Reviving the Culture Wars on Campus
Overview
As primary contributors to the “marketplace of ideas,” colleges and universities serve as natural foci for contention between the worldviews of the
left and right. Campus debate has become especially heated in recent years, fueled by two bitterly fought presidential campaigns: divisions over the
war in Iraq and the prominence of moral issues such as reproductive rights and same-sex marriage. Amid the debate, conservative groups such as the Students
for Academic Freedom (SAF) are crying foul, arguing that pervasive liberalism in academe creates a hostile environment for the expression of their views
and promotes indoctrination and discrimination, rather than education. Their proposed remedy for what they believe to be systemic—and pernicious—imbalance
centers around the legislation of an Academic Bill of Rights.
In its basic form, the Academic Bill of Rights contains a handful of mandates, including: non-discrimination with respect to viewpoint in the hiring,
advancement, and dismissal of faculty; non-discrimination with respect to viewpoint against students in the assessment of their academic work; and acknowledgement
of accepted and dissenting theories in the humanities and social sciences. Additionally, the bill cites the American Association of University Professors’
(AAUP) 1915 General Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure and its 1967 Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students in its rationale.
The measure made its legislative debut in 2004, with limited success. In 2005 it is attracting more attention and debate.
Proponents describe the Academic Bill of Rights as a necessary safeguard for minority viewpoints in the classroom and throughout the campus, while critics
blast it as a Trojan Horse for a right-wing agenda. While viewpoint bias and harassment claims should alert state college and university leaders to
potential flaws in culture and policy, the proposed redress for those claims may be even more flawed.
Observations
The Academic Bill of Rights has quickly ignited and spread a grassroots movement. . Founded in 2003, SAF now has chapters on 150 campuses nationwide,
a significant share of them at state colleges and universities. The Academic Bill of Rights has been introduced in 13 state legislatures and the U.S.
Congress in 2005, and SAF has targeted several more states for future legislation.
Colleges and universities already have comprehensive evaluation and grievance policies and procedures, which makes legislation in this area
unnecessary. Higher education institutions should ensure that their policies and processes are widely disseminated and consistently applied.
In 2004, for example, Colorado lawmakers abandoned their push for a legislated Academic Bill of Rights in exchange for a memorandum of understanding
with college and university leaders regarding internal review/revision of their grievance and due process practices.
The measure would put states in the business of regulating curriculum, which is unprecedented and problematic. Specifically, the bill mandates
that “Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge
in these areas by providing students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate.” The setting and execution of curriculum has been and
should remain an academic function, free of political influence. Subjecting syllabi to legislative oversight and partisan debate could easily have a
chilling effect on productive but controversial academic inquiry, and would further complicate the curriculum setting and review processes (which are
already complicated enough).
Despite their professed interest in fairness for all, backers of the Academic Bill of Rights appear to have a partisan agenda. This
is evidenced by the fact that examples of alleged abuse are exclusively about conservative students and faculty being harassed or unfairly assessed
by their liberal counterparts, as well as by such links on SAF’s website as “How to Research Faculty Voting Registrations.” More significantly
SAF was established and is guided by David Horowitz, billed as “the left’s most brilliant and articulate nemesis.”
The credibility of the claims cited to support adoption of the Academic Bill of Rights has come under scrutiny. A prime example of
this emerges in the case of the University of Northern Colorado student failed for refusing to write an essay on “Why George Bush Is a War Criminal,”
frequently cited by SAF leader Horowitz in media interviews and testimony before state legislatures. Investigation of the case, however, revealed that:
a) the student failed the exam in dispute because she did not comply with requirements on answer length, not because of the content of her answer; b)
the exam question in dispute was more nuanced than represented, and was not required for completion of the exam; and c) the course instructor was a
registered Republican who discussed several schools of thought related to war crimes, including one that labeled George Washington a war criminal. Nevertheless,
Horowitz continues to relate the account without revision indicating that Academic Bill of Rights proponents may be more interested in scoring political
points than in factual accuracy.
Conclusion
As the rhetoric over academic freedom and free speech on campuses escalates, policymakers and higher education leaders must remain focused on ensuring
that colleges and universities are places of free and fair exchange, safe for important but controversial debates. The Academic Bill of Rights, as currently
articulated and promoted, would leave institutions even more divided and would keep students and faculty safe from controversial but important debates.
RESOURCES
American Association of University Professors (AAUP). One of the leading groups representing faculty in the United States, AAUP presents
an opposing viewpoint on the Academic Bill of Rights
AAUP
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). An organization representing conservative state lawmakers, ALEC has developed model bills/resolutions
for the Academic Bill of Rights
ALEC
Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC). Headed by Students for Academic Freedom founder David Horowitz, the Center “is
dedicated to defending the cultural foundations of a free society, a task made even more pressing by the attack on America of September 11th, the Iraq
conflict and the internal opponents of freedom this attack has revealed.” The Center has an online journal (FrontPage Magazine), which features
stories regarding the Academic Bill of Rights.
Frontpage
Students for Academic Freedom (SAF). Comprised of 150 campus chapters and a national office, SAF is dedicated to documenting alleged
instances of viewpoint bias against students and the adoption of corrective measures against such bias (i.e. Academic Bill of Rights). SAF’s website
includes a listing of campus chapters and the original text of the Academic Bill of Rights.
SAF
##
