Michael Bérubé - American Airspace

48 Hours

On Tuesday of last week, voting along party lines, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed House Resolution 177, “establishing a select committee to examine the academic atmosphere and the degree to which faculty have the opportunity to instruct and students have the opportunity to learn in an environment conducive to the pursuit of knowledge and truth at State-related and State-owned colleges and universities and community colleges in this Commonwealth.” It’s nice that my local Republican representatives have decided that the House should take the time to make sure that I have the “opportunity” to instruct my students, and that my students have the “opportunity” to learn. Specifically, the select committee is charged with determining whether:

(1) faculty are hired, fired, promoted and granted tenure based on their professional competence and subject matter knowledge and with a view of helping students explore and understand various methodologies and perspectives;

(2) students have an academic environment, quality life [sic] on campus and reasonable access to course materials that create an environment conducive to learning, the development of critical thinking and the exploration and expression of independent thought and that the students are evaluated based on their subject knowledge; and

(3) that students are graded based on academic merit, without regard for ideological views, and that academic freedom and the right to explore and express independent thought is available to and practiced freely by faculty and students.

The committee can call hearings and conduct investigations until June 30, 2006—or it “may extend the investigation for additional time,” until November 30—whereupon it will “make a report of its findings and any recommendations for remedial legislation and other appropriate action.”

Oh, and by the way, here’s a “resolved” clause so important that the original document puts it in ALL CAPS:

RESOLVED, THAT IF AN INDIVIDUAL MAKES AN ALLEGATION AGAINST A FACULTY MEMBER CLAIMING BIAS, THE FACULTY MEMBER MUST BE GIVEN AT LEAST 48 HOURS’ NOTICE OF THE SPECIFICS OF THE ALLEGATION PRIOR TO THE TESTIMONY BEING GIVEN AND BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY AT THE SAME HEARING AS THE INDIVIDUAL MAKING THE ALLEGATION.

That’s nice too, isn’t it? First the legislature wants to ensure that I have the opportunity to instruct my students, and then it gives me the opportunity to testify at the same hearing as any student making an allegation against me. So many “opportunities” here! I appreciate the 48 hours’ notice so that I can set my affairs in order, too. I hear that the original language was much harsher, and that House Republicans were simply planning to dispatch the special House Public Enemies Van to the offices of accused faculty members, and then lead them out of their buildings and into the back of the van under armed guard. But the House dropped that provision in favor of this one, reportedly because people might get the wrong idea about this bill.

Now, regular readers of this blog will know that the language of paragraphs (1)-(3) in the first “resolved” clause is based on David Horowitz’s “Academic Bill of Rights,” and you may know that Horowitz has hailed H.R. 177 as “a tremendous victory for academic freedom”. You may also know that Horowitz claimed victory last month as well, when the American Council on Education and 25 other higher education organizations issued a two-page statement in support of “intellectual pluralism and academic freedom” on American campuses. As Scott Jaschik wrote in Inside Higher Ed on June 23,

Organizers hoped the statement would deflate the movement in state legislatures and Congress to enact the Academic Bill of Rights. Horowitz called the statement “a major victory” for his campaign and said that it opened up the possibility that he would work directly with colleges on remaining differences of opinion, rather than seeking legislation.

Well, so much for that little “let’s head D. Ho. off at the pass” strategy, folks! But let’s get this much straight. The ACE-and-friends statement was not a major victory for Horowitz. Claiming victory is a political tactic, people, and Horowitz is exceptionally good at it. Indeed, if Horowitz were the head of the National Hockey League Players’ Association, he would have claimed victory by now. “The lockout has been a tremendous success,” he’d be saying. “We couldn’t have asked for anything better.” So I didn’t worry about Horowitz claiming victory last month; on the contrary, I was quoted at the end of that June 23 article, to the effect that the ACE statement was no big deal:

Bérubé said that the statement from college groups embraces only “the innocuous parts” of Horowitz’s proposals while rejecting “the truly obnoxious aspect,” a move to have legislators “be empowered to investigate individual teachers and reading lists.”

Yeah, well, so much for my little strategy, too. Because you know what? This latest “tremendous victory” for David Horowitz really is a tremendous victory, and it retroactively makes a victory out of what, in June, had effectively been a tie. Now we’ve got the Horowitz-inspired ACE document, drafted in the hopes of deflating ABOR-influenced bills in state legislatures, and we’ve got a Horowitz-inspired bill passed by a state legislature, too. And this one includes one of the most obnoxious aspects of Horowitz’s campaign: the power to investigate individual teachers and reading lists.

Though we do get 48 hours to respond.

I have only a few (rather predictable) remarks about all this.

One. We got punk’d. The ACE, the AAUP, and every other organization that believed it could derail Horowitz’s campaign simply by reiterating the very rhetoric he’d gotten from these organizations’ previous statements, from the AAUP’s 1915 General Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure on forward, and publishing it all in a statement supporting “intellectual pluralism”—y’all got taken. Badly. Believe me, I’ve been there, and I know.

Two. Shame to say, Pennsylvania now has—officially, indisputably—the most gullible lower legislative house in the country. They didn’t fall for this nonsense in any of the other states where Horowitzian bills have been introduced. They didn’t fall for it California, or Colorado, or Georgia, or Ohio. They’re not falling for it in Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, or Washington. Damn, they didn’t even fall for it in Florida, for goodness’ sake. Only in Pennsylvania has a state legislature adopted a Horowitzian professor-investigating scheme. Congratulations, Pennsylvania House Republicans! You have now outdone the rest of the Republic, even unto the most dogmatic creationists in the legislative chambers of the other 49 states. I do hope your investigations go well. Which brings me to . . .

Three. If I were a crafty SOB like Horowitz, and wanted to throw a spanner in the local right-wing works, I’d go after the most nebulous clause in paragraphs (1)-(3), the one that asks whether “students have an academic environment, quality life [sic] on campus and reasonable access to course materials that create an environment conducive to learning.” I’d begin gathering statements from gay, African-American and other minority students about whether their quality of campus life creates an environment conducive to learning. I’d flood the legislature with complaints about College Republicans and their little “affirmative action bake sales,” which are patently obvious attempts to insult and belittle black and Hispanic students. I’d make H.R. 177 a referendum on investigating incidents of racism, sexism, and homophobia throughout the State-related and State-owned colleges and universities of this fair Commonwealth. It would be a terrible mess, and it would lead to all manner of strange allegations. But that’s what I’d do if I were a crafty SOB. Just saying.

Four. Finally, there’s the question of how all this affects me as a professor at the Pennsylvania State University. I’m not really sure yet. I was planning to offer a course on slave narratives and American literature, but now I don’t know whether the syllabus is sufficiently respectful of different points of view. With all due respect to my esteemed U.S. Senator, Rick Santorum, I know that my current syllabus does not contain any material that suggests that slavery might have been better than abortion. I was going to assign the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, but until now had given no thought to asking students to research the Anthony family’s account of what it was like to own Douglass. Nor was I going to ask students to read any material on slavery’s economic benefits, any Christian defenses of the rightness of slavery, or any examples of the once-widespread argument that slaves were constitutionally incapable of self-governance. And as Horowitz’s “Students for Academic Freedom” correctly notes, “you can’t get a good education if they’re only telling you half the story.” So I could probably use some help putting together my reading list, lest it turn out to be unacceptably hostile to certain “dissenting” points of view.

Those of you (in academe or out) who live in Pennsylvania, who have been to Pennsylvania, or who have heard of Pennsylvania might take some interest in this. Please contact Pennsylvania Representative Mark B. Cohen (D - Philadelphia County), who recently wrote on Dr. B.’s blog that

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.

Rep. Cohen, this humble blog stands ready and willing to provide backup support. My book in progress has an entire chapter on Horowitzian attacks on professors, and I’d be happy to provide you with a manuscript copy of the chapter (and whatever else you think might help) as a public service to my fellow citizens. And readers, feel free to offer advice, information, and survival tips.

Posted by on 07/11 at 01:21 PM

"I hear that the original language was much harsher, and that House Republicans were simply planning to dispatch the special House Public Enemies Van to the offices of accused faculty members, and then lead them out of their buildings and into the back of the van under armed guard.”

The only vans I get into are VW Whales with flowers on the side, stuffed with barefooted Joanna Pettet look-alikes, and with (like Superfly’s ‘chine) the latest 8-track tape player
rockin the back from all four directions.

Which reminds me: has anybody ever mentioned *The President’s Analyst* in answer to one of your movie questions?

Posted by on 07/11 at 02:53 PM
i’m sorry, you just have me as a first (or near first) comment.

as i spent too long in academia (my mother had cancer & she wanted me to go to grad school & all that, me i just wanted to be a groupie, but by the time the 80s rolled around (or over us all, which is what they truly did) there was really no reason for that occupation), this bitter sword hit me to the heart. shouldnt have, but it did.

besides, i have this horowitz guy’s book under the bed. some creepy conservative i once knew on line (a =really= creepy one) told me i would not be a conservative any more if i read this book, so i decided not to read it (i had planned to. the same mother i mentioned above told me we had to know what our enemies were up to; at the time, before she died, she thought our enemies were “u.s. news & world report"). i have a good enough idea about him though. he -hates- his parents. he -hates- the =really= creepy people on the left into which he ran, headlong, as have we all. this changed his ideology. he was not mature enough to understand the ideology does not change w/ the creeps; the ideology is firm unto itself, the creeps do not -own- how a person thinks. they may own david horowitz’ mind (he has given into them) but they do not own mine, or yrs, or anyone elses, who has his or her own ability to critically think. my personal belief is that david horowitz has had both bad faith & fractured analysis, then again, not enough people paid the amount of attention to him that he wanted & he sure enough is getting it now.

did i mention that the aforementioned mother was also a psychoanalyst?? & perhaps that i think the personal is not only political, but that politics need be analysed still in a personal fashion (as they once were, as culture once was)?? probably not, but it may come across (if anyone ever reads the meanderments i write).

at any rate, my comment beyond this is that --No. Three-- in penn. & beyond (for penn may prove to be just a test state) is not just theoretical, it is what i would call an absolute DO. for what has the rightwing done but co-opt the simplest strategies of the left (clarence thomas on the court is an easy example) & begin to --own-- things we cannot easily take back as ours?? SABOT & DETOURN. if they write it, if they set it in stone, it may be set but they cannot set how it is used-- yr example is PERFECT. & if they re-write their legislation after what they hath wrought, go around & through them once again. it is time to use -their- tactics against them, the way they have learned to use the lefts honorable goals against the left these last 25 years.

as horrible as it may sound to pacifists & those of us who would never eat a bacon sandwich (i raise my hand to this for the same amount of time quoted above) we must pierce them to their utmost cold hearts using their own petards. it’s the long dormant (sort of) Ultimate L.A. Rock Chick in me, forced into performance art school that knows -that- answer.

Posted by on 07/11 at 03:17 PM
The reality-based community is absolutely going to continue losing to Horowitz’ ilk until we become willing to fight it out as viciously as they do. Someone has to organize the major campuses in Pennsylvania to get liberal students to complain about every conservative professor. Especially those in the prestigious and grant-attracting fields that business cares about. Every economist who quotes Milton Friedman without Galbraith. Every electrical engineer who offhandedly comments about his Christian belief. Only once it becomes clear that the pain is going to be spread will you get the academic solidarity that you need to defeat these attacks.

There are a number of Pennsylvania student organizations that could be reasonably tapped for this role. Clearly, it has to be done by students, rather than professors, in order to forestall future investigations.

Posted by on 07/11 at 03:18 PM
change “would not be a conservative” to “would not be a leftie” (which is what he always called me). that guy was such a creep, he always shook me up to the marrow. mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. if anyone read that even that far down (second paragraph), that is what i meant. i bet there are more mistakes too.

Posted by on 07/11 at 03:19 PM
Well, if I were an untenured professor in Pennsylvania I’d be pretty concerned. The 48 hours to pack some clean underwear and toothbrush might benefit tenured faculty. Without that protection, however, succumbing to red-baiting by creating PC syllabi (why can’t progressives appropriate the language of the right when it suits them?)and limiting class discussion to attenuated, safe topics might become the rule among junior faculty. And what sort of kangaroo court will hear allegations and responses? Will it be a panel of the same pinheads who passed the legislation in the first place? Will conservative professors face the same kind of scrutiny?

The big problem is the distorted view of what really goes on in classrooms engendered by this kind of legislation. The “big victory” for Horowitz is that a duly elected body actually bought his baseless ideological line about the victimization of conservative students. This legislation is another Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

Posted by on 07/11 at 03:27 PM
Everyone can and will play by those rules. So the outcome may be a wash. but it will be a terrible waste of time and energy better left to the actual craft of education.

I would think that the Business Administration and Economics departments would be sources of bias that the proponents of this legislation did not have in mind.

Posted by on 07/11 at 03:32 PM
i would also like to note that there has been for years (even in blue cities, in blue counties, in blue states) a certain sort of codification going on of all stripe, ie:

it is okay to be a leftist professor (or student, or activist) IF.....

& while these qualifications are not written down, & will not get you fired (NECESSARILY) they certainly do exist. it certainly is difficult to get -hired- (not impossible, but difficult) w/o a certain adherence to at least some of them.

i must admit i am thinking of art departments here, i am thinking of the academization of ALL art, the cross-polinization (in the -worst- possible way) of art & design, & the utter takeover of linguistics/poststructuralism as if “the blob” in a theater filled w/ teens over people more than old enough to know better.

i am uncertain whether this belongs under this topic, although in some ways i am absolutely certain that it does. for while, as i noted above, none of these qualifications are -legislated- they are in a way -mandated-. & nope, in no way am i looking for a teaching job, i -never- was, so it isnt bitterness on my part. it’s fear. the reason i find the author of this blog so interesting (my closest friend found him on the radio & had me listen) is that he --questions-- (mitzvah) this stuff. i dont know who will get him at penn first, david horowitz or the postpostpolice. it’s a real wonder to me.

the postpostpolice --did-- get my mentor & my co-mentor, his wife, who resigned (or were forced to. i always think of them like “the prisoner” w/ XXXXXs on their heads) --he is the most famous performance artist ALIVE). is it better or worse to lose ones job via the right or the left?? there is a real question.

Posted by on 07/11 at 03:49 PM
” I was planning to offer a course on slave narratives and American literature, but now I don’t know whether the syllabus is sufficiently respectful of different points of view… I was going to assign the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, but until now had given no thought to asking students to research the Anthony family’s account of what it was like to own Douglass. Nor was I going to ask students to read any material on slavery’s economic benefits, any Christian defenses of the rightness of slavery, or any examples of the once-widespread argument that slaves were constitutionally incapable of self-governance.”

I know that you meant this as a joke, but I actually think that it might make for interesting reading. The Anthony family probably didn’t think much about owning Douglass, and the contrasts between their accounts and Douglass’s could be really enlightening. In fact the economy of the Anthony perspective could be quite interesting in narratological terms. (I’m sure that I’m not using the word “narratological” properly. I only mean that what is left out of the account by those in power is as revealing as what the slave writes about his own condition, even if the prose is not as elegant.

Posted by on 07/11 at 04:03 PM
As an untenured professor in a state-run Pennsylvania university, Chris, I’m not particularly concerned. I can always do something else for a living, something that would take quite a bit less of my time, allowing me to do my research and writing in peace. I mean, I love teaching, but I’m not going to let the right or any legislature intimidate me into doing things in ways other than the ones I believe are right. Nor am I going to fight simply to protect myself… something greater is at stake here than my paltry career.

That said, I clearly do believe we need to do more than either bury our heads in the sand or circle our wagons and wait for the next attack. One of the first things that needs doing is creation of a demonstration of just how little these legislators know about education. We should ask them all, “When was the last time you visited a classroom?” and “Have you examined the syllabi of any representative sampling of courses?” Oh… I can think of dozens of other questions, but each would lead to even more. I think we would find that few of our legislators have any real and recent personal knowledge of how our universities actually operate--nor do they understand the roles of accrediting organizations, etc., in formatting higher education in America.

These people can be buried in their own ignorance, and should be.

Posted by Aaron Barlow on 07/11 at 04:16 PM
Dale: “Everyone can and will play by those rules. So the outcome may be a wash. but it will be a terrible waste of time and energy better left to the actual craft of education.”

I’m not so sure that everyone will. I could easily see our side not bothering to—too much time and energy, too unpleasant, too pointless, too unacademic.

In which case we really will get an education.

Remember, it doesn’t matter whether the “court” that takes up the complaints is biased or not. The purpose is to, first, scare conservative academics outside of the humanities out of their complacency, second, to win public relations points by generating a lot of complaints against conservatives and thus turning the topic to conservative bias, third, to discredit the investigators by making it clear that they will only investigate claims of liberal bias.

Posted by on 07/11 at 04:19 PM
Nor was I going to ask students to read any material on slavery’s economic benefits,

A typical leftist omission, might I add. You people just can’t stand to admit to your confiscatory practices, fighting Lincoln’s war whose real purpose was to take away billions of dollars of personal property from its rightful owners, utterly destroying an industry that provided hundreds of thousands of jobs, some of them paid. There’s a direct line of descent between the Emancipation Proclamation and Kelo v. New London, you know.

Posted by Chris Clarke on 07/11 at 04:19 PM
I look forward to reading stories detailing the bi-annual hullaballo surrounding the “Upanishads as Literature” course.

Posted by Roxanne on 07/11 at 04:32 PM
I was just about to ask whether these Republican politicians really have so little to do that they want to take on the job of being the “thought police” when it dawned on me that I’d much rather have them doing this than some other stuff they might try (since they’re not busy).

Where better to stage this fight than at the doorway to higher education? Universities are where education transcends ignorance, which is why D. Ho and his ilk are so terrified of them. As Bill Clinton says,"When people think, Democrats win.”

Without ignorance, the Republicans got nuthin’.

This fight can be won.

Posted by on 07/11 at 04:33 PM
I always suspected that a state (i.e., Pennsylvania) with those ridiculous beer & alcohol stores had to be f*cked up (self-censorship. Sorry.). Now, my suspicions have been confirmed. I hear Ireland is a nice place to live.

Posted by on 07/11 at 05:06 PM
Did Ed Rendell sign this piece of shit?

Posted by on 07/11 at 06:29 PM
I taught that Upanishads (and the Tao te Ching) as Literature course last year, and not a peep.

Posted by on 07/11 at 06:42 PM
I taught that Upanishads (and the Tao te Ching) as Literature course last year, and not a peep.

A true culture jammer would insist on teaching them as an alternative point of view in classes on evolution.

Posted by Chris Clarke on 07/11 at 06:45 PM
Chuck, this wasn’t a bill that passed both houses but a resolution of the lower house that establishes a select committee to investigate faculty. Now, where I have heard of state legislative committees investigating teachers in K-12 and universities before?…

Rich, you write, The reality-based community is absolutely going to continue losing to Horowitz’ ilk until we become willing to fight it out as viciously as they do. Someone has to organize the major campuses in Pennsylvania to get liberal students to complain about every conservative professor.

Yikes. Conservative faculty know that they need the protections of academic freedom as much as I do, and you’d be hard pressed to find many true conservative faculty who like Horowitz’s efforts. Why be so vicious that we lose our natural allies?

That isn’t to say that we need to lie down and let a state committee roll over academic freedom. There are plenty of shrewd ways to address this, and since I’ve passed on my own pitiful suggestions to Rep. Cohen, I suspect I’m not alone. There will be responses, and probably some pretty clever ones. My colleagues and I didn’t t need to be vicious to win in Florida, and my Pennsylvania colleagues don’t need to be vicious to win there.

Posted by Sherman on 07/11 at 06:46 PM
So does the biology department have to give time to creation theory?

I hoped Chris Clarke was kidding, but I think he isn’t. I suppose he also thinks torture has its merits, too. Well, yes, of course he must, since this law calls for a star chamber and he doesn’t object to that.

The wonderfully perverse democratic character of your suggested mode of undermining this law makes me wish I lived in Pennsylvania...good luck to you all.

Posted by on 07/11 at 06:57 PM
Conservative faculty know that they need the protections of academic freedom as much as I do, and you’d be hard pressed to find many true conservative faculty who like Horowitz’s efforts. Why be so vicious that we lose our natural allies?

Exactly. And conservative faculty, if they have any sense, wouldn’t want liberal legislators investigating students’ “quality of life” on campuses, either.

Abby, point taken, even if meant half-facetiously. And of course, including pro-slavery literature on the syllabus would make the “conservatives” of yore look pretty damn bad, so there’s that to consider, too. I just don’t think these things should be overseen by the legislature, myself.

Posted by Michael on 07/11 at 07:00 PM
Completely kidding, Aunt Deb. I had my snark turned all the way up to 11.

I should remember how dangerous that is, in a time when people can call for flaying of truants and be taken seriously as pundits.

Posted by Chris Clarke on 07/11 at 07:10 PM
I’m normally not such an optimist, but I honestly don’t see this amounting to much, in Pennsylvania or elsewhere. It just seems too general to have real teeth and too centralized to insinuate itself into the basic procedures and processes that make up the daily life of the university. Most professors, even the “political” ones, I would imagine, won’t worry a lick. And if it blows up in one or several professors’ faces, then it won’t be too hard to show how absurd the logic behind the resolution is. Maybe, though, I’m just being a polyanna about this.

(For the record, I will soon, ideally anyway, be an assistant professor, and it could as easily be in Pennsylvania as any other state. And I can assure you that I would/will not give any state or federal legislative resolutions or SAF manifestos a second though when I put together my syllabi.)

What does frighten me, though, is the “money follows the student” financing that Colorado has adopted a version of and Minnesota is considering (and maybe other states by now.) That’s where money normally allocated to universities is given directly to students in the form of stipends instead. It’s supposed to make the university more “market-oriented.” Now that’s the kind of change that can really do some damage to academic freedom. Anybody else heard about this? Am I making too big a deal out of it? Am I not making a big enough deal out of the Penn House resolution?

Posted by on 07/11 at 07:19 PM
Sherman writes: “Conservative faculty know that they need the protections of academic freedom as much as I do, and you’d be hard pressed to find many true conservative faculty who like Horowitz’s efforts. Why be so vicious that we lose our natural allies?”

I think that’s naive. Conservatives certainly do not need protections of academic freedom as much as liberals do, and they know it. As for “hard pressed”, U of Pennsylvania is supposed to be the third most conservative Ivy. Let’s start with Alan Charles Kors, professor of history at U. Penn. and frequent speaker with Horowitz. He is co-founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, an organization that mostly attacks so-called “political correctness” and speech codes. Let’s start by seeing if he supports this measure.

Or why not drop a line to the Wharton School of Business and ask whether they have spoken out against this? I would guess that they are comfortable in their assumption that this will never affect them, and they probably haven’t even thought about it. Well, after the first complaint, maybe they will.

Posted by on 07/11 at 07:43 PM
Well, as junior faculty, and having gotten (despite the fact thay my student evaluations are by and large excellent, natch) the occasional “professor has a feminist bias” in my evals, I have to admit that I would find this somewhat sobering, if I were in Pennsylvania. I can just see trying to explain to my department head that I have to cancel classes for the rest of the week in order to show up for my “hearing,” as well. I fondly remember the student who sat in the back of the classroom all semester, never said a word or asked a question, froze when called upon and mumbled something about “not knowing” until I called on someone else, never came to my office to ask for help, pulled a C or C- in the course, and sent me an email six months later saying that the only reason I had given him a C was because I was clearly prejudiced against men (in fact, two of my three favorite students in that class were men, and one was a raging conservative who challenged almost everything that came out of my mouth, just for the sake of doing it. His best friend, one of my other favorite students, was a young feminist who regularly rolled her eyes at him). Anyway, it came to nothing but I shudder to think what a hassle it’s going to be when every surly creep who resents his professor files a complaint. I’m sure this will greatly help the productivity and retention of women and minority faculty, who I’m willing to bet will be the focus of most of the complaints.

I suggest that we add to Michael’s hypothetical uses of the commission a plan to have the conscientious students file a complaint against the commission every time their professor is hauled out of class to attend a hearing, because obviously such activity disrupts their learning.

Posted by bitchphd on 07/11 at 08:04 PM
University of Pennsylvania, the ivy league school, is private, so presumably wouldn’t be covered by this bill.

The point of using this bill against conservative professors would be to demonstrate how the bill would basically shut down the university.

Posted by Jonathan on 07/11 at 08:07 PM
Michael,

I wouldn’t have the legislature involved in the selection of syllabi either. I just thought, as an aside, that all that stuff could make for interesting reading that might make us appreciate Douglas et al. better.

Aunt Deb Chris Clarke</b> beat me to it, but I wanted to point out that he’s a regular at PZ Myers Pharyngula and his own environmentally oriented blog is very pro-science.

Posted by on 07/11 at 08:08 PM
I suggest people read Jo Freeman’s “At Berkeley in the ‘60s” (Indiana University Press) which is both autobiography and history for strategy on how in the early 1960s McCarthism/H.U.A.C was deafeated Berkeley and how academic freedom/freedom of speech for both faculty and students was won. Freeman was there as well as having a Ph.D. in political science.

By the way, Freeman in her chapter 53 “The State Legislature"--discusses how the the state of California legislature at that time did have a committee--the Burns Committee-- which investigated “subversion” in and outside the university. Freeman gave the history of that committee which is an important history to know as that Burns comittee did damage through its fictitious reports and its esionage system.

But back to to the strategy that defeated academic McCarthism: mobilization of students through a series of demonstrations 1960-1964. The demonstrations started with the famed 1960 student demonstrations against HUAC on the steps of S.F. City hall where cops with firehoses washed the students down the steps. The right made a movie about the demonstrations called “Operation Abolition” which the left loved, appropriated, showed, and used for recruiting. The movement against HUAC picked up strength with the Bay Area civil rights movement and then the Free Speech Movement where 800 of us were arrested for free speech on the Berkeley campus. When Jerry Rubin, the anti-war organizer, was ordered to appear before HUAC around 1966, he showed up in a Revolutionary War uniform, but HUAC was pretty powerless by then.

Or to fight academic McCarthyism you need students and a movement. Find student groups to fight with you. good luck. Freeman’s book details how it was done before. She has written a mighty fine book.

Posted by on 07/11 at 08:19 PM
Aunt Deb Chris Clarke beat me to it, but I wanted to point out that he’s a regular at PZ Myers Pharyngula and his own environmentally oriented blog is very pro-science.

Keep in mind however that Abby is hardly an impartial observer, having recently compared me favorably and graciously if unjustly to our host here at The Bérubé Factor.

Posted by Chris Clarke on 07/11 at 08:26 PM
As a non-degree, non-traditional, returning adult grad student I wonder if the State Legislature will do anything about the biggest impediment to my education? That is, when will they address the unbelievable rise in Penn State’s tuition cost over the last 10 years.

Tuition is now at over 15 grand a year, thanks in large part to the legislature’s consistent refusal to support the university in any meaningful way. Mississippi’s state government contributes a higher percentage to their universities’ budgets than PA does.

And as for D Ho and the academic bill of rights foolishness, I’d rather be taught by someone with a committed ideology (left or right) than not be taught at all simply because I couldn’t afford the experience. I suspect many working class Pennsylvanians agree.

Posted by handdrummer on 07/11 at 08:48 PM
Well, I solved the “you aren’t telling the *real* story about the Civil War’s origins!” complaint in my course once I began to teach at a Southern school. I give ‘em big hunks of DeBow’s monthly with slavery rants (largest general circulation periodical in the South in the antebellum era) and things like Alexander Stephens’ “Cornerstone Speech”

Now I have complaints that I’m “unfairly” including (get this): “things from when people thought in a different way!”

Apparently what is wanted is some soothing narrative a la David Brooks that defends slavery but in an oh-so-reasonable-tone full of false expressions of “regret” for having to tell the “hard truth that slavery wasn’t bad....”

Too bad no such thing exists. I expect the statute in my state and I expect vigorous enforcement. Too bad they won’t get on that faculty attrition rate (we here at big-Texas-state U tend to scoot off after a year or two), or that growing tuition bill instead of this nonsense....

Posted by on 07/11 at 09:00 PM
Michael, I thought I’d drop a line with a contribution to the revised literature reading lists, so they will be “balanced” enough for the Horowitzian “standards” that Penn. republicans seem to be demanding. Of course in Critical Theory, Anglo-American lit, and a half a dozen others you’re way better equipped than I am to revise the lists, so I’ll limit myself to a few suggestions, but by my count:

a. we’d need a Latin American novel that supported ruthless, bloody, and egocentric dictators to include alongside García Márquez’s The Autumn of the Patriarch or Augusto Roa Bastos’s I, the Supreme.

b. and how dare Holocaust scholars teach Primo Levi’s memoirs without “balancing” it with narratives written by Nazi officials or concentration camp guards?

c. to teach alongside Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex, we’d need an important philosophical-anthropological treaty that demonstrated how women are naturally inferior, how there have been no social differences between women and men, and how “masculine” and “feminine” are symmetrical, neutral, and politically meaningless terms.

d. and how preposterous and “partial” have Classicists been in not “balancing” Plato’s Republic with a comparable Hellenic treaty that described a Utopia ruled by slaves, women, poets, and effeminate men!!

e. of course we’d also need fine 19th-century realist novels written from the point of view of “betrayed” husbands to teach alongside Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina or Flaubert’s Madame Bovary for the sake of “balance.”

I leave it up to the erudite readers of this blog to figure out how we’d “balance” Faulkner, Kant, Hegel…

You go couple of months without reading news from the US, Michael, and all of a sudden when you do it all sounds a like a bad 1930s Russian science fiction novel, I’ll tell ya.

Greetings from Brazil, where things are pretty surreal as well.

Posted by Idelber on 07/11 at 09:12 PM
As much as I respect Lance’s opinion, I have to say that I think him incorrect. This is a frightening development that will have a decidedly chilling effect on public education in Pennsylvania, to say nothing of its reach beyond Pennsylvania. Whatever the specifics of the hearings that are held, this select committee will inscribe the notion that academic freedom consists solely of some sort of oscillation between the liberal and conservative political poles in the public consciousness. In a country where the political arteries, so to speak, are as narrowed as Dick Cheney’s any further narrowing of the area of discourse is disturbing to say the least.

And Michael, I have to take issue with the manner in which your points one and two construe this situation. Why fault the legislature for not falling for rhetoric that is admittedly weak? It seems to me that if such efforts as are represented by Mr. Horrible-witz are to be effectively countered, we need to abandon characterizations that reduce issues to a factor of gullibility or what have you. I recognize the comic tone here so I don’t mean to push this too hard. But the essential point to be recognized as forcefully as possible is that there is a desperate need to change the way in which the issue of academic freedom is articulated. It was frankly a big mistake to think that an argument for “intellectual pluralism” can carry any weight in a country whose foreign policy can be understood as fundamentally unilateral and preemptive and whose public seemingly respects Bill O’Reilly enough to keep him on the air (Whoops! Sorry).

In any event, this should be a wake up call to seriously rethink the way these issues are articulated and to get our asses off the campus and into the streets ("Direct action gets the goods,” as the old Wobbly saying goes). While there is reason to not offend those whose politics we may disagree with, there is nothing in doing that that does not mean this is can not be addressed with all the fire that can be brought to bear. If this does in fact succeed in energizing those “guardian” institutions whose morbidity is demonstrated by their reliance on arguments both old and inappropriate to the current sociopolitical climate, to say nothing of energizing the various disciplines, than perhaps we owe a thanks to the Pennsylvania legislature for lighting a match.

Posted by on 07/11 at 09:55 PM
Is there any way this can be used to complain about the lack of socialist and Marxist professors on Business School faculties and in Economics Departments? Students aren’t getting the full story.

Posted by on 07/11 at 11:25 PM
Jonathan, thanks for pointing out the problems with using Wharton. It slipped my mind that the Resolution only covered “State-related or State-owned” entities (I suppose that U Penn doesn’t count as State-related). OK, instead of Wharton, let’s take the Penn State engineering dept (Penn State is supposedly ranked 4th in the nation for industrial/manufacturing engineering). Some slogging through ratemyprofessor.com should turn up some candidates. Find one person with a good complaint and publicize it. Then watch this whole issue disappear.

Posted by on 07/12 at 12:40 AM
Just to add to comment 30 (Prof A’s):

I TA’d a 19th century US history survey in which we assigned Douglass’ narrative along with Harriet Jacobs’ one week, and then an edited collection of pro-slavery arguments the next week. Students were far more shocked and appalled by the pro-slave arguments than they were by the slave narratives. I had one student comment that the “Cornerstone Speech” pretty much overturned what he’d learned in his Georgia junior high classes.

A lot of people couldn’t believe what they were reading; some of the responses were: Did Americans really believe this? Were they serious? How could anyone say such terrible things?

And by teaching it alongside the slave narratives, you pre-empt the objection that “morality was different back then and it’s unfair to criticize people for doing things that we in the present know are wrong.” Because, of course, people at the time criticized slavery too.

If you actually were to do something like this, I have two recommendations:

1. Make sure students understand how the pro-slavery argument changes over time in response to abolitionist writings. 1850s pro-slave stuff is much more radical and extreme ("positive good") than pre-1830s stuff ("it’s a necessary evil").

Harriet Jacobs’ comments about England and Manchester could be set alongside slaveowner’s arguments that slaves had it better than factory laborers, for example.

2. Try to find something better than the Finkelman pro-slavery argument collection (that’s the one we used) as it gets a bit repetitive. I really think he could have made better choices in his excerpts. (Although it could have been that the students were overwhelmed by the sheer density of the racist invective.)

Added bonus: a number of pro-slavery arguments are quite sympathetic to communism and quite hostile to capitalism. See especially George “slavery is a form, and the very best form, of socialism” Fitzhugh’s Sociology for the South. Of course if you’re pro-socialism or pro-communism you might find this troubling, but it can be just as troubling to people who believe that American slavery wasn’t so bad but are staunchly anti-Communist.

But then, I always like it when history gets in the way of people’s ideological preconceptions, whatever they might be, so I don’t mind having everything thrown into confusion. It’s all about the strangeness of the past.

Posted by eb on 07/12 at 12:43 AM
The multiple suggestions to “turn this around” seem to me to confirm that the language of the measure, setting forth the committee’s tasks, is so vague as to fail an Equal Protection test. There’s also the “chilling effect” mentioned by several commenters which may be enough to convince a Federal court that First Amendment rights are being infringed here.

All this is only meaningful, as Julia Stein rightly observes, if there’s a lively movement against the thought cops. I was at that San Francisco anti-HUAC demo in May 1960 and I’m kinda weary--I sure hope the students will come through once again.

Posted by on 07/12 at 01:17 AM
Nice blog. Keep it up. Visit me at < a href="http://www.yahoo.com">john</a>

Posted by john on 07/12 at 05:13 AM
Down under we have academic associations which support staff accused of misconduct. Support takes different forms. An experienced mediator might assist a staff member at hearings. If the principle is serious and the case defensible, the association can provide free legal representation.

Virtually every clause in what you quote from the legislation is a lawyer’s dream. Hence my suggestions:

(1) Establish the principle that an accused professor must be accompanied by a lawyer at the first and all subsequent hearings. If the university won’t come at it, use the Star Chamber argument - journalists love that one.

(2) Pick the winnable instance and run it as a test case. Once the state - and the university - find out how much this is going to cost them, my bet’s on swift repeal.

It costs, it costs . . . So pass the hat around.

BTW, you could pitch this one successfully to the most Ultra of your colleagues Hey, it’s about Rights. You know, like guns.

Or as in Tom Paine.

In solidarity.

Bruce

Posted by on 07/12 at 07:28 AM
Dear Michael,

On a personal level, please let me say that I am so sorry that this has happened. I may be reading incorrectly but you seem to be blaming yourself somehow for not being successful at stopping this and I really hope that you will find some peace in knowing that I do not blame you at all for not working hard enough or smart enough to halt this horror. I am certain not a single person here would ever think such a thing. Know, please, that we all support you. I support you. You’ve done so much. I try not to tell people how to feel, so I won’t say, “please don’t feel bad”, but I will say that I understand your feeling of being unable to stop this before it happened but sometimes no matter how hard and smart we work, the bad guys win.

That doesn’t mean we didn’t do everything (and more) that we could. You deserve such high accolades for your tireless work. Please know that.

Now, someone mentioned that we don’t have to fight fire with fire and instead find natural allies with conservatives who also believe in academic freedom. I think that this model is so much the model that can be used in so many situations. I’m tired of the “we have to be just as slimy and obnoxious and cruel as they are” cries. Put plainly, we don’t. We never have. Though it may work to do that, it has also been proven that we can also win (and I think it’s a much *better* win) when we fight together with people who we don’t share personal views with, but who can see greater ideals at stake.

I really believe that is truly beautiful and hope that this situation is yet another example where this principal is shown to be valid.

Lastly, and maybe most importantly, I just want to thank you Edi for your wonderful comments which made very much sense to me and thank you for sharing your story and welcome to our rag-tag group of commentators on The Bérubé Factor where it’s okay to just say what you feel.

(Okay, and is it really true that I’m the stupidest person in the room? Not to be self-effacing, but is there a single person who comments here who isn’t at the very least college educated? How did I end up here? Mom and Dad would be so proud. They thought I’d come to nothing and just look at the company I keep these days!)

Love,

Hanna

Posted by Hanna on 07/12 at 10:04 AM
Michael et al, Check out the latest polls at the CDT :

http://forums.centredaily.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=kr-CDTgennews&tid=1859&vote=2&submit=Vote

Posted by Marianne on 07/12 at 10:08 AM
While I agree that the legislation presents the lawyer’s wet dream and that everything possible, including the sorts of things Bruce W outlines, must be done to defeat this ‘investigation,’ I have again to wonder if simply resisting the measure can address the reasons that allowed it to become a reality in the first place. As scary as it is, it is the fact that it gained any legislative credence that really scares me. Any plan of action to address this issue must include a fundamental rethinking of the way in which the issue of academic freedom is articulated. Perhaps it is time to wrap ourselves in a flag that is shot through with history in support of the right of dissent and the freedom of thought.

Posted by on 07/12 at 10:20 AM
Hanna, I don’t think Michael is blaming himself too much. It seemed to me more like he was just reevaluating his earlier judgments. I’m sure that you’re far from the stupidest person. Formal education does not necessarily correlate with intelligence. Some awfully stupid people manage to get a lot of it, and plenty of smart people don’t get nearly enough.

Posted by on 07/12 at 10:44 AM
The Sentinel in Carlisle PA has picked up on this story, with a shout-out to Michael:

http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2005/07/11/editorial/francis_volpe/volpe01.txt

Posted by Rudolph on 07/12 at 10:46 AM
Along the lines of what handdrummer (29), Bruce w (38) and Tom (41) said, plus Prof. B’s suggestion Three, I’d say:

Turn this “investigation” back on the people who instigated it and milk the “reasonable access to course materials” language for all its worth. These hearings could very quickly be turned into a forum to criticize the lack of state funding.

Books too expensive? Lack of reasonable access to materials. Cancel a night class that an evening student needed to complete his/her major? Lack of reasonable access. Tuition outpaces my / my parents’ income to an extent that I might not be able to complete college? Lack of reasonable access.

As the conservatives get sidetracked into a series of hearings whose only possible outcome is “more state funding,” they’ll give up this “investigation” pretty quickly. Especially if the liberals in Pennsylvania play purposely naive about the *real* reason for these investigations and start publicizing how they are holding hearings to increase access to state universities.

Posted by on 07/12 at 11:29 AM
Rich writes, Let’s start with Alan Charles Kors, professor of history at U. Penn. and frequent speaker with Horowitz. He is co-founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, an organization that mostly attacks so-called “political correctness” and speech codes. Let’s start by seeing if he supports this measure.

I’ve never seen FIRE support ABOR. Period. FIRE is principled in their public statements and legal actions, including statements about Ward Churchill and Sami Al-Arian. (There’s a difference in the print newsletters they send to their supporters—there, they’re pandering to patrons in describing campus events. It’s still consistent with their broader actions.)

Posted by Sherman on 07/12 at 12:04 PM
Michael

One factual point—I think the all caps passage indicates an amendment or insertion to the resolution; note that it has an arrow beside it, and the same sort of thing seems to indicate insertions/amendments in prior versions (see the Bill History).

As for its substance—I’m glad I don’t teach at a public college or university in your state, and this will be a nuisance to some. On the other hand, these investigations may leave the inquisitors empty handed and red-faced--for example, a Fla legislator sponsored hearings in the winter/spring that turned up nothing but weak and unsupported allegations, and left the ABOR dead in the water there. If anything, it showed what an astroturf organization SAF is--D. Ho. jetted in for an appearance, but was unable (or just couldn’t be bothered) to get his supposed student supporters to turn up with any complaints that passed the laugh test.

Posted by Hiram Hover on 07/12 at 12:37 PM
I have now posted on this issue on my own blog:

http://audsandens.blogspot.com/

This is going to be a festering problem for a long time--we need to be addressing it now and as loudly as we can.

Posted by Aaron Barlow on 07/12 at 12:44 PM
I’m with Prof. B. (comment 24) on this one—some people are going to be more vulnerable than others (asst. profs., grad. students, women, minorities, gays and lesbians), and it will only take one disgruntled student to make a whole mess for the prof., her department, her college, etc., even if it comes out fine for her in the end. And my hunch is that that’s mainly what Horowitz, et al., want—disruption, distraction, money going to law suits instead of to new faculty lines in the humanities or repairs to aging classrooms used mainly by the humanities or whatever. I think Horowitz has timed his efforts well (for his benefit, anyway) to coincide with the fiscal squeezing of the arts, humanities, and many of the pure sciences in favor of the applied sciences and professional schools, especially in state-funded schools. I don’t think there’s a conspiracy with those forces, but I do think there’s a correlation in ideology.

And again, it will only take a student here and there, especially at the lower-tier state-funded schools like mine, but also at the flagships, to set things in motion. Out of the hundreds of students I’ve had, I’ve only ever had one who wrote one his evaluation “she won’t give you a good grade unless you’re a feminist” and I know—as one does—which student it was. I gave him a “bad” grade (a B-!) on a paper on “The Yellow Wallpaper” in which he argued that Gilman was actually pro-patriarchy, that she was using the character John to show how a “good father” should be. Ummmm...(For those of you not lit. people, Charlotte Perkins Gilman was an *avowed* feminist and we talked about that in class. Basically his argument was like saying David Horowitz is really just a big teddy bear who’s interested in liberal politics.)

Anyway, my point is, it only takes one mistaken, misguided student to create a mess. If the student I mentioned had taken one of my medieval classes, I doubt he would’ve known/cared about my politics. (I must be a Catholic monarchist - right?) But that was a lower division “general lit” class and I dared to assign a work by an avowed feminist. So he sent a lame little message via the evaluation, where it was drowned out by positive evaluations. But what if he had the power to lodge a complaint as in the PA resolution and he knew it. A lot of my energy and time would be sucked away from students and classes and research, hurting them and hurting my chances of tenure—thus hurting future students. And if somehow my university turned its back, if I didn’t have adequate representation, and I got fired, well then just like that there would no longer be any more medieval lit. classes in my dept. because I’m the only one and we currently have a hiring freeze. And there’s only one of every other field as well.

Institutions like mine—and I’m sure there are many in PA—are the ones that will really suffer if my hypothetical comes to pass, and the students and their education will suffer because of it. So I agree with Prof. B, with Michael, and with all the others who have suggested that we need to involve our students (liberal, conservative, and everything else) in this, let them see that a witch-hunt like this will hurt *them*.

Sorry for the verbosity—I’ve been stewing for days.

Posted by on 07/12 at 01:03 PM
I think Dobby has the right idea. The key issue that Dobby’s suggestions, and this event, raise is what the “public” in “public education” means. Addressing this issue from the perspective of the impediments to quality education thrown up by lack of adequate funding (more fundamental to the the practice of “the right to explore and express independent thought,” which is the central phrase of this whole resolution) throws the weight of these ‘investigations’ back on those legislators who cut state funding for education. Simultaneously, such an address broadens the appeal of this issue beyond a narrowly construed sense of academic freedom, allowing efforts against this resolution to tie-in to the efforts against other disturbing national trends, like those Lance raises, that are emblematic of the corporatization of the university. Ultimately, that’s what this whole thing is about, that is, making the university safe for capital investment by forcing the “profession of a standpoint” so damaging to the truth, as Adorno puts it.

Posted by on 07/12 at 01:25 PM
Many good suggestions.

John, I always thought the people who were at the S.F. anti-H.U.A.C. demonstrations in 1960 were terrific. I saw film clips of the 1960s demos where the police had these fire hoses with huge surges of water washing the demonstrators down the steps of the S.F. Civic Center. Awesome! Electrifying for any kid who grew up in the McCarthy Era. Inspiring.
Maybe people in Pennsylvania colleges could get a hold of the film “Operation Abolition” and show it to students on campuses?

Oh, I’m a member of the radical caucus of the Modern Langage Assoication. In the upcoming convention Dec.29-31 in Washington D.C. at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel there are two panels on this subject: Academic Work and New McCarthyism I, 12/29 12:00-1:15 p.m. #437 and Acacademic Work and the New McCarthyism II 12/30 #756 1:45-3:00 pm . I’m on the first panel talking about UC Berkeley in the early 1960s & defeating McCarthyism.

Oh, by the way the Free Speech Movemement coalition to restore student free speech rights at Berkeley encompassed the left to the right including Republicans. People are right when they say the some conservatives will support academic freedom and be against the Pennsylvania resolution.

Posted by on 07/12 at 04:36 PM
The other day I was walking through the offices of Penn State engineering department, and noted that one of the professor’s doors was covered with bumper stickers such as “Nobody died when Clinton lied” and lots of other politically slanted material. This, in engineering.

Whenever students come to his/her office for office hours, they get a nice little dose of political indoc by someone who is in a real position of power over them. That’s unsat. State and student-funded property is not the place for professors to make their political statements.

I see stuff like this bill, which I don’t like, and consider the prof’s door, which is a drop in the ocean of stuff similar, I think “blowback”.

Posted by on 07/12 at 09:16 PM
Personally, I’d be stunned, stunned if Kors supported something like this bill. He’s a smart libertarian, not a craven hack.

Posted by Michael on 07/12 at 09:52 PM
Wow. I leave the state and it gets even stupider. I doubt the bill will make it into law, but if it does, the left could easily go on the offensive with some good organizing (think antiobscenity laws in Canada that got Andrea Dworkin’s writings outlawed)

Is there an email address for that state rep?

--J

Posted by Jonathan on 07/12 at 11:11 PM
Red State Mike,

A bumper sticker equals indocrtination? Students where you live are so stupid that their minds must inevitably bend under the fearsome assault of a one-sentence bumper sticker slogan? Balderdash.

I will say that of course professor bias is bad. But simply having liberal or conservative views does not equal a bias. A bumper sticker is not a harmful bias; grading down a student for giving the ideologically “wrong” answers in class is a harmful bias.

I’m a lefty law student who’s had many conservative professors. This is not a problem because my professors are not assholes and, therefore, I do not feel pressure to only espouse their particular views in the class or on tests. I did have one Asshole Conservative Professor, who actually screamed at the entire class and stomped out after a student disagreed with him in a “disrespectful” manner.

The problem wasn’t that he was conservative, though. It was that he was an asshole, who made it clear that the only correct answers were his. (And I took the appropriate action. I did not call up my state legislator or David Horowitz but utilized the existing system and mentioned my professor’s in-class bias and its anti-educational effects on the end of semester evaluation.)

But out of all my conservative professors, only one has been an asshole so far. And I really don’t think it’s different for liberal professors. I don’t think there’s all these Asshole Liberal Professors - I think that conservative students are angry that there’s liberal professors, period. And they need to grow up and get over themselves.

Posted by on 07/13 at 02:53 PM
John:
<i>A bumper sticker equals indocrtination? Students where you live are so stupid that their minds must inevitably bend under the fearsome assault of a one-sentence bumper sticker slogan? Balderdash.

No, a bumper sticker is not full blown indoc. And besides, my post was about the professor, not the student. Just because students are wily enough to wave the BS flag doesn’t make it right.

It *is* unprofessional for a Professor to go around espousing political views, right or left, on their door. To be exact, on the taxpayer’s and tuition payer’s door. At least for engineering professors, they’re not getting paid to present their politics to students. They’re getting paid to present engineering.

Posted by on 07/13 at 05:13 PM
Obviously what is needed is for some sort of legislative body to enact a law requiring that all Far Side cartoons be vetted by an appropriate, disinterested committee made up of far-right wingnuts. Dinosaurs dying out because they smoke cigarettes? That’s political evolutionist propaganda and anti-tobacco. Cows wearing clothes, talking, and using tools? More anti-Christian liberal appeasement of Hindu terrorists. And the Vaccination Man cartoon is obviously a communist slam at the Pharmaceutical industry

We should get Horowitz right on this. Call it the “Free Expression Academic Portal Campaign” or something. Despite the whining, faculty will still be free to express a diverse range of opinions by posting Mallard Fillmore cartoons or US flags on their doors. That should about cover the acceptable range of political thought!

Posted by Chris Clarke on 07/13 at 05:24 PM
I don’t think it’s realistic (nor necessary) to expect nothing personal in a professor’s office. It’s their workspace, often a place they will spend more time in than their homes. Also, you did not mention if the professor behaves professionally when talking to students, conducting classes, grading tests - you know, the things that actually matter in education.

And I mentioned the indoctrination thing because you did. You called it indocrination, I called bull.

And do you really think it’s “blowback”? What an interesting word to choose. Wow. Are conservatives in this country really so coddled that a damn bumpersticker that doesn’t line up exactly with their views is equated to an act of violence?

Posted by on 07/13 at 06:02 PM
I don’t think it’s realistic (nor necessary) to expect nothing personal in a professor’s office.

I agree. I do think it is realistic to expect nothing political (or a whole slew of other topics), certainly not on the outside of the door. It is unprofessional. Period.

It’s their workspace, often a place they will spend more time in than their homes.

So what. There are plenty of professions that require workers to spend more time there than their home. They aren’t plastered with politically sensitive material. It is their office, but it’s not like an embassy, i.e., sovereign territory of Dr. Smith. The university owns it.

Also, you did not mention if the professor behaves professionally when talking to students, conducting classes, grading tests - you know, the things that actually matter in education.

It all matters. A professor should be professional in all aspects, period.

And I mentioned the indoctrination thing because you did. You called it indocrination, I called bull.

Go back and read my original post. You cherry-picked my post to make a point. You conveniently left off the all important qualifier in front of “indoc”.

And do you really think it’s “blowback”? What an interesting word to choose. Wow. Are conservatives in this country really so coddled that a damn bumpersticker that doesn’t line up exactly with their views is equated to an act of violence?

Spare me the prejudicial language..."coddled conservatives”...it’s a hack argumentation device.

Blowback has never been a term referenced to violence. Look it up. It is used here in a manner similar to that in espionage to describe unintended consequences of information put out. Emphasis on unintended consequences.

Let me go over a few points.

First, you said a mere bumper sticker should not raise hackles. The whole door is covered. The bumper sticker is what you can read from 20 feet away.

Second, you suggest that his behavior is OK since students are smart enough to make up their own minds. That is a separate point to make. Either the behavior is professional or unprofessional, apart from its effectiveness.

Third, if a professor can’t influence students, he should quit, because that is his job. Along with professing in his area of expertise, he advises students in their overall education. That’s what a professor is supposed to provide, leadership!

Posted by on 07/13 at 09:49 PM
Cautiously, I will agree with Mike.

Like Mike, and perhaps others who read this, I am not a professor. I can understand the degree of discretion professors enjoy in doing their job, understand how that degree of discretion makes it simpler to do many things, and how the idea of structuring or subjecting that discretion to outside review must feel threatening.

But the example Mike raises seems to me a good example of precisely the difference between structuring that discretion through reasonable standards, and setting up a strawman opposition between either all discretion or none.

Yes, professors need to have personally comfortable and personalized spaces in which to work. Those who work in cubicle farms, as I do, can certainly relate. Yet, to the extent that at least some small part of the professor’s job—even more than that, I would hope—involves acting as a mentor and resource for students, that personalization surely must be bounded by the requirement to create a safe space in which students feel welcome regardless of their point of view or place on the spectrum.

Assuming a reasonable place on the spectrum, obviously: and, yes, that’s a call that an inteligent professor is both capable and fair in making. No, the point is not to create a safe space for Nazis by avoiding talking about multiculturalism. But neither is it to get up in the face of everyone who disagrees with the prof, either—especially when the relationship we’re talking about is a professor-student relationship, not one of equals.

Posted by on 07/13 at 10:31 PM
I think I’d be more inclined to agree with it being unprofessional if the entire door’s plastered, in big font, etc. Perhaps it’s arbitrary of me to do so, but I much more readily interpret a single bumper sticker as just a personal statement, whereas the former seems more like a Grand Political Declaration.

Also, I don’t think a professor saying/implying “I think X” necessarily translates into “I think X and you should think X too.” But the power implications are, of course, important.

As for “blowback,” I’ve only encountered the phrase in reference to violence and terrorism, most notably the Iraq War. But I will go educate myself on its further meanings.

Posted by on 07/14 at 02:03 AM
Checked with the online OED. I apologize for not knowing the full meanings of “blowback.” I guess my misunderstanding is inadvertantly useful, though - I’m probably not the only underinformed person who would make that connnection, so I suppose everyone’s (anyone still on this thread, actually?) aware that the use of the term might be misinterpreted.

Posted by on 07/14 at 02:06 AM
I’m still on this thread, just tending it now and then. For the record, I have one sticker on my door: it expresses support for GFTEO, the attempt to unionize graduate teaching assistants and adjunct faculty at Penn State. I also have a picture of my kids.

Just in case there are any PA House Republicans who want to know.

Posted by Michael on 07/14 at 11:37 AM
Regarding legislative committees investigating teachers, Jo Freeman in “At Berkeley in the 1960s” said HUAC did this in the late 1950s. She mentions
that California Congressman James Rooselvelt on April 25, 1960, “denounced HUAC on the House floor because it had released to the press the names of California public schoolteachers that it had subpoenaed in June 1959. HUAC files of over ninety teachers were sent to local school school boards. As a result, four were fired. Roosevelt said that

more than 100 teachers have been in emotional
turmoil for 10 months. Their teaching effec-
tiveness has been impaired, and their sense
of insecurity has communicated itself to
their colleagues .... [Most were] on proba-
tionary status ... These may be quietly
eased out of the teaching profession by the
simple expedient of not renewing their
contracts.

Freeman footnotes her quote, and the footnote refers to Congressional Record, April 25, 1960,
and also a book by a man named David Horowitz.
Our David Horowitz! Horowitz’s book is titled
“Student: What Happened at a Major University--
The Political Activites of the Berkeley Students.”
New York: Ballentine Books, 1962.

Our David Horowitz (an old Berkeleite) knows all
about the persecution of the 100 teachers by
HUAC! How amazing!

What I predict (amazing how knowing a little
history helps in predictions!) that if the
Pennsylvania legislature committee investigates
“subversive” faculty they will immediatly
release the names to the press. Also, administra-
tions will know.Also, probationary faculty
and or non-tenure tracks are most at risk of
simply not having contracts renenwed.

I don’t want to depress people but knowing history
does help us make sure it isn’t repeated
best
Julia

Posted by on 07/14 at 02:59 PM
Michael, if I may,

As to your request for what to teach that shows “the other side of the story"--I’m giving serious thought to actually including something by Thomas Dixon in my AMlit reading lists. _The Leopard’s Spots_ perhaps, and teaching it straight, lots of good old fashioned close reading and teasing out of the implications of the tropes. I say it’s time we made clear just exactly how inhumanly ugly that other side of the story actually is.

Posted by Carol Loranger on 07/15 at 08:27 AM
I’ve been thinking about this, and wonder if the proper thing to do is to go to the other extreme. Be blatant about indoctrination. Out, loud, and proud that if you sit in my class, you will get The World According to Dr. Smith, with all my bias and leanings.

We will read books I choose, analyze them from my perspective, and I will attempt to convince you of the correctness of my view. You are welcome to disagree, but be prepared to impeccably justify your opposition. A neutral third party will participate in grading to ensure some measure of objectivity.

And then set up a curriculum/gauntlet of courses and Professors. Make sure each Professor gets his shot at each student in the major. The actual course taught isn’t as important as the exposure to the general world view.

wear it on the sleeve. Don’t pretend to be purely objective. Be human, with all the baggage that entails.

Just a thought.

Posted by on 07/15 at 10:39 AM
Thank you for the extensive coverage of House Resolution 177, and the opportunity for concerned and expert people to express their views on it. This is very helpful to me in preparing for the hearings and attempting to better inform the media and my legislative colleagues about them.

The problem with this hearing is not that a bunch of uninformed legislators will go around the state asking a bunch of dumb questions. The problem is that Horowitz has the ability to take these hearings and make them a national demonstration project for his rather Orwellian view of what academic freedom is. The man who tried to argue that civil rights laws prevent affirmative action is now arguing that academic freedom should severely limit a faculty member’s expression of ideas.

Michael, I would very much like to read your chapter on Horowitz. Please either email it to me at or fax it to me a 717-787-6650. I view Horowitz as a much more sophisticated version of Joe McCarthy, and I believe we have to contest this pseudo-investigation in every possible forum.

I would welcome hearing from those who read these blog as well, by email, fax, or phone (717-787-4117). I have sent Inside Higher Education a first draft of an article editor Scott Jaschick requested from me, and I look forward in working with others to preserve academic freedom as we have come to know it.

Freedom to express an opinion held by a majority of the Pennsylvania Legislature does not consitute freedom of speech and is not what academic freedom is all about.

Posted by Rep. Mark B. Cohen on 07/18 at 10:52 PM

Next entry: Theory Tuesday

Previous entry: Deferring

<< Back to main

48 Hours

These Comments Are Aware of All Your Sublime and Funky Internet Traditions

Monthly Archives

Most recent entries

Syndicate