THE U.S. House of Representatives is currently giving consideration to a resolution with great implications for both the University and the world of higher education. This "Academic Bill of Rights" is the brainchild of David Horowitz, the executive director of Students for Academic Freedom. The bill's ostensible purpose is to promote the discussion of all different points of view in American college classrooms -- a noble goal, but, thankfully, a highly redundant one.
At this university, we pride ourselves highly on the freedom of students and faculty to possess and defend any viewpoint. You'll find Thomas Jefferson's quote "For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it" inscribed on the side of New Cabell Hall. Universities around the country generally hold their faculties to similar standards.
Students for Academic Freedom has numerous examples to the contrary to cite in support of the "Bill of Rights," but taken as a whole, these examples of what SAF calls "professorial prejudices" constitute an extremely small portion of the higher education community. Although a report, for instance, of one professor at the University of Northern Colorado showing political bias in an essay question is regrettable, such isolated incidents are the exception rather than the rule and are usually dealt with appropriately.
The resolution currently in the House, HR 609, states among its provisions that schools should ensure that "the selection of speakers and allocation of funds for speakers, programs, and other student activities will utilize methods that promote intellectual pluralism and include diverse viewpoints." This language seems to place a higher emphasis on achieving some artificial degree of dissension than on bringing in the most knowledgeable teachers and guests -- a confusing stance, considering that at the same time, SAF wants students to be judged solely based on the "basis of their reasoned answers."
Additionally, the resolution calls for the presentation of "diverse approaches and dissenting sources and viewpoints within the instructional setting." Richard Handler, associate dean of academic programs and a professor of Anthropology, said in an interview that instructors' own views on subjects are actually more valuable than an investigation of every position out there. "I tell my students that there are other viewpoints out there," he said. "If you want another viewpoint, take another course."
It also seems clear that one of the main purposes of the "Bill of Rights" is to combat what SAF perceives as an oppressive majority of liberals in higher education. Although there is no denying that more college faculty have liberal views than conservative ones, Handler said that there are certainly more conservatives in academia than is commonly thought. There are numerous theories at to why liberal views are the most common among academics, but it would be counterproductive to try to artificially avoid this phenomenon.
At any rate, the "Academic Bill of Rights" is an out-and-out waste of time. It is a mistake to assume that significant numbers of professors discriminate against conservative students based on isolated examples, and if and when this occurs, good universities will rectify the problem.
As for the danger of "indoctrination" replacing education, students are generally intelligent enough to think for themselves. You'll hear many first years around Grounds say that their government teachers in high school had strong political leanings that sometimes showed themselves, but few, if any, were converted to any particular party or ideology because of it.
Not only is this an unnecessary measure, but this "Bill of Rights" could end up having negative repercussions. The United States takes great pride in having a world-class system of colleges and universities. Approving such a measure as this amounts to an admission that a lack of discussion exists on our campuses, even though nothing could be further from the truth.
And although the resolution contains no punitive provisions for schools that don't promote "intellectual plurality," remarks by Horowitz cited in an Oct. 7 Cavalier Daily atricle suggested that such inaction on the University's part could make it harder for the school to obtain funding.
The "Academic Bill of Rights" needs to be shelved. One would think that the House Committee on Education and Workforce would have bigger fish to fry than to so clumsily restate the rights that American students already enjoy.
Matt Waring is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint writer.
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 3 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 3 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
