"Explain why George Bush is a war criminal," read an essay question in a criminology class at the University of Northern Colorado. The student, who disagreed with the question's "politically-based" premise, proceeded to substitute the question explaining instead "why Saddam Hussein should be considered a war criminal." She received an F (presumably because she did not answer the question).
But that "travesty" should not have occurred, according to David Horowitz and one of his comical new campaigns, the "Academic Bill of Rights." The campaign is a response to what Horowitz sees as a leftist-liberal assault on American higher education that is indoctrinating American youth, silencing conservative faculty members and ridiculing conservative students.
I first heard about ABOR when Ashley Lubenkov, field organizer for the Free Exchange on Campus Coalition, visited various organizations at the University to lead a counter-campaign against it last month. According to Lubenkov, some of ABOR's principles are: No faculty shall be hired or fired on the basis of their political or religious beliefs; students cannot be graded on the basis of their ideological beliefs; and students must be exposed to diverse viewpoints -- even those that contradict the professor's.
Such protections already exist in much of American higher education. At our very own University, discrimination is prevented in training, faculty recruitment and employment opportunities. According to Brad Holland, the UNC ombudsman, students who feel discriminated with regard to their political affiliation may file a formal complaint directly with the Office of Equal Opportunity Programs. A quick look at any major institute of higher education shows these basic protections also already exist. We do not need ABOR to clamor for these basic rights because they are already enshrined in institutional documents.
Secondly, Horowitz's campaign offers no concrete evidence that conservative discrimination and leftist predominance exist in the United States. Instead, unsubstantiated anecdotal accounts are often presented to falsely substantiate a farcical campaign.
For example, Horowitz told the tale of Kelly Keehan of Penn State, who was enrolled in a women's studies class that was made to chant the word "abortion" repeatedly after a student presentation about the topic. However, subsequent conversations with state authorities that conducted academic freedom hearings in Pennsylvania, as well as with the administration, showed no record of such a complaint being registered. ABOR does not deserve anything but ridicule if none of its fairy tales can be substantiated or verified.
Even if we grant Horowitz the fact that there is a disproportionate number of liberal professors at academic institutions, this does not automatically mean there is an ideological bias in faculty hiring. An equally valid explanation could be that conservative ideology and its proponents are less qualified than their liberal counterparts, there is a lesser demand for such courses, and that right-wing ideas are simply out of fashion. After all, universities, including this one, have written statements that are directly against ideological discrimination.
If this is the case, right-wing professors should gain positions back by strengthening their academic records, not through some kind of intellectual affirmative action program that ABOR promotes.
Third, it is a wonder as to how these prescriptions will actually be implemented. ABOR forces professors to perform an impossible and illogical academic balancing act instead of promoting rigorous scholarship.In terms of logical coherence, as others have highlighted before, should a Holocaust class set aside equal time for Holocaust denial? What about an equal segment for creation myths in a biology class on genetics?
Fourth, professors, because of their superior education and training, are conferred the right to make a curriculum and set tests for classes. Though students should challenge what is being taught or what they read, they must also respect the professor's right to set test questions. Substituting a question with another one as was done with the Bush as a war criminal question challenges a professor's right to set test questions. Proposing a strong counterargument as to why Bush is not a war criminal shows a critical evaluation of the texts and the course. A distinction should be made between dissension and denial.
Lastly, are we that stupid as students to be so easily susceptible to such "indoctrination?" If our views are so infantile and malleable, they probably deserve to be changed, and we probably do not deserve to be here. And if you should feel your beliefs are so weakened by the course, then drop it. Because surely, we do not need ABOR to tell us what to do.
Prashanth Parameswaran's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at pparameswaran@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
COHEN: Charlottesville must embrace a comprehensive solution to homelessness
By Ryan Cohen | 11 hours agoThe city has made several past efforts to reduce homelessness, but the growing number of unhoused people suggests that these temporary solutions are simply not enough.
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | 4 days agoHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 6 days agoStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
