COLLEGES STRIVE TO ENSURE INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY?

In a USA Today article by Mary Beth Marklein, the Washington-based non-profit American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) reports that "dozens of public and private colleges have taken steps to ensure their students can freely express their ideas." The report concludes that despite examples such a Tufts lecture series featuring "controversial" speakers such as Salman Rushdie and historian Shelby Steele, "the free exchange of ideas is in peril in today's academy," citing examples such as a Missouri State student who sued the university in 2006 after claiming her grade suffered because she refused to sign a letter supporting gay adoption (the case was settled out of court). Free speech groups contend that ACTA primarily targets liberal faculty; ACTA responds by saying it recently criticized Liberty University (founded by Jerry Falwell) for ceasing to recognize the College Democrats club. (Does this really surprise anyone? Granted, a private institution has the "right" to restrict free speech, but it certainly makes for a less "vibrant" intellectual climate on campus). ACTA has proposed laws to force public universities to report how they act to prevent bias against students because of their political or religious beliefs. None have been enacted, which critics claim is due to the fact that they are a "manufactured controversy" and that independent investigations of a liberal bias on campuses have "turned up nothing." ACTA says it is "simply disingenuous" to deny problems. There may well be problems: both liberal and conservative students may feel they are being punished for their beliefs at an institution here and there, and they should fight to have their views heard and respected, but ACTA clearly has an agenda that seems more dangerous than these isolated instances. It scares me when those who wish to restrict freedom band together and attempt to cloak themselves in respectability to sneak their true agenda under the radar. But as I've said before, they ARE entitled to voice their opinions.

What Would Pat Buchanan Have to Say to Get Himself Fired from MSNBC?

The title of this piece by Jamison Foser (eNews Park Forest) says it all. Foser writes that what happens to "prominent white men who make racist, sexist, and homophobic comments (is that) MSNBC, among others, puts them on the payroll and trots them out to opine on matters of race and gender." He list Don Imus, Michael Savage, and Chris Matthews as examples of such behavior, but at least these three were fired or otherwised reined in--Buchanan, for no reason Foser (or I) can see has not experienced the same fate. While Buchanan's latest attacks have focused on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, he has a long history of diatribes against homosexuals ("AIDS is nature's retribution for violating the laws of nature."), of African Americans he said, "Who speaks for the Euro-Americans, who founded the USA?...Is it not time to take America back?" and that slavery worked out well for "black folks." He defends men-only golf courses, called Hitler an "individual of great courage" and blamed Churchill for the Holocaust. These are just a few examples of Buchanan's views. He has been denounced by both Republicans and Democrats, yet MSNBC continues to let him voice his dangerous, viscious, and patently stupid comments. He must generate ratings and revenue, or he would be fired. But what infuriates me is that I must support this loathsome creature's right to say whatever offensive bit of rubbish he wants to--it seems supporting intellectual freedom is not for the faint of heart.
Tammy

The writer versus the British Chiropractic Association (BCA)

In the article "Silenced, the writer who dared to say chiropractice is bogus," Steve Connor (science editor for The Independent) descibes an interesting intellectual freedom issue in the UK--which I did not realize has such "antiquated" libel laws. The BCA won a preliminary court ruling against writer Dr. Simon Singh who allegedly libelled the BCA by saying it promotes "bogus" therapies. Justice Eady deemed that Singh's use of the word "bogus" meant he was calling the BCA dishonest when in fact, "alternative therapists who offer treatments unsupported by reasonable evidence are deluded rather than deliberately dishonest." The judge seems to be playing semantics in order to sidestep dealing with an intellectual freedom issue. But Singh is appealing the ruling, and he has received the backing of people as diverse as the president of the Royal Society, scientists, actors, and novelists. Those supporters "believe that it is inappropraite to use the English libel laws to silence critical discussion of medical practice and scientific evidence. The English law of libel has no place in scientific disputes about evidence." They also denounce the BCA's action saying that when a powerful organization tries to silence someone of Singh's reputation, "anyone who believes in science, fairness and truth should rise in indignation." Well said! The BCA should have never taken Singh to court--despite their victory--the scientific community is the place to challenge scientific ideas; with the fear of a lawsuit hanging over their heads how can those who disagree with the claims and ideas of those with power voice their views? Discouraging scientific debate seems to me a very dangerous precedent to set, in terms of both intellectual freedom--and in this case, the health of those deciding whether or not to avail themselves of chiropractic treatment. Scientist Richard Dawkins calls the English libel laws "an international laughing stock;" if this is the norm for dealing with scientific disagreements (let alone less "precise" issues), I concour.

No shooting off their mouths about guns

This post refers to a peice ("Mums' not the way")in the Lebanon (PA) Daily News.com, May 30, 2009.
"...some college campuses are dealing in a high level of hypocrisy, and if they don't knock it off it's likely to become an issue for the courts...." The issue is guns on campus, especially students who want the right to carry guns on campus. This sounds like tragedies waiting to happen in my opinion, but equally tragic is the refusal of colleges to allow students to discuss, debate and demonstrate. One example cited was that of a freshman at Community College of Allegheny County (PA); the student claims a dean told her she must stop distributing fliers for the group Students for Concealed Carry on Campus and destroy the pamphlets she had created. An even more egregious example of the denial of freedom of speech can be found at Tarrant County College in Texas; the school set aside a free-speech zone, but officials refused to allow an empty-holster protest by students regarding weapon carrying in the free-speech zone. As the piece states, "It should be embarrassing for any college to stifle debate on such a significant and timely topic." And denying the First Amendment to prevent a discussion of the Second Amendment does seem ludicrous. "And it's not how colleges are supposed to operate." If the freedom of expression is prohibited on college campuses where intellectual freedom should be embraced and cherished, what does that say about the rest of society? I hope these are isolated instances, but I suspect this happens even more frequently than we realize. And where is the ACLU (or at least the NRA!) in all this? Is anyone paying any attention out there?

"How Sex Sells the Loss of Freedom"

This blog was posted by Shannon Love on May 24, 2009 in Leftism. See http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/7168.html .

The premise is that the (amorphous and sinister) "Left" uses "the lure of sexual freedom to disguise their removal of personal freedom in every other area of life," including freedom of speech. The author argues that the Left is "the source of almost all assaults on free speech", citing "speech codes on campus, sensitivity training, hate crime laws..."etc., and apparently that reveals that the Left is no longer a champion of free speech on important political matters. Now, it is the Right that defends "unpopular, stupid, or hateful speech." Upon first reading this far I was outraged, but then I realized that maybe "political correctness" has gone too far, and the author is confusing this movement with the ideology of a monolithic Left. I suspect I'll get some contrary opinions if anyone reads this, but barring a few exceptions (e.g. yelling fire in a crowded theater), people have the right to say any stupid or insensitive thing they wish, and it is horrible what people say about others' gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or politics, but their right to say it must be protected: intellectual freedom is not reserved for the enlightened--as irksome as that may be. OK, back to the author's argument: "only in the area of sexuality does the Left demonstrate a pronounced and consistent preference for individual decision-making." His/Her

"reasoning" is that as an ideology Leftism exists to "advance the economic interest and social status of articulate intellectuals" while seeking to restrict to deny the freedoms (particularly economic freedoms) of everyone else. And according to the author, fascism and communism began as forms of economic control, and once that control of people's material environment was obtained, police states were able to flourish. The Left, He/She argues is doing the same thing today by defining as personal (as in terms of rights) only that which "touches on sex"; everything else falls under the authority of the state. The irony is that as muddled and dangerous as this author's words are, those on the Left would defend his/her right to say them. I thought--OK hoped--maybe this was simply one person's opinion, but there were blogs of support; one that is particularly scary was at http://sandefur.typepad.com/freespace/ which--

presumably to seem more credible--downplays the vast Leftist conspiracy angle and quotes from a California Supreme Court decision. Scary, scary stuff; scary, scary people.

Academic Freedom

An opinion piece appeared in the Santa Barbara Independent on May 21 and was written by rabbi and professor and chair of the Marketing and Business Law Department at Loyola Marymount, Arthur Gross-Schaefer. Wm. Robinson, sociology professor at UC Santa Barbara, sent his students an email entitled "Parallel Images of Nazis and Israelis," with images of Jews from the holocaust and similar images of Palestinians. Two students dropped the class and filed grievances; the faculty committee said Robinson had sent "highly partisan email accompanied by lurid photographs" that they were not related to course content. His supporters argue that "his academic freedom is being attacked." Gross-Schaefer denies that saying that he supports academic freedom but that the principle exists to defend the intellectual integity of both professors and students." The UCSB Faculty Code of Conduct states that a professor "abuses his power when he brings in unrelated materials to promote his personal agenda." According to the author, Robinson and his supporters seem "surprised and angry" that the university is taking the students' charges seriously. Clearly, Robinson violated the Faculty Code of Conduct (the course focused on Latin American issues) as far as unrelated materials goes and because he sent emails, there was no opportunity for classroom discussion or the expression of opposing views. I agree with the author: academic freedom must exist for both faculty and students. I also agree with the Association of Collefes and Universities statement that "students do not have a right to remain free from encountering unwelcome or inconvenient questions." I believe Robinson was
wrong to use his position as a professor to force his views on his students, but I think there is a lesson here for librarians as well: we have a similar position of authority in the sense that we decide what makes it onto the library shelves and what doesn't: this is a sacred trust--as corny as that night sound--we are expected to make available diverse points of view in library materials, not simply what we value or believe to be true. I hope we wouldn't be as blatant as Robinson, but self-censorship is so dangerous, and maybe an easier trap to fall into than we would like to believe.

Is anyone out there? This is my first time blogging--or attempting to do so--if anyone in class reads it, please let me know that I was successful!