The New York State Conference of the American Association of University Professors is objecting to the Academic Bill of Rights proposed in the state legismature. LetÂ’s take a look at the portions of the legislation that they find so objectionable in their correspondance with their members.

Section 1. The education law is amended by adding a new section 224-b to read as follows:

Academic bill of rights.

1. A student enrolled in an institution of higher education has the right to expect:

a. A learning environment in which the student has access to a broad range of serious scholarly opinion pertaining to the subjects the student studies in which, in the humanities, the social sciences and the arts, the fostering of a plurality of serious scholarly methodologies and perspectives has a significant institutional purpose;

In other words, they are objecting to a mandate to provide students with a well-rounded education.

b. To be graded solely on the basis of the student's reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects the student studies and to not be discriminated against on the basis of the student's political or religious beliefs;

It seems that the students wish to permit grades to be based upon the studentÂ’s conformity to religious or political ideologies rather than their knowledge of the material and their demonstrated scholarship. This is at odds with the traditions of Western liberal education, which had as its goal the liberation of the individual mind rather than itÂ’s shackling.

c. That the student's academic freedom and the quality of education will not be infringed upon by instructors who persistently introduce controversial matter into the classroom or coursework that has no relation to the subject of study and that serves no legitimate pedagogical purpose;

The professors seem to think that students have no right to expect that they will be taught the subject matter of the course and not the personal opinions and philosophy of the professor on matters unrelated to the subject matter of the class. They view students as a captive audience to be indoctrinated. The irony is that this clause is based upon a 1940 statement of the AAUP on academic freedom.

d. That the freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of conscience of students and student organizations are not infringed upon by administrators, student government organizations or institutional policies, rules or procedures; and

Contrary to the Bill of Rights and the repeated rulings of the Supreme Court, the AAUP believes that college students shed their civil liberties when they enter the campus.

e. That the student's academic institution distributes student fee funds on a viewpoint-neutral basis and maintains a posture of neutrality with respect to substantive political and religious disagreements, differences and opinions.

A fair and equitable distribution of mandatory student fees is somehow threatening to academic freedom?

2. A faculty member or instructor at an institution of higher education has the right to expect:

a. Academic freedom in the classroom in discussing subjects while making the students aware of serious scholarly viewpoints other than that of the faculty member or instructor and encouraging intellectual honesty, civil debate and the critical analysis of ideas in the pursuit of knowledge and truth;

I cannot understand what is objectionable here – unless the requirement that a professor provide students with a well-rounded education is a threat to current practices.

b. To be hired, fired, promoted, denied promotion, granted tenure or denied tenure on the basis of competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of expertise of the faculty member or instructor and not on the basis of political or religious beliefs; and
b. To not be excluded from tenure, search and hiring committees on the basis of political or religious beliefs.

Non-discrimination is supposed to be a good thing, according to the Left. Could it be that they hypocritically apply such matters only to themselves and their favored groups, and not to those who do not share their worldview?

3. An institution of higher education shall fully inform students, faculty and instructors of the rights under this section and of the institution's grievance procedures for violations of academic freedom by notices prominently displayed in course catalogs or student handbooks and on the institutional publicly accessible site on the Internet

4. The governing board of an institution of higher education shall develop institutional guidelines and policies to protect the academic freedom and the rights of students and faculty under this section and shall adopt a grievance procedure by which a student or faculty member may seek redress of grievance for an alleged violation of a right specified in this section..

A governing board under this subdivision shall:

Publicize the grievance procedure developed pursuant to this subdivision
To the students and faculty on every campus that is under the control 27 and direction of the governing board. .

We canÂ’t be telling students that they have rights, can we? That would threaten the ability of the unbalanced professor to indoctrinate his captive audience!

In light of the inoffensive and reasonable nature of these provisions that the AAUP is objecting to in NY State, it can only be assumed that the requirement of professional conduct is offensive to the groups and that the legitimate rights and expectations of students need protection.

Maybe the time has come for the New York taxpauyers to cut the public college and university system loose as irredeemable corrupt, and see if the one-sided and biased faculty can survive on their own in the marketplace.

Posted by: Greg at 01:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 841 words, total size 6 kb.