We don't really have a thread where I can continually add things about current news so I am creating one. I will just throw out a couple things that I have feelings about.

I'm sure PE would be interested in seeing how some republicans are trying to deter free speech in colleges by warning of lawsuits, here is a recent article in the UF's independent newspaper.

quote:

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

By JAMES VANLANDINGHAM
Alligator Staff Writer

TALLAHASSEE — Republicans on the House Choice and Innovation Committee voted along party lines Tuesday to pass a bill that aims to stamp out “leftist totalitarianism” by “dictator professors” in the classrooms of Florida’s universities.

The Academic Freedom Bill of Rights, sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, passed 8-to-2 despite strenuous objections from the only two Democrats on the committee.

The bill has two more committees to pass before it can be considered by the full House.

While promoting the bill Tuesday, Baxley said a university education should be more than “one biased view by the professor, who as a dictator controls the classroom,” as part of “a misuse of their platform to indoctrinate the next generation with their own views.”

The bill sets a statewide standard that students cannot be punished for professing beliefs with which their professors disagree. Professors would also be advised to teach alternative “serious academic theories” that may disagree with their personal views.

According to a legislative staff analysis of the bill, the law would give students who think their beliefs are not being respected legal standing to sue professors and universities.

Students who believe their professor is singling them out for “public ridicule” – for instance, when professors use the Socratic method to force students to explain their theories in class – would also be given the right to sue.

“Some professors say, ‘Evolution is a fact. I don’t want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don’t like it, there’s the door,’” Baxley said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rep. Eleanor Sobel, D-Hollywood, argued universities and the state Board of Governors already have policies in place to protect academic freedom. Moreover, a state law outlining how professors are supposed to teach would encroach on the board’s authority to manage state schools.

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

But Baxley compared the state’s universities to children, saying the legislature should not give them money without providing “guidance” to their behavior.

“Professors are accountable for what they say or do,” he said. “They’re accountable to the rest of us in society … All of a sudden the faculty think they can do what they want and shut us out. Why is it so unheard of to say the professor shouldn’t be a dictator and control that room as their totalitarian niche?”

In an interview before the meeting, Baxley said “arrogant, elitist academics are swarming” to oppose the bill, and media reports misrepresented his intentions.

“I expect to be out there on my own pretty far,” he said. “I don’t expect to be part of a team.”

House Bill H-837 can be viewed online here.

I've also been upset over the republican government attempting to step in on the Terri Shiavo case. Seems like every time a judge makes a decision that they do not like they step in and try to change it. Now correct me if I am wrong, but the court's job is to be objective in matters and not be swayed by special interest groups. If the government wants to start making bills on a case by case basis, the democratic process would come to a crashing hault. Or maybe they could do as "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" suggested and create tour buses to go around the nation helping people out.

I do, however, find it ironic that the same religious conservatives who want to keep Terri alive, are the ones who support the death penalty.

I was just reading about this on another message board.

This is simply retarded. Especially the examples Baxley has used.

quote:

“Some professors say, ‘Evolution is a fact. I don’t want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don’t like it, there’s the door,’” Baxley said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue.

This is to imply that arguing against established facts should be considered acceptable free speech. People like that should rightfully be ignored.

On the other hand, I do think that it is best for professors to keep their personal beliefs (evolution doesn't count here, I'm afraid) out of the classroom. But unless students are being openly humiliated for their beliefs (see last parenthetic comment), they should have no grounds to sue.

I find it ironic that a bill about "Academic Freedom" is proposed, as far as I can tell, to LIMIT the academic freedom of the "leftist totalitarians" by forcing them to allow students to be able to blather on insanely regardless of the facts. Professors should be able to curtail ANY discussion in their classrooms...I've had to cut short discussions in my classes merely because people were getting too heated and emotional. I'd hate to think that someone could sue me because I wouldn't let them spew hateful jabs in class (I once had a student scream at a pro-choice woman that she was a "butcher"). The whole thing seems insane to me.

The claim that there is a left bias in academia is sort of true. It's certainly NOT the case in some fields (political science and economics lean to the right in many places) but it probably is the case in my field (philosophy) and many others. But I've personally never witnessed any student, regardless of beliefs expressed, being "silenced" by the liberal dictators of academia. I've seen them shut down for being rude, or insensitive, or aggressive, but never for their beliefs per se. It's a fine line, but that's part of teaching...knowing where to draw the line.

Would this bill apply to private schools? If so, maybe what would be fair is if some left-liberals got admitted to some of the religious conservative universities run by people like Billy Graham and his ilk (I know there's one called Liberty University but I don't recall the names of the rest...there's even a religiously conservative law school now!) and then THEY can sue for the FAILURE to allow discussion of evolution or whatever.

I think the most insane result of this bill would be the fact that students could sue if it was pointed out that they hadn't done the reading. I "cold call" on students all the time, from intro classes all the way up to grad classes. The Socratic method is the cornerstone of legal eduation. The fact that someone could SUE me for asking them to answer a question in class is just nuts.

I freely admit that I don't share the agenda of the right. But I just don't understand how a bill like this helps anyone. If you HONESTLY believe that, to use an easy case, that the Holocaust never happened, I'm not convinced that you have the RIGHT to express that opinion, free of ridicule and public scorn, in a course on world history. I also see a HUGE problem (for the professor) if there is one student in the class who gets jumped on by the other students...will the prof be accountable for the actions of the students?

College is supposed to be about learning...it certainly seems like merely allowing any student to say something because they believe it devoutly doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I can believe that the moon is made of green cheese with all my heart, but that don't make it true. And it CERTAINLY don't mean that I should be allowed to take up class time in Astronomy 101 to discuss it.

For my money, I've never pushed any set of beliefs or values on any of my classes. I teach courses in business ethics, bioethics, environmental philosophy, war and peace, and political philosophy and I never make my own beliefs the center of the discussion. In discussions about abortion, for instance, I don't think it's ever clear (to my students) which side I stand on. I challenge and critique arguments on both sides, and from students on both sides, in the interest of teaching them how to challenge and critique (in a constructive, philosophical way) arguments. But I don't ever push MY agenda (not that I have one) about an issue in an overt way...I'm sure my biases do slip in from time to time.

And to your point about Terri Schiavo, I can only say that a TRULY consistent position on the sanctity of life would be opposed to both the death penalty AND any form of euthanasia. I think the lesson of the Schiavo case, clearly, is to have an advance directive. My fear, however, is that the conservatives out there will try to figure out a way to make my advance directive null and void and to keep me alive AGAINST MY WILL to validate a religious view of the soul that I don't share. I hope my fear is unwarranted.

The Schiavo case is a tough one, because there are mixed motivations on both sides. I don't trust the husband, and I don't trust the political machine that backs the parents. The really sad part, though, is that, if she is kept off the feeding tube, that's a long and ugly way to die. I fail to understand why such action (known as passive euthanasia) is legally acceptable, but a quick and painless lethal injection (which is allowed for killing our prisoners and stray dogs), which accomplishes the same thing, is unacceptable. If you're going to let her die, why make the death take 15 days?

End rant.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: philosopherEric,

People put too much stock into what teachers say. There's a reason for the phrase "Those who can't, teach." Sure, a math teacher knows about math and an english teacher knows about writing, but if a math teacher starts talking about the NFL, I'm not going to make any large bets based on his opinions.

What makes even less sense is why creationism and evolution would even come up in class. Maybe if it were an archaeology class, or if it were a human biology class. If you're spending $10,000 dollars a year of your parents' money arguing with teachers over things that happened thousands/millions of years ago, you better not let mom and dad know.

EDIT: Also, I'm disappointed (since I'm a quasi-conservative) that the right gets its support more from religious nuts rather than from people who understand basic economics. That means that politicians are more focused on pleasing the people who are offended by abortions than on cutting taxes, business regulations and government programs. Protecting some people's ideas of how special "Life" is may create nice warm feelings in some people's minds, but making America a more attractive place to start businesses in will actually make all our lives better.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Buck "Sweetie" McGuck,

I agree with you on both fronts, Buck. I think people DO put too much stock in what teachers say. Part of the goal of higher education is to be able to filter the wheat from the chaff. Nobody should but everything their profs tell them without consideration. I give students readings and we talk about them, but at the end of the day, THEY have to decide which point of view to take.

I think I would be far more sympathetic to the issues of the "Right" if it were more of the libertarian/free-market approach you propose than the religious zealousness that seems to guide large chunks of the party. I'm not NEARLY as enamored with the market as you are, but I do understand economics, and I'd certainly take your view FAR more seriously than views of what should happen to MY body based on a concept of spirituality that I'll never share.

I wonder: do the most heated social debates tend to come up when our economy is in good or bad shape? If it's the latter, wouldn't it be great if we could do exactly what Buck says and try to encourage business to develop here to make more jobs and make our lives better? I get behind that full-stop.

Whatever happened to the time when Republicans could balance America's economy? I have said some mean things about Bush, but I certainly beleive that he thinks he is making this country better with his ideals. The problem is that instead of doing things in an order in which you do not have to take huge amounts of money from other important endeavors for a new set of goals. It is not a rational thing to do for the economy. Bush is taking money out of the "No child left behind" act and Medicare so that he can support other things like "Faith based initiatives" and trying to revamp social security.

I think I may be one of the few college students who is against a minimum wage increase because I know what it can do to an economy. If a companies average total cost goes up, they have to increase prices. Which wouldn't be bad for the people making more because of the wage increase, but would make it harder for people who don't make minimum wage.

Oh, and here is a funny political cartoon about the "Academic Freedom" bill.

I'm surprised by the inactivity of this thread. Don't people have opinions anymore?

I'm flabbergasted by some of the crazy stuff going on around the Schiavo case. I loved the guy (I think he's a Senator but he could be Congressman, who is also a doctor) who was extolling on his "diagnosis" of Schiavo based on the videos he had seen of her. Apparently, a good medical diagnosis only requires looking at a video of the patient.

quote:

I loved the guy (I think he's a Senator but he could be Congressman, who is also a doctor) who was extolling on his "diagnosis" of Schiavo based on the videos he had seen of her. Apparently, a good medical diagnosis only requires looking at a video of the patient.

If you caught a particular episode of "The Daily Show" you would have seen a hilarious clip of him not responding when he was asked if one can contract the aids virus through sweat on a chair. I am not sure how much of a "Doctor" he really is.

quote:

I'm surprised by the inactivity of this thread. Don't people have opinions anymore?

Would you rather have a lot of people spouting rhetoric or a couple giving fair analysis on current events. I went to a "Chat room" last week, for the first time in years and was saddened by the amount of morons on the web. I thought people as stupid as they were unable to type sentences. Unfortunately I was incorrect.


You know what else is upsetting me lately, everybody is targeting "Rap" music as a bad thing. I have seen Bill O'Reily misquote lyrics to a "Pop" song by one of the American Idol people and say that it is a strong case against rap music. Al Sharpton recently had something to say about it. I am not much of a rap listener but I have heard a lot worse than rap. I haven't heard anything about Death Metal, and, lyrically speaking, it would scare the shit out of most republicans.

Metal in general got targeted in the 80's, and death metal crops up now and then, but it's not as big of an issue because death metal doesn't sell NEARLY as many copies as hip-hop. I vividly recall someone(maybe Tipper Gore and her PMRC?) misquoting and misunderstanding Ozzy's "Suicide Solution" as a pro-suicide song, when it is, in fact, about alcoholism.

Between blaming the rap music, blaming the violent video games (they're trying to enact stricter laws controlling the sale of them in Missouri and Illinois), and blaming the liberal intelligencia in academia, I'm not sure who ISN'T to blame for the problems in the US.

Related to the academic freedom stuff that started this thread is this post, from a philosopher being criticized for teaching...GASP!...PHILOSOPHY!

Here's the link:

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views05/0328-30.htm

I can't vouch for the author's credibility, but I can easily see this happening in any Intro Philosophy class or, even more likely, in an Intro to Political Philosophy.

quote:

Nevertheless, college students believe that they have equal status with their professors. And that is how this movement began—with the absurd notion that students’ opinions, no matter how stupid or wrong those opinions may be, have as much validity as academic scholarship.

That is true, I have seen it. My poor sociology teacher got bashed by many for teaching the ideas of people like Karl Marx and other sociologist. The attack the professor instead of the ideas. It seems ironic that people going to learn about sociology challenge the teacher on sociological issues.

I've read all the links and all the comments, and I'm coming to the conclusion that somebody's son/daughter cried to their parent in the state/national Congress, and this is where we're at. In the big scheme of things, I don't REALLY believe this will interfere with anyone's education, job, or life, but some people feel that they are called to a "higher" level, so why don't we just screw them, OK? I hope my flippancy supercedes theirs.

Marxism rules!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
I've read all the links and all the comments, and I'm coming to the conclusion that somebody's son/daughter cried to their parent in the state/national Congress, and this is where we're at. In the big scheme of things, I don't REALLY believe this will interfere with anyone's education, job, or life, but some people feel that they are called to a "higher" level, so why don't we just screw them, OK? I hope my flippancy supercedes theirs.

I think you're mostly right, but I think it has affected people. I'm VERY cautious about what I say in class, particularly when I'm dealing with heated current topics (which is most of what I do) and it sometimes detracts from the discussion that I must constantly offer pre-emptive statements like "I'm not advocating this position, but someone MIGHT say..." It clumsies up what could be good discussion. I'm not lamenting this so much as just pointing out that, now, I'm more conscious of the fact that the things that I say in class could lead me to trouble. And I never give the students any tipoff on which views are MY views. But you're probably right...this kind of stuff will probably never affect me. I'm just more conscious of it now. The awareness of watching what I say is the reason I could never teach high school (I recently turned down an offer to teach high school social studies at a Catholic girls high school because I don't trust my filter...)

On the cover of today's New York Times there is an article on how some Republicans are going to go to churches to tell, they hope, one million people that Democrats are "against people of faith" for blocking Bush's nominees. The go on to say:
"The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith."
Now somebody correct me if I'm wrong but I have a couple various thoughts on this article:

1) The filibuster that was onced used to protect racial bias was done by the Republicans.
2) The Republicans look like they may be starting the next presidential campaign a little early. By calling Democrats "Against people of faith" they are already trying to set up their next attempt to win an election by spreading rumors about the other party. I would expect to see a mention of this by the Republicans in 2008.

Signing up for the NYtimes online is free so don't worry about that.


There was also a very good editorial in the Alligator on Internet2. It asks some very important questions on how people are getting caught "Pirating" music.

Again, take to the streets and chant "Be Reasonable"! Time to take the centre back people!

Every time I think the center is the place I can reasonably spend time (the public opinion polls on Terri Schiavo, for instance), I hear about groups like The Dominionists (who want to reclaim America for Christ) and hear the comments of people like Phyllis Schlafly and James Dobson and Michael Farris and Rush Limbaugh (who bemoan activist judges when they don't rule in the way they would like them to rule.) Link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38308-2005Apr8.html

I'm puzzled by the inconsistency (not that I'm claiming that the other side is always consistent). Liberal activist judges are dangerous and Edwin Viera even offers a vaguely worded threat (if you read the quote he uses correctly) to their lives, but conservative judicial activism is just fine, and gets us in line with the "proper" understanding of American values.

If the center keeps slipping, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to find a new place to live. I really don't want to live in a country governed by people like the Dominionists. I'm all for religious freedoms. I just don't want someone elses religious views to dictate how I should live my life. My pharmacist can disapprove of my wife's prescription for birth control pills all he wants on moral/religious grounds (as idiotic as I may think his grounds may be) but he's got a responsibility, as a pharmacist, to fill it. If the moral part of his job is so troubling, he should quit. Or, if one wants to be a free market libertarian about it, he should open a Catholic pharmacy and hope there will be a market for a pharmacist who won't fill scrips for the pill.

I am definitely on the left side of the spectrum as far as politics go (and please don't confuse the left with the Democrats), and though I hate much of the radical right, sometimes the moderates frustrate me more. They don't really advocate any position at all. They justify the inequalities and injustices that exist, and make any kind of progress almost impossible.

As far as religious fundamentalism goes, there is no talking sense to those kinds of people. The fact that they are fundamentalists should already tell you that they cannot be swayed by logic. They believe what makes them feel comforatable, and to convince them that any of their beliefs are wrong would make them very uncomfortable, and therefore is impossible.

I couldn't agree more with eric on the pharmacist case. Personally, there are some professions I will never go into because of the moral implications of performing my duties in those jobs. I could never work for a military corporation and feel that I've contributed to the death of innocents, so why would I go into that profession? If you don't believe in some of the things pharmacists are supposed to do, then you shouldn't become a pharmacist.

I know there is at least one libertarian on this forum, and while I feel that some libertarian views are healthy, there are others that I don't like at all. I definitely like the idea of eliminating corporate welfare and the entire military-industrial complex. I also think that in the long run, reducing the power of the government to a minimum should be a goal. However, libertarians tend to overlook the power that corporations hold and wield over the population. Right now, the only thing keeping corporations from ruling over us like dictators is the government. Democratizing the workplace needs to come before eliminating as much of the government as possible. For example, eliminating government regulations would allow anyone who wants to pollute and abuse workers as much as they want. There would be wanton destruction of the environment and a corporate reign of terror. I want to add more, but I've got to leave right now. Be back tomorrow. Look forward to hearing your thoughts.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
I am definitely on the left side of the spectrum as far as politics go (and please don't confuse the left with the Democrats)

Nice point. I've been chastized here for confusing the right with the religious right. It's really only the strongly religious right that really concerns me, primarily because I see it as a very small step from setting up a government based on religious values to persecuting people who don't believe.