Replies to Critics

Campus Progress: Discrediting Itself

May 23, 2020 by admin Leave a Comment

By Sara Dogan–SAF–04/13/06

George Soros’ organization, the Center for Campus Progress, has posted a series of reports entitled “Undercover at the ‘Academic Freedom Conference'” which serve only to discredit the organization.

For starters, the title of this series is a deceptive misnomer. No one was required to “go undercover” to attend our conference. We encouraged the attendance and participation of members of the teachers unions and those who oppose our academic freedom campaign, offering free registration to members of Mr. Soros’ organization as we did to all others who work for non-profit organizations and the teacher unions.

We also took pains to include their viewpoints in the conference itself. A panel on the topic “Is Legislation Necessary or Advisable?” included William Scheuerman of the United University Professors and Terry Hartle of the American Council on Education, both of whom have opposed legislative efforts inspired by the Academic Bill of Rights, and was moderated by Scott Jaschik of InsideHigherEd.com who has written many critical articles about our efforts.

Once one gets past the invective and personal attacks contained in these reports, only a few salient points remain in their critiques.

One such questions is: “Why, if this is a non-partisan issue as Horowitz claims, all of the kids on an earlier panel about abuses on campus were self-proclaimed conservative activists.”

The answer is simple. As numerous national studies have shown, the vast majority of professors on college campuses identify as Democrats or as politically liberal (the ratio of Democrat to Republican faculty has been shown to be about 10-1 nationally in the humanities and as much as 30-1 in certain liberal arts fields). When one considers the pressure on conservative faculty members to keep their views to themselves on these predominantly left-leaning campuses, it is hardly surprising that most of the political advocacy comes from the faculty left. It should therefore come as no surprise that the vast majority of students who complain about classroom indoctrination are conservative.

The students selected for our panel were those who had experienced classroom indoctrination firsthand and who had helped to organize academic freedom efforts on their campuses. Their political views did not factor into the equation, merely their experiences and involvement in the academic freedom movement. We would be more than happy to include liberal students who fit these criteria on the student panel in the future, but so far very few liberal students have come to us with complaints of classroom indoctrination. Our organization has defended liberal students from conservative political advocacy in the classroom, and has defended the rights of leftists (including Ward Churchill) to exercise their free speech rights, but such opportunities are rarely presented to us for the reasons mentioned above.

A second question raised by Campus Progress is whether student anecdotes describing political advocacy in the classroom qualify as evidence that students’ academic freedoms are regularly violated in our educational institutions. This question was addressed by David Horowitz during a panel discussion.

In this discussion, Horowitz made the point more than once that the academic freedom campaign relies not only on student testimony, which exists in abundance, but also on official university curricula which reveal that whole university departments are infused with political agendas, such as the Women’s Studies department at Santa Cruz, which has been renamed the Department of Feminist Studies to reflect its ideological character.

Finally, the claim is made by Campus Progress that it is hypocritical for advocates of smaller government “to talk about imposing HUGE government imposed control on schools.”

In the first place, no one in the academic freedom movement is talking about imposing governmental controls on schools. The Academic Bill of Rights is a re-formulation of the academic freedom policies of the American Association of University Professors, which are already included in the policies of hundreds of American universities. The problem that Students for Academic Freedom was created to address is that these policies are not being enforced and they are formulated only as teacher responsibilities, not student rights. The hearings currently being conducted in Pennsylvania were created for the purpose of determining whether the existing academic freedom policies of public colleges and universities are being enforced. All the existing legislation is in the form of resolutions urging universities to enforce their own academic freedom policies. There is no enforcement mechanism included in any legislation. Campus Progress knows this because we have stated these facts many times in the face of repeated attacks by our opponents.

Those interested in an accurate account of the conference can view our report here:

April Conference a Rousing Success

Academic Freedom Conference Gets an “A”

May 23, 2020 by admin Leave a Comment

By Christopher Flickinger–Human Events–04/11/06

The first national Academic Freedom Conference gets an A+ from “the dean.”

The event — held in Washington D.C. last Thursday and Friday — allowed me to meet with people from various organizations that are dedicated to taking politics (the professors’ politics) out of the classrooms. It also gave me an opportunity to survey the “academic landscape” as students from campuses across the nation described horror stories of liberal indoctrination.

David Horowitz, author of “The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America” and his group, Students for Academic Freedom, organized the conference. Panel discussions were held, testimonials were given and education reform was in the spotlight.

Horowitz touted his Academic Bill of Rights, which holds professors and administrators accountable to a teaching standard established by American Association of University Professors. That “standard” states, “Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.” Horowitz accurately pointed-out that educators have long since abandoned their own policy.

The conference also featured young conservatives who attested to liberalism pervasive hand throughout higher education. Student speakers came from campuses across the nation including University of California at Davis, Temple, Georgia Tech, Duke and other institutions of higher liberal indoctrination.

Although the forum focused on bias in the classroom, I believe its most beneficial aspect was the convening of various groups and individuals who are determined to restore academic excellence and intellectual integrity. The effort to end liberal bias on campus has been gaining steam, and the Academic Freedom Conference provided the first opportunity for those of us involved in the cause to finally meet.

Human Events U, the Network of College Conservatives, Young America’s Foundation, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Students for Academic Freedom, the Alliance Defense Fund and other such groups all have a common link — ending liberal indoctrination. Each group offers a unique way of combating liberal bias on campus. And, after meeting and talking with each other at this conference, many of us will be combining our efforts and working together to strengthen the movement.

Now, in an obvious attempt to diminish the success of the conference, a story posted at the leftwing website CampusProgress.org claims, “The majority of the people in attendance were either on one of the panels or were a spouse/ child/ assistant to a panel member.”

Wrong. I wasn’t on a panel nor was I related to anyone who spoke.

The story also says, “Horowitz was on pretty much every panel.”

Wrong again. Panels consisted of students, education experts and legislators. While Horowitz sat-in on a few discussions, he wasn’t featured on “pretty much every panel.” Then again, even if he was, how would that be an issue? He hosted the conference, his group — Students for Academic Freedom — organized the event, and he just published a book on the “most dangerous professors.” Yeah, I think I would want to hear from him.

Ladies and gentlemen, the future of higher education is bright for conservatives!

The school year is coming to an end, but Human Events U and the Network of College Conservatives is just getting started. We will continue to get our “ducks in a row” so that by next fall when school starts, conservatives on campus will see an unprecedented effort to bring liberal indoctrination to an end. This is an exciting time for college students — especially conservative students!

Mr. Flickinger is the “dean” of Human Events U and founder of the Network of Campus Conservatives. He is a native of Pittsburgh, who graduated from Ohio University Scripps School of Journalism with specializations in political science and economics

Report on Florida Academic Freedom Policies Obscures a Serious Problem

May 23, 2020 by admin Leave a Comment

By Sara Dogan–SAF–07/28/06

Executive Summary

A recent report from Florida’s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability requested by the Florida state legislature purports to illustrate the extent of current academic freedom policies for both students and faculty at public colleges and universities in the state. But examination of the specific policies and procedures in place in Florida state colleges and universities reveals that the report is a typical bureaucratic smokescreen and no such protections exist.

The report claims that “All Florida public postsecondary institutions have language and policies addressing academic freedom. In general, these statements focus on faculty and their teaching rights and related freedoms. Student academic freedom policies and/or statements generally are found in the institution’s student handbook or student code of conduct.”

It further asserts that all students and faculty receive sufficient notification of academic freedom policies. “All of Florida’s community colleges and public universities publish their academic freedom policies in school catalogs or faculty and student handbooks. These documents also frequently are available electronically on the schools’ Internet and/or intranet sites,” it states.

The report includes as an appendix a letter from Florida Commissioner of Education John Winn who does not hesitate to conclude that the report’s findings are evidence that no further measures are necessary to protect students’ academic freedom: “The report accurately reflects the commitment of Florida’s community colleges to the concept of academic freedom for both faculty and students….We appreciate your research on this topic and are gratified that it validates the efficacy of the current approach to ensuring academic freedom within our public community colleges.”

Despite these expansive claims about the report’s findings, an examination of its contents along with an independent evaluation of sample state university policies in Florida reveals that such self-congratulation is far from justified. The report’s claim that students are protected depends principally on blurring the distinction between the responsibilities of professors – which are indeed delineated in the report – and the rights of students which are not.

It is notable that the report omits any reference to specific policies that would provide students with clearly-defined academic freedom rights, or any indication of specific links where they might be found on official websites. Why isn’t a single actual student policy protecting students’ academic freedom in the classroom cited in the report? Why is not even a single statement clearly defining what the schools actually mean by academic freedom quoted in the report? The closest the report comes to identifying a school statement that recognizes students’ academic freedom is to quote language it claims is present in the policies of nine (out of thirty-nine) public colleges and universities. This language states that “students are free to take reasonable exception to data and views presented by course instructors.” While this statement is a step in the right direction, it does not explain what such exceptions might mean, nor provide redress for students who are prevented taking such (undefined) exceptions, nor does it constitutes an adequate policy regarding students’ academic freedom.

The report, in fact concedes this, with statements like, “academic freedom statements generally do not extensively address student rights” and “faculty grievance policies are more specific to academic freedom than are student grievance policies.” In other words, student grievance policies do not cover students’ academic freedom rights. In short, they do not exist.

Despite its failure to cite a single comprehensive policy on students’ academic freedom, media sources took the report’s assertions that current academic freedom protections for students are in place at face value. “The [report] found that all Florida colleges have policies in place that protect academic freedom and include procedures for students to follow if they feel that their rights are being denied by anyone,” wrote InsideHigherEd.com editor Scott Jaschik. “In terms of student complaints, the report found that very few complaints deal with the issues raised by the Academic Bill of Rights. Less than 1 percent of student grievances concern academic freedom issues, the report said.”

The InsideHigherEd.com piece also quoted Tom Auxter, president of the United Faculty of Florida, stating that the Florida report found “absolutely no basis for the contention that faculty members violate the right of students to academic freedom in the classroom” and “calls into question the motives of those legislators who looked for evidence to justify limiting the rights of faculty in the classroom and limiting the rights of students to hear what faculty had to say.”

The following response examines the report’s conclusions, revealing that the policies which many have cited as protecting students’ academic freedom in fact merely list faculty responsibilities and do not explicitly address student rights. In so doing, it reveals the fallacy of the conclusion reached by Commissioner Winn and assorted opponents of the Academic Bill of Rights who view the report as proof that students have access to and knowledge of academic freedom policies on their campuses and claim that the failure of students to file academic freedom grievance complaints en masse indicates that such grievances must not exist.

Analysis of the Florida Report:

The Rules of the Department of Education for the University of Florida state that:

“Consistent with the exercise of academic responsibility, a teacher must have freedom in the classroom in discussing academic subjects, selecting instructional materials and determining grades. The University student must likewise have the opportunity to study a full spectrum of ideas, opinions, and beliefs, so that the student may acquire maturity for analysis and judgment. Objective and skillful exposition of such matters is the duty of every instructor.”

The policies on faculty responsibility at Florida State University and the University of North Florida are similar.

The Faculty Handbook at Florida State University holds that:

“Consistent with the exercise of academic responsibility, an instructor must have freedom in the classroom to discuss academic subjects. The university student must likewise have the opportunity to study a full spectrum of ideas, opinions, and beliefs, so that the student may acquire maturity for analysis and judgment. Objective and skillful exposition of such subject matter is the duty of every instructor.”

The Faculty Handbook at the University of North Florida similarly states that:

“Consistent with the exercise of academic responsibility, employees shall have freedom to present and discuss their own academic subjects, frankly and forthrightly, without fear of censorship, and to select instructional materials and determine grades in accordance with University and Board policies. Objective and skillful exposition of such subject matter, including the acknowledgment of a variety of scholarly opinions, is the duty of every such employee”

These three sample policies all incorporate the guidelines of the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure of the American Association of University Professors which says that, “teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject.” However, the policies do not include the caveat which follows in the AAUP statement that educators must also “be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.” This is implicit however in the statement in all three policies that an educator’s academic freedom extends only to “academic subjects” and in the case of the UNF policy, only “their own academic subjects”—that is, those subjects in which they have professional expertise.

All three policies also place an emphasis on the importance of presenting a diverse spectrum of scholarly viewpoints in the classroom. The UNF policy states that the “acknowledgement of a variety of scholarly opinions” is the duty of every educator and the policies at both UF and FSU hold that “The University student must likewise have the opportunity to study a full spectrum of ideas, opinions, and beliefs, so that the student may acquire maturity for analysis and judgment.”

Thus far we have shown that the policies of several of the major state universities in Florida mirror the Academic Bill of Rights in their policies on academic freedom so far as they specify the responsibilities of the faculty in relation to their students. But the question remains whether these policies are 1) included in the student materials and student codes of conduct of these universities; and 2) whether they are formulated as student rights. An examination of the materials available to students at these universities reveals that not only are these policies not specified as student rights, but the materials available to students omit any mention of academic freedom entirely and do not guide students in how to respond if their academic freedom is violated. In short, students in these Florida universities effectively no academic freedom rights.

At the University of Florida, a Student Guide listed in the student section of the UFL website directs students to several different policy links including a policy on “Student Rights and Responsibilities,” a “Student Grievance Procedure” and a listing of “Policies Pertaining Primarily to Individuals.”

The rights listed in the policy on Student Rights and Responsibilities that relate to academic freedom are vague at best. They include “The right of respect for personal feelings, freedom from indignity, and to expect an education of the highest quality and “The right of freedom to hear and participate in dialogue and to examine diverse views and ideas.” The policy does not specify whether these rights are to apply specifically in the classroom and they make no mention of the faculty’s responsibility specifically to instruct students in diverse scholarly opinions on the subjects that they teach. They also do not caution students that their professors are expected to stick to “academic” subjects in the course of their lecturing and not lecture on controversial topics that are unrelated to their subject of study.

UF’s Student Grievance Procedure refers only to “discrimination because of race, national origin, sex, marital status, religion, age, or disability” but makes no mention of discrimination due to political beliefs. Nor does it mention the specific obligations that academic freedom imposes on college faculty and how a grievance might be filed if faculty fail to live up to their professional responsibilities.

The listing of “Policies Pertaining Primarily to Individuals” is devoted mostly to the university’s drug and alcohol policies. Racial and sexual harassment are each mentioned in a brief paragraph, but no mention at all is made of the university’s policies on academic freedom as their pertain to students.

Not one of these three policies actually uses the term “academic freedom,” nor is the term included as a link on the main “Student Guide” page. Given the lack of a specific policy on students’ academic freedom, it is unclear how the university can claim that students are made sufficiently aware of their rights or to expect them to have the insight to file a grievance with the university when they are violated.

The policies at Florida State and the University of North Florida are no less vague in their expositions of students’ academic freedom.

The Office of Rights and Responsibilities at Florida State seems concerned only with students’ judicial rights when they are charged with a violation of the Code of Conduct-an important matter to be sure, but unhelpful in instances where students’ academic freedom is being violated.

The online student handbook (only the 2003-2004 version appeared to be available online) also makes no mention of “academic freedom” or similar issues.

Alongside the link to the handbook is a list of “Codes and Policies,” some of which touch on issues of academic freedom. A policy on “Values and Moral Standards at FSU” states that “The University is a place of both assent and dissent and is committed to academic freedom and civil dialogue. In a free and vigorous academic community an ongoing clash of ideas is to be expected and encouraged. The University has a special obligation to see that all have an opportunity to be heard.”

This policy statement does not bother to define academic freedom, nor to discuss the specific obligations it places on both students and faculty. The statement on academic freedom is directly followed by a clause citing FSU’s commitment to “nondiscrimination in matters of race, creed, color, sex, national origin, age, and disability,” which notably does not mention discrimination due to political beliefs.

Another policy titled “Students’ Freedom of Expression Rights and Responsibilities” recognizes “The right of all students to seek knowledge, debate ideas, form opinions and freely express their views is recognized” but the items which follow make clear that this policy refers to the right of students to hold public demonstrations on campus-and not to any rights that students may hold within the context of the classroom.

At UNF neither the page highlighted for the use of “Current Students” nor the “Student Resources” link on that page reveal any mention of the term “academic freedom.” UNF’s “Student Conduct Code” recognizes “The right of all students to seek knowledge, debate ideas, form opinions and freely express their ideas” but the “Student Rights section of the code again details only the rights of students accused of conduct violations. If policies directly specifying students’ academic freedom are in fact in existence at these universities, they are not to be easily found.

UNF’s Student Handbook mentions academic freedom in a section on the Academic Integrity Code, stating that “the University of North Florida expects all members of the academic community to respect the principle of academic freedom” but does not define the term. The section is concerned chiefly with plagiarism.

A later section of the Handbook on “Appealing an Academic Decision” states that “The University of North Florida operates on the commitment that all members of its community should be treated fairly in regard to their rights and responsibilities and in accordance with the UNF Constitution, the Florida and U.S. Constitutions, and the United Faculty of Florida/Florida Board of Regents Contract. These documents uphold a faculty member’s right to control the content of the syllabus and reading material, to determine the content of examinations, and right to free speech. These rights constitute the faculty member’s guarantee of academic freedom.” The section goes on to describe how a student can challenge a grade which they believe to be unfair, though it does not specifically mention the example of a grade being unfairly assigned due to the professor’s disagreement with a student’s political or religious views.

While this section does describe the concept of academic freedom in more detail, it is stunning that in this, the Student Handbook, the concept is still phrased entirely in terms of the faculty’s rights. The principle that students also are entitled to academic freedom is apparently not considered worthy of mention.

Additionally, the policy in the student handbook fails to relate the concurrent faculty responsibilities that accompany their academic freedom. The UNF Faculty Handbook, by contrast, describes these responsibilities in great detail, stating that “Objective and skillful exposition of such subject matter, including the acknowledgment of a variety of scholarly opinions, is the duty of every such employee” and limiting the faculty member’s right to free speech in the classroom to “present and discuss their own academic subjects.” (emphasis added). The contrast between the faculty handbook (which lists both faculty rights and responsibility) and the student handbook (which lists only faculty rights, but without noting the correlating responsibilities) seems designed to prevent challenges to professorial authority or the filing of grievance when students’ academic freedom is abused.

Another section of the handbook on Disruptive Behavior outlaws “Deliberate interference with academic freedom and freedom of speech of any member or guest of the University” but this is hardly instructive for students when academic freedom has already been defined only as a right of the faculty. These three above citations are the only mentions of “academic freedom” in the UNF Student Handbook.

In summary, the conclusion that opponents of our academic freedom campaign have drawn from the OPPAGA report-that Florida’s public universities have sufficient policies protecting the academic freedom of both students and faculty, and that such policies are easily accessible-is shown to be unwarranted. If the students don’t know what their rights are (or what their expectations of professors’ behavior in the classroom should be) how can they know that they have the right to protest when these standards of conduct are violated? This report can only be classified as an attempt to whitewash a serious problem.

Commentary on the Academic Freedom Regulations at OSU and Senate Bill 24

May 23, 2020 by admin Leave a Comment

By Sara Dogan, National Campus Director, Students for Academic Freedom

The Code of Student Conduct at Ohio State University states that it “is established to foster and protect the core missions of the university….The core missions of the university are research, teaching and learning, and service. Preservation of academic freedom and free and open exchange of ideas and opinions for all members of the university are central to these missions.”

Despite this promising start, the Student Code of Conduct is chiefly concerned with student disciplinary violations and procedures. In fact, this introduction is the only place the term “academic freedom” appears in this lengthy document. Nowhere does this document address a student’s right to fair and non-partisan instruction, respect from faculty members, or right to file grievances due to partisan teaching or abuse in the classroom.

Nor is this information contained anywhere within the handy “Student Resource Guide” on OSU’s website (the guide does contain a link to OSU’s “Nondiscrimination, sexual harassment and other personnel policies” but these policies do not mention political beliefs or identify classroom indoctrination as a possible violation of this policy).

Ohio State University’s existing Academic Freedom regulations in regard to professors, on the other hand, do resemble some of the points of Senate Bill 24, but they have no enforcement mechanisms and as a result have not been enforced.
These Academic Freedom regulations are hidden away in the “Rules of the University Faculty” where students are highly unlikely to come across them.

The section on “Academic Freedom and Responsibility” (section 3335-5-01) “endorses full academic freedom as essential to attain the goal of the free search for truth and its free exposition.” It goes on to state: “Academic freedom and academic responsibility are the twin guardians of the integrity of institutions of higher learning.” Unfortunately, it is the “academic responsibility” half of these regulations that are sorely neglected at Ohio State University and that make Senate Bill 24 necessary.

In principle, the Ohio State University policy follows closely the guidelines set forth by the American Association of University Professors in 1940 that are opposed by the present AAUP leadership. It states that teachers have the freedom to “discuss in classrooms, in their own manner, any material that is relevant to the subject matter as defined in the course syllabus” but cautions that they also have the responsibility to “refrain from persistently introducing matters that have no bearing on the subject matter of the course.”
Other “correlative academic responsibilities” listed by the policy include the responsibility to “Work with appropriate individuals and bodies to provide optimal conditions conducive to the attainment of the free search for truth and its free exposition” and to “differentiate carefully between official activities as teachers and personal activities as citizens, and to act accordingly.”

In sum, Ohio State’s academic freedom policies as contained within the faculty code echo many of the key principles of Ohio Senate Bill 24 and the Academic Bill of Rights on which it is based. They warn professors against letting politics or their “personal activities as citizens” influence their teaching and caution them not to bring introduce irrelevant and controversial topics into the classroom. While these policies do not explicitly mention instructors’ obligation to provide students “access to a broad range of serious scholarly opinion pertaining to the subjects they study” they do mention the obligation to “meet their defined teaching, research and service obligations” and “encourage students and colleagues to engage in free discussion and inquiry.” They also mention the duty to “evaluate student and colleague performance on a scholarly basis” the corollary to which is clearly a prohibition on grading students based on their political, religious or intellectual beliefs.

Ohio State’s policies are generally commendable for their attention to the key areas of academic freedom, yet it is an egregious oversight that these policies are published only in the faculty handbook and are not made publicly available to students. Furthermore, despite the good intentions of these policies, it is not clear how the university enforces them, if at all. Neither the student nor faculty handbooks make any mention of how a student can file an official complaint against a faculty member for violation of Ohio State’s academic freedom policy.

Senate Bill 24 addresses this lack directly, stating that “The board of trustees…shall adopt a grievance procedure by which a student, faculty member, or other instructor may seek redress for an alleged violation of any of the rights specified by that institution’s policy” and “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.”

If Ohio State’s administrators are truly committed to protecting the academic freedoms of both students and faculty, they should gladly endorse Senate Bill 24 as an organic extension of their existing policies.

RULES OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY
FACULTY, GOVERNANCE, AND COMMITTEES

Chapter 3335-5
General Matters 3335-5-01 Academic freedom and responsibility.

(A) The Ohio state university endorses full academic freedom as essential to attain the goal of the free search for truth and its free exposition. Academic freedom and academic responsibility are twin guardians of the integrity of institutions of higher learning. This integrity is essential to the preservation of a free society and explains the willingness of society historically to accept the concept of academic freedom and, in addition, to protect it through the institution of academic tenure.

(B) The principal elements of academic freedom include the freedom of teachers to:

(1) Teach, conduct research, and publish research findings;

(2) Discuss in classrooms, in their own manner, any material that is relevant to the subject matter as defined in the course syllabus;

(3) Exercise their constitutional rights as citizens without institutional censorship or discipline;

(4) Seek changes in academic and institutional policies through lawful and peaceful means.

(C) Academic freedom carries with it correlative academic responsibilities. The principal elements include the responsibility of teachers to:

(1) Meet their defined teaching, research, and service obligations;

(2) Pursue excellence, intellectual honesty, and objectivity in teaching, in conducting research, and in publishing research findings;

(3) Encourage students and colleagues to engage in free discussion and inquiry;

(4) Evaluate student and colleague performance on a scholarly basis;

(5) Refrain from persistently introducing matters that have no bearing on the subject matter of the course;

(6) Work with appropriate individuals and bodies to provide optimal conditions conducive to the attainment of the free search for truth and its free exposition;

(7) Differentiate carefully between official activities as teachers and personal activities as citizens, and to act accordingly. (B/T 9/14/65, B/T 5/2/75, B/T 3/1/85)