.

[Braincase]

With the exception of a very few disciplines it is obvious to most who went to college I believe. At least, those who were not liberal enough not to notice.

Please tell me which disciplines are liberal and which are conservative. Sweeping statements are easy to make, but unless you can break down the numbers, it's just an opinion.

[Pitt Gorilla]

I hope these morons realize that EVERY perspective is a bias.

[KCTitus]

Interesting update, another study which shows over a 3-1 dominance of liberal profs. Here's yet another link for Braincase who mysteriously disappeared after I provided 3 other links he requested...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html?nav=rss_politics

I dont see what's so hard about just admitting this one simple fact.