admin

Ohio Senate Bill 24

May 23, 2020 by admin Leave a Comment

As Introduced

126th General AssemblyRegular Session2005-2006

S. B. No. 24

Senators Mumper, Jordan, Cates, Wachtmann
A BILLTo enact sections 3345.80 and 3345.81 of the Revised Code to establish the academic bill of rights for higher education.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF OHIO:Section 1. That sections 3345.80 and 3345.81 of the Revised Code be enacted to read as follows:

Sec. 3345.80. The board of trustees of each state institution of higher education, as defined in section 3345.011 of the Revised Code, and the board of trustees or other governing authority of each private institution of higher education that holds a certificate of authorization issued under section 1713.02 of the Revised Code shall adopt a policy recognizing that the students, faculty, and instructors of the institution have the following rights:(A) The institution shall provide its students with a learning environment in which the students have access to a broad range of serious scholarly opinion pertaining to the subjects they study. In the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, the fostering of a plurality of serious scholarly methodologies and perspectives shall be a significant institutional purpose. In addition, curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social studies shall respect all human knowledge in these areas and provide students with dissenting sources and viewpoints.(B) Students shall be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study and shall not be discriminated against on the basis of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs. Faculty and instructors shall not use their courses or their positions for the purpose of political, ideological, religious, or antireligious indoctrination.(C) Faculty and instructors shall not infringe the academic freedom and quality of education of their students by persistently introducing controversial matter into the classroom or coursework that has no relation to their subject of study and that serves no legitimate pedagogical purpose.(D) University administrators, student government organizations, and institutional policies, rules, or procedures shall not infringe the freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of conscience of students and student organizations.(E) The institution shall distribute student fee funds on a viewpoint-neutral basis and shall maintain a posture of neutrality with respect to substantive political and religious disagreements, differences, and opinions. The selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speakers’ programs, and other student activities shall observe the principles of academic freedom and promote the presentation of a diversity of opinions on intellectual matters. Except as provided by law, the institution shall not permit the obstruction of invited campus speakers, the destruction of campus literature, or other efforts to obstruct a civil exchange of ideas.(F) Faculty and instructors shall be free to pursue and discuss their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views, but they shall make their students aware of serious scholarly viewpoints other than their own through classroom discussion or dissemination of written materials, and they shall encourage intellectual honesty, civil debate, and the critical analysis of ideas in the pursuit of knowledge and truth.(G) Faculty and instructors shall be hired, fired, promoted, and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in their field of expertise and shall not be hired, fired, promoted, granted tenure, or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs.(H) Faculty and instructors shall not be excluded from tenure, search, and hiring committees on the basis of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs.(I) The institution and its professional societies shall maintain a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements that divide researchers on questions within, or outside, their fields of inquiry recognizing that:(1) Knowledge advances when individual scholars are left free to reach their own conclusions about which methods, facts, and theories have been validated by research;(2) Academic institutions and professional societies formed to advance knowledge within an area of research, maintain the integrity of the research process, and organize the professional lives of related researchers serve as indispensable venues within which scholars circulate research findings and debate their interpretations.Sec. 3345.81. The board of trustees of each state institution of higher education, as defined in section 3345.011 of the Revised Code, and the board of trustees or other governing authority of each private institution of higher education that holds a certificate of authorization issued under section 1713.02 of the Revised Code, shall adopt a grievance procedure by which a student, faculty member, or instructor may seek redress for an alleged violation of any of the rights specified by the institution’s policy adopted under section 3345.80 of the Revised Code. Each board of trustees or other governing authority shall provide students, faculty, and instructors with notice of the rights and grievance procedure by publication in the institution’s course catalog, student handbook, and web site.

Conservatives Need Not Apply

May 18, 2020 by admin Leave a Comment

By John O. McGinnis and Matthew Schwartz–Wall Street Journal–04/01/03

From the claims of supporters of diversity one might think that law schools are sparing no effort to make sure that campuses ring with contentious voices.

In its upcoming Supreme Court case, the University of Michigan Law School justifies its very substantial preferences for selected racial and ethnic minorities on the ground that a “critical mass” of African-American and Hispanic students is needed to assure that all students have the benefit of a variety of views and experiences. But professors even more than students set the intellectual tone in university life. Generating ideas is their job. These same law schools almost uniformly lack a “critical mass” of conservatives to offer an alternative to the reigning liberal orthodoxy.

We have conducted a study that provides evidence of the ideological imbalance at elite law schools — of which we have heard no plans to rectify. We reviewed all federal campaign contributions over $200 by professors at the top 22 law schools from 1994 to 2000. During that time, close to a quarter of these law professors contributed to campaigns — a proportion far greater than the average citizen. The proof is stark: as the Anglican church was once described as the Tory Party at prayer, the legal academy today is best seen as the Democratic Party at the lectern. America splits evenly between the GOP and Democrats, but 74% of the professors contribute primarily to Democrats. Only 16% do so to Republicans.

These overall percentages substantially understate the effect of the partisan imbalance at most schools. Republican-contributing law professors are very disproportionately concentrated at two schools — the University of Virginia and Northwestern. In contrast, many other elite schools have few or no politically active Republicans. At Yale, where almost 50% of the faculty donate, almost 95% give predominantly to Democrats. At Michigan itself the ratio is eight to one. Sometimes the amounts donated can be instructive: in the last six years Georgetown law professors have donated approximately $180,000 to the Democratic Party, $2,000 to the GOP and $1,500 to the Green party. Conclusion? Mainstream conservative ideas are no better represented than those on the leftist fringe.

The overall ratio also understates the skewed debate on issues of public concern: our study finds that professors teaching economics-based subjects like antitrust and corporations are more conservative than their public-law counterparts. This leaves such subjects as constitutional law and international law — the subjects that set the agenda for debate on the hot-button issues of our time — with scarcely a conservative voice.

The Constitution properly disfavors government classification by race. When the government argues that it has a compelling reason to overcome the strong presumption of racial neutrality, the courts assess the sincerity of the reason by testing whether its policies fit with its justification. When law schools make no progress (and no discernible effort) in correcting the patent absence of diversity in viewpoints, it is fair to assume that their true goal is racial patterning, not educational diversity.

–The race-based “diversity” rationale is even more disturbing for what it shows us about the modern university. In light of its educational mission, a university has a particular obligation to logical argumentation, and a duty to reject subterfuge.

For instance, universities might argue that preferences are needed to make up for egregious past discrimination. That provides a principled rationale for extending preferences to African-Americans and Native Americans while not taking effective action to remedy the gross viewpoint disparities on faculties. In the event the Supreme Court rejects that rationale, private universities could encourage Congress to allow them to engage in race-based affirmative action on the grounds that private institutions should enjoy freedom to admit whom they choose. But by pursuing the diversity rationale, universities have sacrificed their higher calling to truth. Instead, they have become just another political faction, all too willing to dissemble.

—————————————-

Mr. McGinnis is a professor of law at Northwestern University. Mr. Schwartz is a law student at Columbia University.

LUNTZ RESEARCH

May 18, 2020 by admin Leave a Comment

Center for the Study
of Popular Culture
PROFESSOR SURVEY

N = 151
MARGIN OF ERROR +/- 8%

1. First, some people think the government in Washington is trying to do things that
should be left to individuals, communities and private enterprise. Others think the
federal government should do more to solve our country’s problems. Which comes
closer to your view?

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 61%
INDIVIDUALS, COMMUNTIES, AND PRIVATE ENTERPRISE 11%
NEITHER 15%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 13%

2. Now think for a moment. What specific national event in your lifetime made you
least proud to be an American?

VIETNAM 25%
VARIOUS MILITARY BOMBINGS/INVASIONS 9%
GULF WAR 5%
2000 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 5%
WATERGATE 4%
BILL CLINTON 3%
CURRENT AFGHANISTAN SITUATION 3%
WORLD WAR 2 2%
NOTHING 3%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 30%
OTHER 11%

3. TAX CUT

Ivy League Professors
If the federal budget has a surplus in any given year, this money should be returned to tax payers in the form of a tax cut. Do you …?

AGREE 13%
STRONGLY AGREE 3%
SOMEWHAT AGREE 10%
DISAGREE 80%
SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 26%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 54%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 7%

All Americans
Based on what you have heard or read, do you favor or oppose Congress including a substantial tax cut in this year’s federal budget?

FAVOR 67%
OPPOSE 27%
NO OPINION 6%
Source: Gallup. May, 2001

4. MERIT-BASED TEACHER PAY

Ivy League Professors
Teachers’ salaries should be adjusted to reward higher levels of performance.
Do you …?

AGREE 78%
STRONGLY AGREE 41%
SOMEWHAT AGREE 37%
DISAGREE 13%
SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 8%
STRONGY DISAGREE 5%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 9%

All Americans
Paying teachers not based on seniority, but based on the value that they bring to the classrooms, as measured by improvements in their students’ test scores. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose this proposal?

SUPPORT 84%
STRONGLY SUPPORT 66%
SOMEWHAT SUPPORT 18%
OPPOSE 14%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 8%
STRONGY OPPOSE 6%
DON’T KNOW 2%
Democratic Leadership Council Blueprint Poll conducted by Penn Schoen & Berland Associates. June, 1999

5. SCHOOL CHOICE

Ivy League Professors
The government should give parents the option of using government-funded school vouchers to pay for tuition at a public, private or religious school of their choice. Do you …?

AGREE 26%
STRONGLY AGREE 13%
SOMEWHAT AGREE 13%
DISAGREE 67%
SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 15%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 52%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 7%

All Americans
Would you vote for or against a system giving parents the option of using government-funded school vouchers to pay for tuition at the public, private or religious school of their choice?

FOR 62%
AGAINST 36%
DON’T KNOW 2%
Source: Gallup. January, 2001

6. SLAVERY REPARATIONS

Ivy League Professors
The federal government owes American blacks some form of reparations for the harms caused by slavery and discrimination. Do you …?

AGREE 40%
STRONGLY AGREE 15%
SOMEWHAT AGREE 25%
DISAGREE 47%
SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 21%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 26%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 13%

National Sample
Do you think the United States should pay reparations for slavery, that is, pay money to African-Americans who are descendants of slaves??

YES 11%
NO 81%
NOT SURE 8%
Source: Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. March, 2001.

7. News coverage of political and social issues reflects a liberal bias in the news media.
Do you …?

AGREE 21%
STRONGLY AGREE 7%
SOMEWHAT AGREE 14%
DISAGREE 71%
SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 25%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 46%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 8%

8. Politically, do you think most journalists are … than you are?

CONSERVATIVE 32%
MUCH MORE CONSERVATIVE 8%
SOMEWHAT MORE CONSERVATIVE 24%
ABOUT THE SAME 29%
MORE LIBERAL 22%
SOMEWHAT MORE LIBERAL 18%
MUCH MORE LIBERAL 4%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 17%

9. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

In general, do you think we need to increase or decrease affirmative action programs in this country?

Ivy League Professors
INCREASE 34%
KEEP THE SAME 40%
DECREASE 15%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 10%

All Americans
INCREASE 24%
KEEP THE SAME 34%
DECREASE 35%
NO OPINION 7%
Source: Gallup. August, 2001
10. ABORTION

Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?

Ivy League Professors
LEGAL UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES 37%
LEGAL ONLY UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES 59%
ILLEGAL IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES 1%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 3%

All Americans
LEGAL UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES 26%
LEGAL ONLY UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES 56%
ILLEGAL IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES 17%
NO OPINION 1%
Source: Gallup. August, 2001

11. FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES

Do you approve or disapprove of an initiative which will use government funds to help
religious organizations provide social services?

Ivy League Professors
APPROVE 27%
STRONGLY APPROVE 5%
SOMEWHAT APPROVE 22%
DISAPPROVE 62%
SOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE 22%
STRONGLY DISAPPROVE 40%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 11%
All Americans
APPROVE 48%
DISAPPROVE 44%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED/NO OPINION 8%
Source: Gallup. February, 2001.

12. MISSILE DEFENSE

Ivy League Professors
Recently there has been some discussion about the possibility of the United States building a defense system against nuclear missiles. Do you think the government should or should not spend the money that would be required for research and possible development of such a system?

SHOULD SPEND MONEY 14%
SHOULD NOT SPEND MONEY 74%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 12%

All Americans
Recently there has been some discussion about the possibility of the United States building a defense system against nuclear missiles. Do you think the government should or should not spend the money that would be necessary to build such a system?

SHOULD SPEND MONEY 70%
SHOULD NOT SPEND MONEY 26%
NO OPINION 4%
Source: Gallup. October, 2001.

13. If you had to choose, which of the following do you think would have a greater impact on reducing gun violence in our schools …

MORE GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION 42%
GREATER INVOLVEMENT BY PARENTS IN LIVES OF 37%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 21%

14. All things considered, who do you think has been the best president in the past 40 years?

CLINTON 26%
KENNEDY 17%
JOHNSON 15%
CARTER 13%
REAGAN 4%
GEORGE H. BUSH 2%
NIXON 1%
FORD 1%
GEORGE W. BUSH 0%
OTHER 3%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 18%

15. Overall, if you had to choose, which do you agree with more, the editorial page of the…?

NEW YORK TIMES 72%
WALL STREET JOURNAL 5%
BOTH 4%
NEITHER 9%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 10%

16. Now I am going to read you a list of nationally known organizations and I’d like you to tell me which one you most identify with.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 44%
COMMON CAUSE 15%
PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY 6%
NATIONAL TAX PAYERS UNION 1%
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION 1%
CHRISTIAN COALITION 0%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 33%

17. Do you think George W. Bush’s political views are too conservative, too liberal, or about right?

Ivy League Professors
TOO CONSERVATIVE 79%
TOO LIBERAL 0%
ABOUT RIGHT 13%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 8%

National Sample
TOO CONSERVATIVE 38%
TOO LIBERAL 16%
ABOUT RIGHT 40%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 6%
Source: Gallup. August, 2001

And now a few final demographic questions for statistical purposes only…

18. How often do you attend religious services?

MORE THAN ONCE PER WEEK 3%
ONCE PER WEEK 17%
ONCE A MONTH OR SO 11%
FEW TIME A YEAR 15%
RARELY 19%
NEVER 29%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 5%

19. 2000 ELECTION

Who did you vote for in the 2000 presidential election? If you did not vote, just say so.

GEORGE W. BUSH 6%
AL GORE 61%
RALPH NADER 5%
PAT BUCHANAN 0%
DID NOT VOTE 19%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 9%

19(A). Voters only: Who did you vote for in the 200 Presidential election?

Ivy League Professors who voted for
Bush, Gore, Nader or Buchanan.
GEORGE W. BUSH 9%
AL GORE 84%
RALPH NADER 6%
PAT BUCHANAN 0%

Official Election Results
GEORGE W. BUSH 48%
AL GORE 48%
RALPH NADER 3%
PAT BUCHANAN 0%

20. And do you consider yourself to be a….?

Ivy League Professors
REPUBLICAN 3%
STRONG REPUBLICAN 0%
WEAK REPUBLICAN 3%
INDEPENDENT 20%
DEMOCRAT 57%
WEAK DEMOCRAT 23%
STRONG DEMOCRAT 34%
GREEN PARTY 1%
OTHER 5%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 14%

All Americans
REPUBLICAN 37%
STRONG REPUBLICAN 27%
WEAK REPUBLICAN 10%
INDEPENDENT 18%
DEMOCRAT 34%
WEAK DEMOCRAT 13%
STRONG DEMOCRAT 21%
OTHER 3%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 8%
SOURCE: Luntz Research, November, 2001.

21. Thinking of your general outlook politically, would you describe yourself as conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate, somewhat liberal, or liberal?

CONSERVATIVE 0%
SOMEWHAT CONSERVATIVE 6%
MODERATE 23%
SOMEWHAT LIBERAL 30%
LIBERAL 34%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 7%

22. In what department do you work?

DEAN/ADMINISTRATION 4%
COMMUNICATIONS/JOURNALISM 6%
ENGLISH/LITERATURE 6%
GOVERNMENT 5%
AMERICAN HISTORY 3%
OTHER HISTORY 9%
LAW/LEGAL STUDIES/ETHICS 2%
PHILOSOPHY 11%
POLITICAL SCIENCE 5%
SOCIAL SCIENCES 16%
SOCIOLOGY/ANTHROPOLOGY 13%
ECONOMICS/BUSINESS MANAGEMENT 12%
OTHER 8%

23 What is your gender?

MALE 74%
FEMALE 26%

24. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose allowing spy agencies like the CIA to recruit on college campuses like yours?

SUPPORT 68%
STRONGLY SUPPORT 28%
SOMEWHAT SUPPORT 40%
OPPOSE 14%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 7%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 7%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 18%

25. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose officer training programs for undergraduates on college campuses like yours?

SUPPORT 71%
STRONGLY SUPPORT 33%
SOMEWHAT SUPPORT 38%
OPPOSE 16%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 9%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 7%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 13%

Report on Campus Commencement Speakers

May 18, 2020 by admin Leave a Comment

August 28, 2003

Executive Summary
(David Horowitz)

This study of the selection of commencement speakers is intended to supplement the Study of Political Bias in the Administration and to provide an independent measure of its accuracy. In this case we were able to assign an identity to all the subjects with a political profile. The results are, in fact, even more imbalanced than what we discovered in our more imperfect inquiry into the political views of faculty and administrators. The ratio of commencement speakers on the left and right was 226-15, a ratio of over 15-1. Removing the three schools that featured multiple speakers every year, the count of 172-15 still almost perfectly mirrors the similar 10-1 ratio we observed with faculty political alignment.

Commencement speakers at different universities are selected through different procedures but in almost all cases through committees composed of administrative staff, faculty, and students. They may be said, therefore, to reflect the preferences of the respective campus communities.

The position of Commencement Speaker is a high honorific and the individuals chosen are generally regarded as role models for each graduating class, reflecting values that students are encouraged to emulate. The occasion – the passage of students into society as a new generation of potential leaders – makes the selection of these individuals an important statement by the selection committee as to what that leadership should entail. For these reasons, we believe that the selection of commencement speakers is a good index of the preferences of the institutions themselves.

The list of commencement speakers has the additional advantage of being transparent. The names of most speakers will be familiar to anyone examining these results. Therefore the judgments we have made in matching speakers with viewpoints is open to instant review.

For each of the thirty-two schools we acquired lists of the last ten commencement speakers and identified them using five categories: Liberal, Democrat, Conservative, Republican and No (Public) Political or Partisan Identification. The last category is important since some commencement speakers are leaders in scientific, charitable and civic fields that are not partisan in nature.

In conducting our study we felt it was the public identities of speakers that were important for our purposes and not the fact that they may have cast a secret ballot for one political party or another. Molly Ivins and George Will – writers about political issues from opposite sides of the spectrum – are thus identified as “liberal” and “conservative” rather than “Democrat” and “Republican.” Actors like Alan Alda, Whoopi Goldberg, Bill Cosby and Danny Glover who publicly associate themselves with liberal causes are identified as liberals.

Summary of Results

Twenty-two of the thirty-two schools surveyed did not have a single Republican or conservative commencement speaker in the entire ten years surveyed. The same schools invited 173 liberals and Democrats to address their graduating classes in the same ten-year period.
Six of the remaining schools invited only one Republican or conservative each, as compared to 38 liberals or Democrats.
The three schools (Haverford, Swarthmore and UCLA) which host multiple speakers every year did not feature a single Republican or conservative speaker as balanced against 54 liberals and Democrats.
Overall, the ratio of commencement speakers on the left to commencement speakers on the right is 226 to 15, a little over 15-1.
141 commencement speakers were not associated with a partisan viewpoint.

DATA:

Total schools surveyed: 32
Total speakers: 382
Political Breakdown: 226 Left, 15 Right (54 Democrats, 172 Liberals, 2 Conservatives, 13 Republicans 141 Nonpartisan)
Political Breakdown (without Haverford, Swarthmore and UCLA which have multiple commencement speakers): 172 Left, 15 Right (48 Democrats, 124 Liberals, 2 Conservatives, 13 Republicans, 86 Nonpartisan)

Amherst
1994 Molly Ivins Journalist L
1995 Paul J Adams III School principal N
1996 Doris Kearns Goodwin Historian L
1997 Wynton Marsalis Musician N
1998 Joseph Hartzler Prosecutor N
1999 Jim Lehrer PBS L
2000 William J Amend Cartoonist N
2001 Tom Gerety Amherst President N
2002 Peter Jennings NBC L
2003 Dr. Asma Jahangir UN official L
5L, 0R, 0C, 0R, 5N

Bates
1994 Henry Louis Gates Jr. Professor L
1995 Garry Wills Author L
1996 Chinua Achebe Novelist L
1997 Oscar Arias Nobel Peace Prize N
1998 Doris Kearns Goodwin Pulitzer Prize L
1999 Richard C Holbrooke American diplomat D
2000 Desmond Tutu Archbishop L
2001 Robert B. Reich Secretary of Labor D
2002 Stephen Weinberg Physicist N
2003 Stephen L. Carter Novelist L
2D, 6L, 0C, 0R, 2N

Bowdoin
1994 Dr. Angelo J Eraklis Hospital founder N
1995 Dr. Philip Sharp Scientist N
1996 James Eells Jr Professor N
1997 Paul R Brountas Dukakis campaigner D
1998 F Washington Jarvis Prep school headmaster N
1999 Multiple speakers
2000 Peter Gomes Reverend L
2001 Mamphela Ramphele World Bank L
2002 Dr Kenneth Paige Scientist N
2003 Dr Margaret Hamburg Scientist N
1D, 2L, 0C, 0R, 8N

Brandeis
1994 Itamar Rabinovich Israeli ambassador N
1995 Daniel Schorr NPR L
1996 Madeleine K Albright Clinton Cabinet D
1997 Multiple speakers
1998 Helmut Kohl Germany President N
1999 John H Glenn Senator D
2000 Desmond M Tutu Archbishop L
2001 Peter S Lynch Business N
2002 Ted Koppel ABC L
2003 Aharon Barak Liberal Israeli N
2D, 5L, 0C, 0R, 4N

Brown
1994 Michael Paley Rabbi L
1995 James Forbes Reverend L
1996 Aga Khan Muslim leader N
1997 Bill Moyers PBS L
1998 Margaret R Miles Religious critic L
1999 John Hume Ireland leader N
2000 Gustavo Gutierrez Liberationist L
2001 Madeleine Albright Clinton Cabinet D
2002 Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court L
2003 Xu Wenli Chinese dissident N
1D, 6L, 0C, 0R, 3N

Bryn Mawr
1994 Ellen Goodman Columnist L
1995 Ilana Diamon Rovner Judge N
1996 Jill Ker Conway Author L
1997 Ariana Holborn Gray Academic N
1998 Zeba M Rasmussen Liberal Muslim L
1999 Lynne Meadow Artistic Director N
2000 Marian Wright Edelman President CDF L
2001 Drew Gilpin Faust Dean L
2002 Linda Fairstein Lawyer N
2003 David W. Oxtoby Dean N
0D, 5L, 0C, 0R, 5N
Cal Tech
1994 Jewel Plummer Cobb Trustee L
1995 Multiple Speakers
1996 Bobby Ray Inman CIA R
1997 David Ho AIDS Researcher N
1998 Bill Nye Scientist N
1999 Tom Brokaw Journalist L
2000 Ray Bradbury Writer N
2001 Gordon Moore Intel co-founder N
2002 Alan Alda Actor L
2003 Harold Varmus Nobel Prize N
0D, 3L, 0C, 1R, 7N

Carnegie Mellon
1994 Lawrence Ellison Oracle CEO N
1995 Jack Klugman Actor N
1996 Steven Bochco Producer L
1997 Raymond W Smith Bell Atlantic CEO N
1998 Jared L Cohon CMU President N
1999 Iris Rainer Dart Author L
2000 Blair Underwood Actor N
2001 Rene Auberjonois Actor N
2002 Tom Ridge Bush Cabinet R
2003 Teresa Heinz Philanthropist L
0D, 3L, 0C, 1R, 6N

U Chicago
1996 Bill Clinton US President D
0D, 1L, 0C, 0R, 0N

Colgate
1994 Seamus Heaney Poet N
1995 Vernon E Jordan Jr Clinton Cabinet D
1996 Andrew Rooney CBS C
1997 Christine Todd Whitman Bush Cabinet R
1998 George E Pataki Governor R
1999 Bill Cosby Comedian L
2000 John McCain US Senator R
2001 Dan Rather CBS L
2002 Charlie Rose PBS L
2003 Anna Quindlen Writer L
1D, 4L, 1C, 3R, 1N

Columbia
1994 Fritz Stern Professor N
1995 Tom Brokaw NBC L
1996 Robert Rubin Clinton Cabinet D
1997 Jonathan Kozol Writer L
1998 Joseph A Greenaway Judge L
1999 Claire Shipman ABC L
2000 Brian Dennehy Actor N
2001 David Boies Lawyer L
2002 David J Stern NBA N
2003 George Stephanopolous Clinton Cabinet D
2D, 5L, 0C, 0R, 3N

Cornell
1994 Dr. Mae Jemison Astronaut N
1995 Morris Dees Lawyer L
1996 Robert F Kennedy Jr Lawyer L
1997 Dr. Bertice Berry Talk show host L
1998 Keith Obermann ESPN L
1999 Sandy Berger Clinton Cabinet D
2000 Charles Schumer Senator D
2001 Janet Reno Clinton Cabinet D
2002 Danny Glover Actor L
2003 James Carville Clinton Cabinet D
4D, 5L, 0C, 0R, 1N

Dartmouth
1994 Robert Reich Clinton Cabinet D
1995 Bill Clinton US President D
1996 David Halberstam Author L
1997 Paavo Lipponen Finland PM N
1998 Doris Kearns Goodwin Historian L
1999 George Mitchell Senator D
2000 Shirley Ann Jackson RPI President L
2001 Madeleine Albright Clinton Cabinet D
2002 Fred Rogers Actor N
2003 David McCullough Writer N
4D, 2L, 0C, 0R, 3N

Davidson

Duke
1994 Judy Woodruff Journalist L
1995 Dr. David Gergen Professor N
1996 Jane Alexander NEA Chair L
1997 Jimmy Carter US President D
1998 George H W Bush US President R
1999 Cokie Roberts Journalist L
2000 Elizabeth Hanford Dole Red Cross R
2001 Charlayne Hunter-Gault Journalist L
2002 Thomas K Wolfe Jr Author C
2003 Nannerl O Keohane Duke President L
1D, 5L, 1C, 2R, 1N

Harvard
1994 Albert Gore Jr Vice President D
1995 Vaclav Havel Czech President N
1996 Harold Varmus NIH N
1997 Madeleine Albright Clinton Cabinet D
1998 Mary Robinson UN N
1999 Alan Greenspan Federal Reserve N
2000 Amartya K Sen Professor L
2001 Robert E Rubin Clinton Cabinet D
2002 Daniel Patrick Moynihan US Senator D
2003 Ernesto Zedillo Mexico President N
4D, 1L, 0C, 0R, 5N

Haverford
1994 Multiple speakers
1995 Multiple speakers
1996 Multiple speakers
1997 Multiple speakers
1998 Multiple speakers
1999 Multiple speakers
2000 Multiple speakers
2001 Multiple speakers
2002 Multiple speakers
2003 Multiple speakers
0D, 26L, 0C, 0R, 12N

MIT
1994 The Aga Khan Muslim leader N
1995 Hanna Gray Uchicago President N
1996 Albert Gore Vice President D
1997 Kofi Annan UN Secretary General L
1998 Multiple Speakers
1999 Tom and Ray Magliozzi NPR N
2000 Carly S Fiorina HP CEO N
2001 Daniel S Goldin NASA N
2002 James D Wolfensohn World Bank N
2003 George Mitchell US Senator D
3D, 1L, 0C, 0R 7N

Northwestern
1994 Arnold R Weber Northwestern President N
1995 Henry S Bienen Northwestern President L
1996 Robert Redford Actor L
1997 Bill Cosby Comedian L
1998 Ruther Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court L
1999 Walter E Massey Morehouse President N
2000 Robert Pinsky Poet N
2001 Scott Turow Lawyer L
2002 Kofi Annan UN L
2003 Wendy Chamberlin Ambassador N
0D, 6L, 0C, 0R, 4N

Oberlin
1994 Romulus Linney Playwright N
1995 Johnetta Betsch Cole Spelman President L
1996 Dr. Robert Coles Professor L
1997 Allan Spear Minnesota Senator D
1998 Damon Keith Judge L
1999 John J Sweeney AFL-CIO President L
2000 Oscar Arias Sanchez Costa Rica President L
2001 William Grat III UNCF President L
2001 Dr. Judah Folkman Medical Researcher N
2002 Anthony Lewis NY Times L
1D, 7L, 0C, 0R, 2N

Pennsylvania
1994 Henry G Cisneros Clinton Cabinet D
1995 Jane Alexander NEA Chair L
1996 Tom Brokaw NBC L
1997 Bill Cosby Comedian L
1998 Jimmy Carter US President D
1999 Robert E Rubin Clinton Cabinet D
2000 Seamus Heaney Poet N
2001 John McCain US Senator R
2002 Jim Lehrer PBS L
2003 Desmond Tutu Archbishop L
3D, 5L, 0C, 1R, 1N

Princeton
1994 Wynton Marsalis Musician N
1995 Jane Alexander NEA Chair L
1996 Bill Bradley US Senator D
1997 William Frist US Senator R
1998 Ruth and Tom Harkin US Senator D
1999 Marian Wright Edelman CDF President L
2000 Queen Noor Foreign leader N
2001 Garrison Keillor NPR L
2002 Meg Whitman eBay CEO N
2003 Fred Hargadon Dean N
2D, 3L, 0C, 0R, 4N

Smith
1994 Jane L Harman US Representative D
1995 Gloria Steinem Author L
1996 Anna Quindlen Columnist L
1997 Marian Wright Edelman CDF President L
1998 Elizabeth Dole Red Cross R
1999 Jane Alexander NEA Chair L
2000 Judy Chicago Artist L
2001 Toni Morrison Author L
2002 Lani Guinier Professor L
2003 Madeleine Albright Clinton Cabinet D
2D, 7L, 0C, 1R, 0N

Stanford
1994 Stephen Carter Professor L
1995 William Perry Bush Cabinet R
1996 Mae C Jemison Astronaut N
1997 Stephen Breyer Supreme Court L
1998 Ted Koppel ABC L
1999 Robert Pinsky Poet N
2000 Kofi Annan UN L
2001 Carly S Fiorina CEO Hewlett-Packard N
2002 Condoleezza Rice Bush Cabinet R
2003 Alejandro Toledo Peru President N
0D, 4L, 0C, 2R, 4N

Swarthmore
1994 Multiple speakers
1995 Multiple speakers
1996 Multiple speakers
1997 Multiple speakers
1998 Multiple speakers
1999 Multiple speakers
2000 Multiple speakers
2001 Multiple speakers
2002 Multiple speakers
2003 Multiple speakers
0D, 17L, 0C, 0R, 15N

Tufts
1994 Ted Koppel Media L
1995 Doris and Richard Goodwin Authors L
1996 Bette Bao Lord Author N
1997 William B Richardson Clinton Cabinet D
1998 Gary Trudeau Cartoonist L
1999 David Halberstam Author L
2000 Bill Cosby Comedian L
2001 Jim Lehrer PBS L
2002 Pierre and Pamela Omidyar eBay N
2003 Margaret Marshall Judge L
1D, 7L, 0C, 0R, 2N

UC Berkeley
1994 Oliver Stone Director L
1995 Robert Reich Clinton Cabinet D
1996 Pedro Noguerra Professor L
1997 Bill Cosby Comedian L
1998 Steve Wozniak Apple Computers L
1999 Terry McMillan Author L
2000 Madeleine Albright Clinton Cabinet D
2001 Janet Reno Clinton Cabinet D
2002 Jonny Moseley Athlete N
2003 Leon Panetta Clinton Cabinet D
4D, 5L, 0C, 0R, 1N

UCLA
1994 Multiple speakers
1995 Multiple speakers
1996 Multiple speakers
1997 Multiple speakers
1998 Multiple speakers
1999 Multiple speakers
2000 Multiple speakers
2001 Multiple speakers
2002 Dov Seidman CEO N
2003 Zev Yaroslavsky LA County Supervisor D
6D, 5L, 0C, 0R, 28N

Wellesley
1994 Cokie Roberts ABC L
1995 Madeleine Albright Clinton Cabinet D
1996 Nora Ephron Writer L
1997 Oprah Winfrey Talk show host L
1998 Pamela A Melroy Astronaut N
1999 Lynn Sherr ABC L
2000 Pamela Daniels Dean L
2001 Jehan Sadat Human rights N
2002 Whoopi Goldberg Actress L
2003 Linda Wertheimer NPR L
1D, 7L, 0C, 0R, 2N

Wesleyan
1994 Lowel P Weicker Governor L
1995 Charles S Stone Journalist L
1996 A Leo Higginbotham Judge L
1997 Paul Simon US Senator D
1998 Oprah Winfrey Talk show host L
1999 Amartya Kumar Sen Nobel Prize L
2000 Harold Varmus Nobel Prize N
2001 Evelyn Fox Keller Professor L
2002 Martha Nussbaum Professor L
2003 Jody Williams Nobel Prize N
1D, 7L, 0C, 0R, 2N

Williams
1994 Michael S Dukakis Governor L
1995 Bernice Johnson Reagon Composer L
1996 George Bush US President R
1997 Grace Paley Author L
1998 Yo-Yo Ma Musician N
1999 Christopher Reeve Actor L
2000 George J Mitchell US Senator D
2001 Robert E Rubin Clinton Cabinet D
2002 Morris Dees Lawyer L
2003 Eric Lander Scientist N
2D, 5L, 0C, 1R, 2N

Yale
1994 Sargent Shriver Peace Corps L
1995 Kurt Schmoke Mayor L
1996 Henry Winkler Actor L
1997 David McCullough Historian L
1998 Tom Brokaw Journalist L
1999 David Gergen Journalist N
2000 Robert Woodward Journalist L
2001 Hillary Clinton US Senator D
2002 George E Pataki Governor R
2003 Thomas L Friedman NY Times L
1D, 7L, 0C, 1R, 1N

SURVEY REVEALS PERVASIVE POLITICAL PRESSURE IN THE CLASSROOM

May 18, 2020 by admin Leave a Comment

Contact: Anne D. Neal or Barry Latzer, 202-467-6787

SURVEY REVEALS PERVASIVE POLITICAL PRESSURE IN THE CLASSROOM

Students: 49% Report Professors Preach Rather Than Teach

Washington, DC (November 30, 2004) — 49% of the students at the top 50 colleges and universities say professors frequently inject political comments into their courses, even if they have nothing to do with the subject. Almost one-third-29%-feel they have to agree with the professor’s political views to get a good grade.

A survey commissioned by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni reveals the politicization of the classroom and the intellectual intolerance of faculty.

According to the survey:

48% report campus presentations on political issues that “seem totally one-sided.”
46% say professors “use the classroom to present their personal political views.”
42% of students fault reading assignments for presenting only one side of a controversial issue.
The survey also indicates that political comments are consistently partisan. The survey, which was conducted just before and after the American presidential election, found that 68% of the students reported negative remarks in class about Pres. George Bush while 62% said professors praised Sen. John Kerry.

“Students pay hefty tuition to get an education, not to hear some professors’ pet political views,” said Anne Neal, president of ACTA. “When politics is relevant, multiple perspectives should be presented. The classroom should be a place where students are free to explore different points of view. They should not feel they will be penalized if they think for themselves.”

The ACTA survey was conducted in late October and early November by the Center for Survey Research & Analysis at the University of Connecticut at the 50 colleges and universities top-ranked by U.S. News & World Report. List attached.

The survey shows that college and university faculty are biased: 74% of students said professors made positive remarks about liberals while 47% reported negative comments about conservatives. A substantial majority-83 %-said that student evaluations administered by the college did not ask about a professor’s political biases.

The survey comes in the wake of a number of studies that have shown that party registrations of college professors are overwhelmingly one-sided. Last week, the Princeton, NJ-based National Association of Scholars released a study showing that the ratio of Democrats to Republicans at some top-50 schools is as high as 9 to 1.

American Association of University Professors president Roger W. Bowen called the NAS study “wrongheaded” and stated that political affiliations of professors are of little consequence in the classroom.

“The ACTA survey clearly shows that faculty are injecting politics into the classroom in ways that students believe infringe upon their freedom to learn,” said Neal.

ACTA opposes legislative intervention and is preparing guidelines for trustees and administrators on how best to ensure intellectual diversity and tolerance on our college and university campuses.

“The lack of intellectual diversity on our college campuses is clearly a problem,” said Neal. “We believe boards of trustees have the responsibility to ensure that students are exposed to a free and open exchange of ideas and are encouraged to think for themselves.”

The ACTA survey has an error rate of plus or minus four. The majority of students surveyed majored in subjects like biology, engineering and psychology-subjects that have nothing to do with politics. Referenced survey questions are available upon request.

ACTA is a nonprofit educational organization based in Washington, DC, and dedicated to academic freedom, academic quality, and accountability. It is located at 1726 M Street, N.W., Suite 802, Washington, DC 20036. For further information, contact ACTA at 202-467-6787 or at [email protected].

# # #

Top 50 Schools Surveyed

A total of 658 randomly selected students from the top 25 National Universities and top 25 National Liberal Arts Colleges, as defined by U.S. News & World Report, were interviewed for this survey. Because of ties in the rankings, a total of 26 National Universities were included in the sample.

National Universities

1. Harvard University
Princeton University
3. Yale University
4. University of Pennsylvania
Duke University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Stanford University
8. California Institute of Technology
9. Columbia University
Dartmouth College
11. Northwestern University
Washington University in St. Louis
13. Brown University
14. Cornell University
Johns Hopkins University
University of Chicago
17. Rice University
18. University of Notre Dame
Vanderbilt University
20. Emory University
21. University of California-Berkeley
22. Carnegie Mellon University
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of Virginia
25. Georgetown University (DC)
University of California-Los Angeles
National Liberal Arts Colleges

1. Williams College
2. Amherst College
Swarthmore College
4. Wellesley College
5. Carleton College
Pomona College
7. Bowdoin College
Davidson College
9. Haverford College
Wesleyan University
11. Middlebury College
12. Vassar College
13. Claremont McKenna College
Smith College
Washington and Lee University16. Colgate University
Grinnell College
Harvey Mudd College
19. Colby College
Hamilton College
21. Bryn Mawr College
22. Bates College
23. Oberlin College
24. Mount Holyoke College
Trinity College

ACTA COLLEGE STUDENTS SURVEY

Conducted by the Center for Survey Research & Analysis at the University of Connecticut

October 26 – November 7, 2004

A total of 658 randomly selected students from the top 25 National Universities and top 25 National Liberal Arts Colleges, as defined by U.S. News & World Report, were interviewed for this survey. See ACTA press release for a listing of schools surveyed. Because of ties in the rankings, a total of 26 National Universities were included in the sample. The survey has an error rate of plus or minus four.

On my campus, some professors frequently comment on politics in class even though it has nothing to do with the course.

Strongly agree 14%

Somewhat agree 35%

Somewhat disagree 26%

Strongly disagree 24%

Don?t know 1%

Refused 0%

On my campus, there are courses in which students feel they have to agree with the professor?s political or social views in order to get a good grade.

Strongly agree 7%

Somewhat agree 22%

Somewhat disagree 22%

Strongly disagree 46%

Don?t know 3%

Refused 0%

On my campus, some panel discussions and presentations on political issues seem totally one-sided.

Strongly agree 15%

Somewhat agree 33%

Somewhat disagree 24%

Strongly disagree 23%

Don?t Know 5%

Refused 0%

On my campus, some professors use the classroom to present their personal political views.

Strongly agree 10%

Somewhat agree 36%

Somewhat disagree 24%

Strongly disagree 29%

Don?t know 1%

Refused 0%

On my campus, some courses have readings which present only one side of a controversial issue.

Strongly agree 12%

Somewhat agree 30%

Somewhat disagree 26%

Strongly disagree 28%

Don?t know 5%

Refused 0%

On my campus, some professors make negative comments about President Bush in class.

Strongly agree 26%

Somewhat agree 42%

Somewhat disagree 16%

Strongly disagree 14%

Don?t know 2%

On my campus, some professors make positive comments about President Bush in class.

Strongly agree 3%

Somewhat agree 24%

Somewhat disagree 34%

Strongly disagree 34%

Don?t know 4%

Refused 0%

On my campus, some professors make negative comments about Senator Kerry in class.

Strongly agree 1%

Somewhat agree 16%

Somewhat disagree 32%

Strongly disagree 47%

Don?t know 3%

On my campus, some professors make positive comments about Senator Kerry in class.

Strongly agree 16%

Somewhat agree 46%

Somewhat disagree 19%

Strongly disagree 13%

Don?t know 6%

Refused 0%

On my campus, some professors make positive comments in class about liberals.

Strongly agree 27%

Somewhat agree 47%

Somewhat disagree 13%

Strongly disagree 10%

Don?t know 3%

Refused 0%

On my campus, some professors make negative comments in class about liberals.

Strongly agree 1%

Somewhat agree 14%

Somewhat disagree 34%

Strongly disagree 49%

Don?t know 2%

On my campus, some professors make negative comments in class about conservatives.

Strongly agree 11%

Somewhat agree 36%

Somewhat disagree 29%

Strongly disagree 22%

Don?t know 2%

Refused 0%

On my campus, some professors make positive comments in class about conservatives.

Strongly agree 3%

Somewhat agree 31%

Somewhat disagree 38%

Strongly disagree 23%

Don?t know 5%

Refused 0%

Do the student evaluation forms of the faculty ask about a professor’s social, political, or religious bias?

Yes 3%

No 83%

Don?t know 14%

Refused 0%

How would you describe your views? Radical left, Liberal, Moderate, Conservative, or Ultraconservative?

Radical Left 5%

Liberal 46%

Moderate 33%

Conservative 13%

Ultraconservative 0%

Don?t know 2%

Refused 1%

What is your major?

Agriculture 0%

Anthropology 1%

Biological Sciences 10%

Biophysics 0%

Business 6%

Chemistry 2%

Classical Studies 1%

Communications/Sciences 1%

Cultural Studies 2%

Economics 7%

Education 1%

Engineering 8%

English 5%

Environmental Science 1%

European Studies 0%

Fine Arts 4%

Geography 0%

Geology and Geophysics 0%

History 4%

Human Development

and Family Relations 1%

Journalism 0%

Linguistics 0%

Mathematics 1%

Nursing 0%

Philosophy 1%

Physics 2%

Physiology and Neurobiology 2%

Political Science 11%

Psychology 5%

Sociology 2%

Women?s Studies 0%

Undecided/Undeclared 5%

Foreign Languages 1%

Computer Sciences 2%

International Relations/Studies 1%

Other (specify) 3%

Don?t know (vol.) 7%

Refused (vol.) 0%