What's Really Behind the 'Student Bill of Rights'?
(Commentary, David Bacon, Pacific News Service, Jun 10, 2005)
An older generation of teachers may remember the days of loyalty oaths and red scares. During the McCarthyite early 1950s, educators accused of being Communists or harboring leftwing views were driven from the state's school system. Today, witch-hunts seem once again on the rise.
The latest attempt to return to the time of red-baiting is called -- ironically -- the "Student Bill of Rights." Despite its fine, democratic ring, the phrase is being used to restrict teachers from introducing controversial or provocative ideas into their classrooms.
The argument goes like this: Conservative students are offended when "liberal" faculty try to force them to consider ideas they don't agree with. Political science or sociology instructors, for instance, who support the benefits of living-wage laws for workers, should be stopped from advancing such liberal biases in class.
This may sound far-fetched, but 13 states already have introduced bills that would ban such liberal "indoctrination." These bills, a project of ultraconservative ideologue David Horowitz, aren't aimed at the many prestigious business schools where students aren't only taught that making profit is necessary and virtuous, but also that they should learn to do so as efficiently as possible. Instead, the bills are aimed at teachers who question such established ideas.
This spring in Santa Rosa, conservative students backing the state's own version of the Student Bill of Rights showed where their effort is headed.
On February 25, leaflets quoting Section 51530 of the Education Code were posted on the doors of ten faculty members at Santa Rosa Junior College.
Quoting the code, the leaflet says: "No teacher ... shall advocate or teach communism with the intent to indoctrinate, inculcate in the mind of any pupil a preference for communism." Such "advocacy," the code says, means teaching "for the purpose of undermining patriotism for, and the belief in, the government of the United States and of this state." Fifty years ago, when leftwing teachers were hounded out of the state's schools at the height of the Cold War, this code section was rushed through the legislature to make the purges legal.
A later press release by the Santa Rosa Junior College Republicans claimed responsibility for the leaflets: "We did this because we believe certain instructors at SRJC are in violation of California state law." The same day, a news release titled "Operation 'Red Scare'" ran on the California College Republicans' website, saying the leaflets targeted "10 troublesome professors." The group's chair, Michael Davidson, told blogger John Gorenfeld, "A lot of the college professors are leftovers from the Seventies -- and Communist sympathizers."
Writing to the campus newspaper the Oak Leaf, Molly McPherson, SRJC College Republicans president, explained that "The instructors I 'targeted' were not selected at random ... There have even been accounts of JC teachers openly advocating Communist and Marxist theories ... [which have] been outlawed in the classrooms of a country with the strongest free speech rights in the world."
When the campus Republicans couldn't document the massive teaching of Communism at the junior college, they retreated to general complaints of "leftist bias" by faculty members. Evidence to support charges of biased teaching seemed just as scarce. In a forum on the controversy, student trustee Nick Caston pointed out, "I have been on the Board of Review (the last step of the grievance process) for three years and have never heard a complaint about bias in the class room."
"I've never even talked with any of the students who were involved in this," says red-tagged professor Marty Bennett. "But I do teach a lot of labor history in my social sciences classes, and I'm identified in the community as someone involved in the labor movement. That's probably why I was chosen."
Other instructors also had had little or no contact with the young Republicans. Bennett says that because of the incident "some teachers were reluctant to take up more controversial subjects. But it pushed others towards an activism they might not have considered before."
McPherson says the leaflet was "just in time for one of our senators introducing the academic bill of rights in April." That bill, SB5, pushed by Sen. Bill Morrow, R-San Juan Capistrano, said, "faculty shall not use their courses or their positions for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination."
Horowitz's website charges that "all too frequently, professors behave as political advocates in the classroom, express opinions in a partisan manner on controversial issues irrelevant to the academic subject." At a time when Governor Schwarzenegger has gone to war with the state's teachers, Horowitz's admonitions would silence protest against him.
SB5 failed to pass the Senate Education Committee on April 20. McPherson and her club mates also fared poorly in late April student body elections -- the slate they backed lost by a 2-1 majority.
Nevertheless, bills similar to Morrow's have been introduced in 13 other states this year. Defending one in the Columbus Dispatch, Ohio state senator Larry Mumper warned that "card-carrying Communists," are teaching at universities. He defined them as "people who try to over-regulate and try to bring in a lot of issues we don't agree with."
So what about the free market of ideas?
The temple has been under siege for a long time, first the leftist student movement during the sixties and seventies, and since then from the attack from the right by the combined forces of the corporate interests and the conservative movement. The university is badly beat up and barely functioning, the failure of education is a primary reason our democracy is faltering so badly.
Have you any thoughts on the subject wandeljw ??
Education Committee debates Brooker Act
(By ALEX LUNDY, Columbia Missourian, February 5, 2008)
Intellectual diversity won't be a statute just yet.
During a one-hour discussion of the issue on Tuesday, the House Higher Education Committee heard multiple witnesses' opinions of the controversial House Bill 1315, known as the Emily Brooker Higher Education Sunshine Act.
Last session, the committee spent four hours debating the bill, which forces public universities to write an annual report of student complaints regarding teacher biases. Committee Chairman Gayle Kingery, R-Poplar Bluff, said the representatives did not need as much time this year because the committee members remained the same.
"We still have all the same players," he said.
Kingery said that last year's discussion "had the desired effect" at many colleges and universities.
"Because of the hearing last year, most schools have in place a policy to assure their students won't be subjected to what (Emily Brooker) was," he said. "I assume everybody has complied at this time."
Scott Charton, spokesman for the University of Missouri System, said all four UM campuses addressed intellectual pluralism, which the bill defines as the "diversity of ideas" that expose students to different "political, ideological, religious and other perspectives" at the beginning of the school year.
"We are committed to a variety of viewpoints," Charton said.
The Board of Curators worked out a plan in October that requires each campus to create a Web site focused on the issue and to appoint an ombudsman responsible for receiving student complaints and writing a report about them at the end of each academic year.
"This makes one wonder if legislation is needed because universities are taking steps to prevent that kind of discrimination," Charton said.
Rep. Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield, said she sponsored the bill because it creates a better safeguard than university rules do.
"University policy is a lot easier to throw in the trash than a statute is," she said. "We want to make sure students are always protected against discrimination."
But Kingery said there might be another force driving this issue.
"There could be political motivation," he said.
Cunningham, who is running for state Senate this year, worked with Sen. Chuck Purgason, R-Caulfield, to get the bill passed through both legislative bodies.
"If we're trying to get legislation passed quickly, we do it from both sides," Cunningham said.
The representative said Purgason asked her if he could pass a nearly identical bill in the Senate after hearing her present it during a speech.
"I was thrilled," she said.
Purgason's district borders that of the county where the incident involving Emily Brooker and a professor at Missouri State University took place.
In 2005, Brooker received a lower grade in a class after refusing to sign her name to a letter supporting gay marriage that she wrote as an assignment for a class.
"What got the attention of the legislature was the situation at MSU," Charton said, calling it "over the top."
Rick Puig, a sophomore at MU, said he thought the incident was a rare one.
"While the Brooker case was an unfortunate occurrence, using it as a political tool is nothing more than a systematic attempt to make the exception the rule," he said during Tuesday's hearing.
Rep. Ed Robb, R-Columbia, said this type of situation is far from isolated.
"A lot of legislation is written because of a couple of bad apples," he said.
Cunningham, however, said other evidence supports the bill's mission.
She cited a survey conducted by a Connecticut-based research firm at MU and MSU.
"Fifty-one percent of students feel the need to agree with their teacher in order to get a good grade," she said.
But Puig said this bill distracts legislators from "what really matters to higher education."
"At the end of the day, we still debate a grossly redundant, politically motivated and intellectually poisonous piece of legislation that attempts to solve a problem that doesn't exist," he said.
"At the end of the day, we still debate a grossly redundant, politically motivated and intellectually poisonous piece of legislation that attempts to solve a problem that doesn't exist," he said.
Faculty Senate affirm academic principles
(Derek Simons, University of Missouri News, 2/25/08)
In a pre-emptive strike against any possible future legislation emanating from Jefferson City which could impose political oversight on university curricula, the UMKC Faculty Senate has approved a statement on academic freedom clarifying the rights and responsibilities of faculty, students and administrators alike.
The document affirms the necessity for members of the academic environment to be able to proceed on their chosen paths in the pursuit of knowledge "without fear of suppression or reprisal," encouraging all participants to question and challenge ideas, while maintaining respect for "generations of experience and scholarship" within each field of study.
State legislation currently under consideration (HB 1315), if passed, would require public universities to present an annual report to the Missouri general assembly detailing what the institution is doing to "ensure intellectual diversity and the free exchange of ideas."
Already defeated in more than 20 states in the last five years, the bill debuted (and was defeated) last year in Missouri as the Emily Brooker Intellectual Diversity Act (HB 213). It was resubmitted in January by Rep. Jane Cunningham, R-St. Louis County, as the Emily Brooker Higher Education Sunshine Act (HB 1315).
American Association of University Professors (AAUP) UMKC Chapter President Pat Brodsky said she hopes public pressure will be able to stop the bill. It was supposed to come out of the House Higher Education Committee and onto the floor on Feb. 19, but apparently the legislators didn't even discuss it, according to Brodsky. She said some take this as a positive sign, but she is still worried for the future.
UMKC Faculty Senate Chair Dr. Gary Ebersole said he had heard from Jefferson City the Republican leader was not going to put it in the queue.
"I don't expect that bill will go anywhere," Ebersole said. "But we always have to be vigilant."
Among the provisions of HB 1315 is clause J, requiring that teaching methods avoid conflicts between personal beliefs and classroom assignments, so educational objectives can be achieved "without requiring a student to act against his or her conscience."
Testifying at the Feb. 5 hearing in Jefferson City, AAUP Missouri Conference President Professor Keith Hardeman, Westminster College, was opposed to the clause and to the bill in general.
"Government intrusion in our course content is what would, in reality, politicize course content and significantly reduce the quality of Missouri's public colleges and universities," Hardeman said. "This legislation gives biased, unqualified politicians a significant say in college course content. Amazingly, this bill would actually allow students to opt out of doing class assignments simply by saying they say they object to the content."
Ebersole said use of the phrase "intellectual diversity" was a diversionary tactic by those in favor of the legislation.
"It [HB 1315] actually requires specific positions to be taught in every course," Ebersole said. "There's a place for creationism to be taught, but that's probably not in biology."
This sentiment was echoed in testimony by AAUP Missouri Conference Vice President Dr. David K. Robinson, Truman State University.
"Legislating so-called 'balance' in the classroom will mean that political opinions or religious beliefs will be given equal weight with facts and scientific theories, regardless of the consensus of scientists and scholars," Robinson told the legislators.
The bill will also place enormous financial burdens on Missouri's universities, according to Robinson. He said other states have estimated the annual costs for "diversity assessment" required in similar bills at $4.2 million in Florida, $348,000 in Montana, and $130,000 per institution in Virginia.
Robinson was one of seven to testify against the bill, while only one person besides Cunningham spoke in favor, according to UMKC AAUP newsletter "Faculty Advocate No. 23," edited by Brodsky.
Another of the seven, Dr. Victoria Johnson, co-vice president of the University of Missouri-Columbia AAUP chapter, said the bill was ill-conceived, ambiguous and invited confusion.
"HB 1315 shows intense disrespect for university faculty throughout Missouri," Johnson said. "This bill threatens academic standards by ignoring the foundational principles of the university, which valorize the use of reason, critical analysis, and evidence to assess the credibility of claims."
A three-person ad-hoc committee prepared the Faculty Senate statement. The committee members were two senators, Dr. Dan Hopkins, geosciences, and Dr. Hali Fieldman, Conservatory, and AAUP UMKC Chapter representative at-large Dr. Stuart McAninch, School of Education. Fieldman said they wanted the document to be from the faculty as a collective body to all of the constituents.
"We had to make sure that it wasn't partisan," Fieldman said, "that it didn't exclusively and entirely represent the faculty position, but included multiple perspectives."
Hopkins, (who served as the principal author, according to McAninch,) also said they tried to write a very neutral, non-invasive document.
Fieldman noted the inherent difficulties in trying to present in class all the various competing theories on any given subject, as HB 1315 would require.
"In 2008, I don't think that most of us can claim any sort of comprehensiveness in what we teach," she said.
Hardeman gave a more blunt assessment in Jefferson City.
"A clone of political activist David Horowitz's misnamed Academic Bill of Rights, the Brooker bill would put unsubstantiated (in many cases, factually discredited) opinions and perspectives on a level playing field with mainstream disciplinary facts, evidence and logic," Hardeman said. "The bill is redundant in that there are appeals procedures already in place in all Missouri colleges. These are more than sufficient to remedy the rare occasion when a professor abuses academic freedom."
Florida Senate - 2008 SB 2692
By Senator Storms
A bill to be entitled
An act relating to teaching chemical and biological
evolution; providing a short title; providing
legislative intent; providing public school teachers
with a right to present scientific information relevant
to the full range of views on biological and chemical
origins; prohibiting a teacher from being discriminated
against for presenting such information; prohibiting
students from being penalized for subscribing to a
particular position on evolution; clarifying that the
act does not require any change in state curriculum
standards or promote any religious position; providing
an effective date.
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
Section 1. (1) This section may be cited as the "Academic
Freedom Act."
(2) The Legislature finds that current law does not
expressly protect the right of teachers to objectively present
scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific
views regarding chemical and biological evolution. The
Legislature finds that in many instances educators have
experienced or feared discipline, discrimination, or other
adverse consequences as a result of presenting the full range of
scientific views regarding chemical and biological evolution. The
Legislature further finds that existing law does not expressly
protect students from discrimination due to their positions or
views regarding biological or chemical evolution. The Legislature
finds that the topic of biological and chemical evolution has
generated intense controversy about the rights of teachers and
students to hold differing views on those subjects. It is
therefore the intent of the Legislature that this section
expressly protects those rights.
(3) Every public school teacher in the state's K-12 school
system shall have the affirmative right and freedom to
objectively present scientific information relevant to the full
range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical
evolution in connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum
regarding chemical or biological origins.
(4) A public school teacher in the state's K-12 school
system may not be disciplined, denied tenure, terminated, or
otherwise discriminated against for objectively presenting
scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific
views regarding biological or chemical evolution in connection
with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or
biological origins.
(5) Public school students in the state's K-12 school
system may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course
materials, but may not be penalized in any way because he or she
subscribes to a particular position or view regarding biological
or chemical evolution.
(6) The rights and privileges contained in this section
apply when the subject of biological or chemical origins is part
of the curriculum. The provisions of this section do not require
or encourage any change in the state curriculum standards for the
K-12 public school system.
(7) This section shall not be construed to promote any
religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a
particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination
for or against religion or nonreligion.
Section 2. This act shall take effect October 1, 2008.
(By Bill Cotterell, Southwest Florida News-Press, March 12, 2008)
Actor and social activist Ben Stein visited Florida's capitol today, urging lawmakers to pass an "academic freedom" bill that would protect teachers and students from questioning evolution under newly adopted science curriculum standards.
Stein also joined John Stemberger, head of the Florida Family Policy Council, and Casey Luskin, a lawyer from the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, in defending a private screening of Stein's new film that has been arranged tonight for legislators. They showed a brief preview of the film, in which Stein recounts his meetings with teachers and scientists who have been shunned for questioning evolutionary theory.
Screening of the film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" was arranged for legislators, spouses and staff members at the IMAX theater of the Challenger Learning Center a block from the Capitol tonight. The House general counsel said the showing does not fall under the state's gift-ban law, because the film company does not lobby the Legislature, nor under Florida's open-meeting law -- as long as legislators don't discuss pending legislation.
Two bills by Rep. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, and Sen. Ronda Storms, R-Brandon, would forbid school districts or state authorities to punish teachers or students in any way for raising questions about evolution. Stemberger said the new law is needed because of "dogmatic" new science standards adopted by the State Board of Education last month, which allow teaching of evolution as "a theory."
Stein said all scientific approaches ought to be protected in classrooms, not just evolution or creation-based theories.
"This bill is not about teaching intelligent design," said Stein. "It's about freedom of speech."
New legislation to keep debate on evolution alive
(By Shannon Colavecchio-Van Sickler, Tampa Bay Times, March 13, 2008)
This week's private screening of a controversial evolution documentary by pop culture icon Ben Stein was a subdued affair, with a handful of lawmakers, including Tampa Rep. Kevin Ambler, attending the downtown event and no protesters showing up.
But a short walk away in the Capitol, Brandon Sen. Ronda Storms and fellow Republican Rep. Alan Hays are proposing legislation that promises to keep alive the evolution vs. creationism debate that engulfed the State Board of Education in recent months.
The "Academic Freedom Act" would give K-12 public school teachers "the affirmative right and freedom" to present the "full range" of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution.
The bill specifies that the intent is not to promote any "religious doctrine" or to promote discrimination for or against any religious beliefs.
Still, the legislation is likely to cause a stir, given the high emotions connected to any conversation about the origins of man and the universe.
"This is going to be very contentious and divisive," said Democratic Sen. Frederica Wilson, a former Miami-Dade School Board member. "It's going to split us at a time when we need to be together. We have bigger problems."
Other lawmakers wonder whether students in grade school are mature enough to take in and really comprehend alternative theories like creationism or intelligent design.
House Speaker Marco Rubio said there can be "valid debates on Darwin." But he said there's a reason teachers are held to a standard curriculum for K-12.
"It seems to me the movie and the issue applies more in the higher education setting," Rubio said.
Storms, a former high school English teacher, said she believes "evolution should be taught" in K-12.
But she also wants classrooms to foster "legitimate scientific inquiry, where the theories and criticisms of those theories are laid out there for discussion."
"We're not espousing a religious position or belief," Storms said. "But the students, after having heard all the evidence, should be able to arrive at their own conclusions. And to do that, they have to have all the information."
Under the proposal (SB 2692 and HB 1483), a teacher could not be penalized for "objectively presenting" such information, even if it questions biological evolution and tells students about alternative theories.
The Senate has not yet scheduled the bill for a committee, but the House Schools and Learning Council will take up the matter soon. The State Board of Education voted 4-3 last month to adopt new science standards that embrace evolution but refer to it as a "scientific theory."
It was an attempt to assuage critics of the original proposal that defined evolution as "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology" and one "supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence."
Some Republican lawmakers later said the "scientific theory" wording leaves open a window for teachers to present other theories that challenge evolution.
"I think what the board did reflects a thoughtful approach," said Rep. Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park. "I don't think any legislation would follow up on that."
But Storms and Hays say legislation is needed to protect from "persecution" the teachers and students who want to explore other ideas.
"Our teachers need to be able to lead students in an intellectual analysis of Darwin's theory, without fear of harassment," said Rep. Hays, an Umatilla dentist and self-described Baptist like Storms.
The bills reflect model legislation suggested last month by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle center long associated with intelligent design, the theory that posits some systems are too complicated to have been created by chance through evolution.
Hays helped organize Wednesday night's screening of Stein's documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, for lawmakers, staff and family at Tallahassee's IMAX theater.
The film, which will be released nationwide on April 18, has Stein traversing the globe to demonstrate that educators and scientists are being ostracized for their doubts about Darwinism.
Stein narrates the trailer and the film. "Everything that exists was created by a loving God," he says. "That includes rocks, trees, animals, people. But some intelligent people think the universe is the result of random particle collision and chemical reactions."
Sen. Don Gaetz, the Panhandle Republican who chairs the K-12 committee, said he will most likely schedule Storms' bill for consideration.
"I had hoped the Board of Education would resolve the scientific standards, but obviously the pot is still boiling," said Gaetz, former Okaloosa school superintendent.
Still, he is cautious.
"I just hope we don't have the second rendition of the Scopes Monkey trial," said Gaetz, a self-described Christian, "I don't think her bill does that. If she wants to truly encourage discussion and debate, then I can be supportive. If it turns into a prescription for a certain religious doctrine, then I have to oppose the bill."
Opposition to the proposed "academic freedom" act from those who wrote Florida's new science standards
(Leslie Postal, Orlando Sentinel, March 17, 2008)
Many of the science educators who crafted Florida's new science standards -- those controversial ones that require evolution be taught in the state's public schools -- announced their opposition this morning to the "academic freedom" bills proposed by some state lawmakers.
They called the bills "a subterfuge for injecting the religious beliefs held by some into the science classroom."
The bills -- HB 1483 and SB 2692 -- seek protections from teachers who are critical of evolution and want to discuss the "full range of scientific views regarding chemical and biological evolution." They are modeled on a proposal made by the Discovery Institute, which backs the concept of Intelligent Design and is critical of evolution. They were proposed after the state adopted the new science standards last month.
The 37 educators who signed today's statement, however, said they oppose such laws because there are no other scientific explanations for the "development and diversity of life." Evolution is it.
All other explanations require "the intervention of a supernatural agent." Evolution "relies entirely on scientifically verifiable laws of nature and accounts for a huge set of observation," the statement said.
Those who signed the statement include science teachers from Orange and Seminole county public schools, among them Rick Ellenburg, Florida's Teacher of the Year and a science teacher at Camelot Elementary School in Orange. There are also biology, chemistry and physics professors from various Florida universities.
"Our understanding of evolution is certainly not complete," the statement said, just as it is not in other areas of science.
The group supports "the discussion of scientific questions -- including those in evolution -- in the science classroom," but only in an "evidence-based manner" that conforms to the new science standards.
The State Board of Education adopted the standards by a 4 to 3 vote last month, after months of contentious public debate about evolution.
The "academic freedom" bills were filed a few weeks later. The one in the Senate has not been heard yet. The House version in now in committee.
The House sponsor, Rep. Alan Hays, R- Umatilla, last week invited lawmakers to a private screening of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the controversial documentary starring Ben Stein, that deals with the same topic.
Her 'Academic Freedom'? Not Free, Just Dumb
(By Daniel Ruth, The Tampa Tribune, April 3, 2008)
With a straight face, state Sen. Ronda Storms, R-Tammy Faye Bakker Only Without The Sense Of Whimsy, has insisted her dubiously titled "Academic Freedom Act," which is really the nose of the "Intelligent Design" camel poking under the tent, has nothing to do with eventually introducing into public school classrooms the wizard in the sky mumbo jumbo argument for creationism.
The reason Storms turned into a repeating sound loop of denials that made Baghdad Bob look like Winston Churchill is that even the state senator knows that if she publicly admitted she was trying to turn Florida's public schools into fundamentalist Christian madrassas, her silly "Academic Freedom Act" fiddle-faddle would get the bum's rush from every court in the land - including the "American Idol" judges.
Indeed, the obvious anti-Darwin's Theory of Evolution effort by Storms, R-The Madame Defarge of Genesis, has nothing to do with "Academic Freedom." This is the senator's "Academic Fiefdom Act."
Under the hypocritically disingenuous guise of simply allowing the state's science teachers who don't agree with ... well, the science of biology, to introduce their own version of pseudo-hocus-pocus science to their students.
Storms got her sackcloth and ashes in a wad when the Florida Board of Education, after consulting with actual scientists and science teachers, otherwise known as "adults," determined here, in the 2008th year of our Lord, it might be a really crackerjack idea to teach Florida public school students that Darwin's theory of evolution is indeed the settled science upon which the study of biology is scientifically objectively based.
There was a brief meaningless flap over including the use of the word "theory" in connection with evolution.
Of course, evolution is a theory, just as Newton's theory of gravity or relativity and various physics standards are all settled science, too.
Had the evolution opponents been more linguistically astute, they would have insisted evolution be regarded as a "hypothesis," which more accurately defines an unproven supposition, or proposition requiring further study.
It's hardly a huge surprise that Storms' effort to turn Florida public schools' science standards into a Biblical buffet line was successfully passed out of the Senate "education!!!!!!!" committee. Stay tuned for "The Earth is round? What's up with that?"
After all, what gutless pol wants to be accused by the religious right moneybags types of being anti-God, even if they privately believe it might be a fine idea to teach science in science classrooms?
Of course, if you start permitting crazy teachers to teach their own parallel universe reality, where does it end?
By the twisted logic of Storms' "Academic Freedom Act," what is to prevent teachers from telling students - because they feel like it - the Holocaust never happened, or that the 1969 moon landing was nothing more than a Hollywood sound stage hoax, or that Barack Obama is a Muslim?
That's not "Academic Freedom." It's sanctioning intellectually dishonest scholastic anarchy.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace