Diversity of Everything but Thought

I'd have to agree with him on Oh Brother. And I still like the Three Stooges -- but so do my kids. Slapstick is timeless.

0 Replies

It's gotta be a guy thing. That's all I can say. Smile

0 Replies

I know Horowitz has been mentioned in this thread and if the following "Academic Bill of Rights" has been posted, I apologize. But I've read and thought about it, and in the interest of those who keep asking the question "Even if liberal bias does exist in the universities and even if it is a bad thing, what, if anything, should be done about it?", I can't for the life of me see how the following should be a problem for anybody. Would anyone object to the states adopting this as the norm for the state universities in their jurisdictions?

David Horowitz, president of the California-based Center for the Study of Popular Culture, is leading a national campaign to change campus climates. The centerpiece of his efforts is an "Academic Bill of Rights," which he is urging Congress and state legislatures to adopt.

1. All faculty shall be hired, fired, promoted and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise and, in the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives. No faculty shall be hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of his or her political or religious beliefs.

2. No faculty member will be excluded from tenure, search and hiring committees on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

3. Students will be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study, not on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

4. Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas by providing students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate. While teachers are and should be free to pursue their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views, they should consider and make their students aware of other viewpoints. Academic disciplines should welcome a diversity of approaches to unsettled questions.

5. Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty. Faculty will not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination.

6. Selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speakers programs and other student activities will observe the principles of academic freedom and promote intellectual pluralism.

7. An environment conducive to the civil exchange of ideas being an essential component of a free university, the obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature or other effort to obstruct this exchange will not be tolerated.

8. Knowledge advances when individual scholars are left free to reach their own conclusions about which methods, facts, and theories have been validated by research. 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 interpretation. To perform these functions adequately, academic institutions and professional societies should maintain a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements that divide researchers on questions within, or outside, their fields of inquiry.

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/abor.html

0 Replies

I think this was either covered or mentioned in one of the articles you posted early in the thread. On the face of it, it's hard to argue with it.

0 Replies

Just rechecked that link you posted earlier where they talk about this. You realize that this Academic Bill of Rights is proposed legislation, not something that universities would voluntarily adopt or reject based on their relative needs.

0 Replies

That's the way I see it too. I am mulling over the pros and cons of government, either state or federal, telling universities which they must teach or how they must teach it. In other words, while I think the "bill of rights" shown is commendable and should be demanded by boards of regents everywhere, I am bothered by the idea of it being legislated. As we all know, law can sometimes be more ambiguously interpreted than we expect and sometimes that interpretation has unintended negative consequences.

On the other side, I am convinced that students would benefit from a better balance (diversity) of thought on campus, and if that won't happen without some outside pressure, the Horowitz solution is the best I've seen yet.

0 Replies

I pretty much agree with that. I feel like legislation is pretty much the last possible action that should be considered. There's nothing wrong with outing professors when they step out of bounds, or providing a sort of consumer reports for universities so that families who are concerned can better choose where to send their kids. I just feel that there are very very very few times where there really 'oughta be a law'. And this isn't one of them.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

DTOM Writes:

Quote:
my wife gave me a dvd recorder for christmas. then i informed her that one of the channels is running a "noon to midnight three stooges festival".

she's threatening to return it...

What is it with you guys? My husband, a reasonably well-educated professional, thinks the Three Stooges are the funniest ever and "Brother Where Art Thou" is the best movie ever made. Just goes to show you that diversity of thought isn't entirely dead.

i'm trying toooo typlenmdc7 somethsovmvng... buttt[ jf iii cnndt stoppp kf lafffffinngggggggg!!!!!!

gee, foxy... i dunno...

bein' a "dapper dan" man myself, all i can say is "nyuk, nyuk, nyuk"...

btw, would you like me to loan you my marx brothers dvds ?

huh. uh-huh, uh-huh-huh...

bbb bbwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhhh !!!!!!

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It's gotta be a guy thing. That's all I can say.

eh, hemmm...

well, one cannot spend all of one's time crushing beer cans on thy own pate.

:wink:

0 Replies

i agree with you both.

there is a time and a place for poli and religious talk, debate, perception, whatever. and in a perfect world those discussions would remain in their appropriate realms. so yeah, a list like the above, i can work with.

but i do wonder if an absence of that kind of coloration really prepares the student for the next step into the real world?

after all, isn't highschool full of "politics"? by that i mean(and forgive the archaic terms. i haven't been there in a long while), there were/are diverse groups of "social politics"; jocks, nerds, soshes, rednecks, stoners etc. just a thought.

it does seem that the country is getting a little "legislation happy" lately, doesn't it ?

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

it does seem that the country is getting a little "legislation happy" lately, doesn't it ?

Lately

Rather than another law, let's persue the idea FreeDuck already suggestd of an Education Consumer's Union. Horowitz's organization or some other organization could publicize their evaluation of each and every high school, college, and university in the country, for parents of students and for students themselves. They could publish their evaluation on how well, say on a scale of 1 to 10, each education institution follows each of Horowitz's rcommendations. Students themselves may wish to volunteer their own evaluations from time to time.

0 Replies

Can you guys provide a definition for "university" which distinguishes the idea from "school".And one that doesn't define a university as something we have agreed to call a university for snobbish reasons.

spendius.

0 Replies

Well I think of all institutions of learning as "Schools"

I think of college as more specialized in curriculum with more emphasis on post highschool undergraduate work than on advanced degrees. Universities offers a wide spectrum of disciplines, can include various 'colleges' within the larger body, and generally places greater emphasis on post graduate degrees. That's purely definitions by Foxfyre however.

Here are some additional opinions:
In Canada, high school is considered to be secondary education. Both university and college are considered to be post-secondary education.

Universities here grant bachelor's, master's and doctorate degrees. Colleges here grant diplomas (although there are a few colleges that are starting to grant select degrees).

Colleges are often seen here as a transition of sorts between high school and university.

(0 ratings) submitted by Peter Jones (100%, 1 rating), Nov 9, 04

I agree with the previous comment. To add a little more, I live in Australia and we do call some high schools college. We also have colleges similar to those within universities in USA. These are usually specialised universities that are separate from any university and only focus on one area, such as a Business College or Agricultural College.

(0 ratings) submitted by mileena (0%, 0 ratings), Nov 10, 04

In the US, "universities" have both graduate/professional and undergraduate programs. They tend to be larger schools. Whereas "colleges" just have undergraduate programs, and sometimes a limited number masters programs. They tend to be smaller schools.

Universities often contain various smaller schools and colleges, such as a law school, medical school, undergraduate college, etc.

(0 ratings) submitted by tom thumb (0%, 0 ratings), Nov 10, 04

there is a certain level of accredation , a standard if you will , that universities must live up to, acedemically (?) to be recognized by other universities i.e. example : univ. A teaches a student history, if the student wants to transfer his credit to another school ,say univ. B, this standard assures univ.B that what this student has learned is of the same calibur as they are on(being univ. B)

(0 ratings) submitted by Tom Wrona (0%, 0 ratings), Nov 9, 04

I had often wondered why people from outside the Unites States almost never use the term "college." They always use the term "university."

I've since learned the difference.

Here in the United States a university is generally a larger institution and may indeed contain more than one college.

For example Syracuse University has a College of Law, College of Visual and Performing Arts, The College of Arts and Sciences and so on.

In many other countries, however, the word "college" often refers to an institution at what would be considered the high school level in the United States. So in those countries schools of higher education are generally referred to as universities.

So the difference between the two words depends on where in the world you are.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/10805

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Tiny Finn

But you offer so little here in the way of argument.

You've made some claims about the state of affairs in universities but there's no reason why anyone ought to give credence to those claims. They are unspecific and hearsay.

True enough if one is required to back every statement made in this forum with links to irrefutable evidence, which is, of course, only the case when other posters choose to invoke the requirement rather than attempt an intelligent response.

How different if I were to put forward that church seminaries are packed with bullies, fascists and child molesters. I know it to be so, though I've personally not attended a seminary, because my friend Jim said it was so.

Vastly different. On the one hand we would have your frivilous claim constructed to make a weak point, and on the other we would have my reliance upon the personal experiences and observations of my three children.

It may certainly be possible that the experiences of my children, in three different schools, might be unique and even brought on by some specific behavior of their own, but I would hope that you might, through courtesy, if not trust, assume that I am recounting the truth as my children have related it to me. Yes, I know, I could very honestly be recounting the lies of my children, and it is for this reason I have limited by arguments, based on their accounts, to an internet discussion forum and not attempted to report them as facts in an article in my local newspaper.

I've regretted the fact that we were unable to connect for dinner here in Dallas and have looked forward to the possibility of another shot at it, but now I wonder if my travel wasn't fortuitous. I'm not sure I would have enjoyed dinner conversation that required I unequivically prove every contention I might make.

That would be silly of me to make such an argument. It would be silly of me to presume or pretend I knew what I was talking about.

Like I invited...let's do a poll and see what correlations might arise between these claims about universities and actual attendance at one.

Yes, by all means, let's take a poll. That will certainly deliver to us the truth!

Of course we would have to get past the requirement, but that shouldn't be much trouble for you blatham. You need only, in professorial fashion, certify those accounts which comply with your position to be truth and all others as lies.

As regards my point to which you've responded with the 'flat earth' comment (classic strawman rejoinder)... it is a logically and historically valid argument. To the degree that ideas are fixed, considered immutable or eternally true, to that degree learning is inhibited because learning necessarily involves new ideas.

This entire argument, and your original point is an example of your flip flopping between the definitions of liberal and conservative and Liberal and Conservative. As a furenor, you are to be excused your confusion. In the US, at least, Conservatives can be liberal thinkers, while Liberals can be of the conservative lot. It points to either the foolishness of labels or the inaccuracies of those currently employed.

In the 1600s, Harvey advanced his empircally derived ideas on the circulatory system, overturning the notions of Greek Galen. One physician at the time liked the old Galen ideas and said "I'd rather be wrong with Galen than right with Harvey."

Brilliant, if liberal meant Liberal, but of, of course, it does not.

Do you consider it more likely that a culture administered by the conservative-minded Taliban would evolve much new learning? Or would that be more likely within a Muslim culture where a more liberal mindset was the case?

Ditto

Do you believe that Falwell's university will make many advances in the field of evolutionary adaptation? Or stem cell research?

Ditto

When you argue in the manner you do here (aside from the problems noted in my first two paragraphs) you have this other problem as well. There is a very real difference between a conservative or traditionalist approach to understanding the world, and that of (use whatever term you wish) an open-minded or liberal-minded approach.

Indeed, however the concept of liberal and conservative have but tenuous connections to those who go by the monikers Conservative and Liberal - again, at least in the USA.

New ideas, new intellectual challenges, new conceptions of how we might think and do things, are what push us towards improvement and increasing mastery of the world. American automobiles are better now not because producers held to tradition, but because they were forced to deal with new ideas and technologies developed in Japan. We understand with some incredible scope, the age of this universe not because we held to old notions but because we let them go in the face of challenging, stimulating, and compelling new ideas.

As simple proof of my point, consider the so-called Neo-Cons. Are they not possessed of a truly liberal way of thought?

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

As simple proof of my point, consider the so-called Neo-Cons. Are they not possessed of a truly liberal way of thought?

what ???

you're going to half to explaint that one to me/us finn...

0 Replies

Foxfyre-

Thanks for the info.I'm not sure of the unique characteristics of universities though which is needed to explain the real difference.I tend to think that schools or colleges satisfy their status claims simply with a label and that the acceptance of this label by the laity can easily entail confusion and a consequent deterioration in university work.

spendius.

0 Replies

Foxfyre again-

I just noticed your signature.

Now right there is the difference.

spendius.

0 Replies

Quote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Quote:
As simple proof of my point, consider the so-called Neo-Cons. Are they not possessed of a truly liberal way of thought?

what ???

you're going to half to explaint that one to me/us finn...

Machiavelian comes to my mind when I think of the neo-cons. They are by definition not to be trusted.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

...Machiavelian comes to my mind when I think of the neo-cons. They are by definition not to be trusted.

Neo-cons advocate a US foreign policy of acting to spread representative democracy throughout the world. That is, they advocate freeing the entire human race from tyrannical government in all of its forms. That is, they advocate liberating people from tyranny. That is, they are liberals.

Classic conservatives are quite divergent in what they advocate. They advocate goals and objectives that are far from homogneous among them, and in fact are often mutually conflicting. It appears that different classic liberals are also quite divergent in what they advocate. Neo-libs on the otherhand appear to me (from my personal interactions with them) to be honogeneous in one regard: they all advocate the same actions which reduce the economic liberty of individuals, while expanding the non-economic liberty of individuals.

0 Replies

Quote:

Neo-cons advocate a US foreign policy of acting to spread representative democracy throughout the world. That is, they advocate freeing the entire human race from tyrannical government in all of its forms. That is, they advocate liberating people from tyranny. That is, they are liberals.

You forgot to mention here, ican the part about how they believe the ends justify their lying ways..........I'm sure it was a simple oversight on your part.

The neo-cons will spread representative democracy and free people regardless of whether they want to be "freed" or not. That's not liberalism, that's coercion. So in their efforts to "liberate" people from tyranny, they become the tyrants. I think they're defeating themselves if they strive to be true liberals.

0 Replies

Diversity of Everything but Thought

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know