Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
A Republican Assault on Liberty (Updated)
Posted by: Dale Franks on Friday, February 23, 2007

From Inside Higher Ed comes this story of a new bill in Arizona. A state Senate Committee has approved a bill that is abhorrent to First Amendment liberties.
The bill, whose chief sponsor is the Republican majority leader in the Senate, would ban professors at public colleges and universities, while working, from:
  • Endorsing, supporting or opposing any candidate for local, state or national office.
  • Endorsing, supporting or opposing any pending legislation, regulation or rule under consideration by local, state or federal agencies.
  • Endorsing, supporting or opposing any litigation in any court.
  • Advocating “one side of a social, political, or cultural issue that is a matter of partisan controversy.”
  • Hindering military recruiting on campus or endorsing the activities of those who do.
Under the legislation, the Arizona Board of Regents, which governs the state’s public universities, and the individual boards of community colleges would be responsible for setting guidelines for the law and for requiring all faculty members to participate in three hours of training annually on their responsibilities under the law.

Punishments could come in two forms. The governing boards’ guidelines would need to develop procedures, including suspensions and terminations in some cases, according to the bill. In addition, the state attorney general and county prosecutors could sue violators, and state courts could impose fines of up to $500. The legislation would bar colleges or their insurance policies from paying the fines — money would need to be paid directly by the professors found guilty.
I can hardly find the words to express my outrage over this blatantly unconstitutional attempt to muzzle professors, and forbid them from speaking publicly on almost any issue. Becoming a college professor is not an implied consent to surrender your political liberties.

This bill is an outrageous over-reach of the Republican-led Senate in Arizona. It is abhorrent to our Constitution, and deserves nothing but our contempt.

Say what you will about the political leanings of the professorate. Destroying the Bill of Rights is not the answer.

This is not something that should be only a concern of those on the Left. People who list to starboard, and who are always going on about liberty and limited government should be equally concerned.

UPDATE: Some commenters object to me calling this a Republican assault on liberty.
I’d say it’s a Republican bill if Republican’s were lining up behind it.

Until Dale shows otherwise, they ain’t.
OK. Is this good enough?
The bill was approved 4-3 in the Senate Government Committee with Republicans voting for the measure and Democrats voting against.
Republican lawmakers: All For it. Democrats: All against it.

Huh. Wha'd'ya know?
There is no reason to think this is not one guy pushing his agenda...
Well, except for the fact that the voting in committee was on party lines, with Republicans all in favor, and Democrats all opposed.

That good enough for you?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
"would ban professors at public colleges and universities, while working,..."

I think the important part here is "while working".
Why is this any different from prohibiting political activity on any other job? They can say, do, or write anything they want on their own time. They can still participate in political demonstrations, testify before Congress, or anything else they do already. They just can’t do it in the classroom. Think of it as a Hatch Act for professors.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I agree that the key words here are "while working". Campaigning, or otherwise proselytizing in support of a political point of view is not appropriate for any gov’t employee while doing their job. On their own private time and using their own private resources they can express their opinion just like any other citizen.

I spent almost 3 decades in uniform and I was prohibited by law from supporting a political candidate while wearing the uniform. I could work to support them in my private time, but not while representing myself as a soldier.
 
Written By: RM
URL: http://
The military is a special case, for reasons of good order and discipline, and the subordination of the military to civilian control. The military experience is not transferable to civilian life in this instance.

Criminal sanctions on professors for addressing public controversies is an assault on freedom of speech, as well as academic freedom.

Under this law, could an economics professor couldn’t address the minimum wage? Could a professor of government talk about pork-barrel spending? Not if they do so in any way that constitutes an endorsement of a partisan position. So, we must teach economics in a way that elides the results of the minimum wage, if the local city council is addressing it? We can’t talk about the pernicious effect of deficits in the government studies classroom?

Even David Horowitz opposes this bill. It goes way too far.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
It’s a terrible idea, on many levels. It’s a speech code, which should have no place in a free institution of higher learning. It seems to be aimed at overzealous lefties of Ward Churchill’s ilk, but it seems just as likely (ultimately and in practice) to be used to muzzle professors who do not agree with the dominant left-leaning ideology of academia. Now whose ox is being gored?

Second, this kind of law is an explicit invitation to abuse for whomever is policing it. I am assuming that the Arizona Board of Regents would get to decide what issues are "matters of partisan controversy" and are thus verboten. Is that board elected? To whom are they answerable? Gosh, there’s little chance that what issues make it on to the forbidden list would become a political football in itself, would it?

Third, it’s anti-educational. Dale already brought up a couple of examples, and you could add evolution and global warming in the sciences and just about any kind of ethical/moral issue in the humanities and law. Not to say that all these topics would be forbidden in practice, but why risk it?

Last, on a practical level, I can’t imagine many things that would be more damaging to a state university system in terms of attracting top scholars.

I used to teach at a large university in the East, and I am well aware that there is a problem (particularly in the humanities) with unquestioning or unreflective leftism as a dominant intellectual paradigm. But the problem rarely manifests in outright advocacy, which is what this bill targets. It’s more an issue of basic assumptions which aren’t questioned very rigorously. Outside of thought police, I don’t see how any legislation would remedy that.

File this bill under "Cures that are Worse than the Disease."

 
Written By: Robby
URL: http://
Yes, this bill is wholly unjustifiable. However, there is one part that is not any kind of free speech violation, specifically: "Hindering military recruiting on campus." It is not free speech to attempt to restrain others — or, I might add, vandalize property.

 
Written By: rightwingprof
URL: http://rightwingnation.com
OK. Granted. But in this case, I say throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
The issue here is the manipulation of the flow of information.
We need to encourage more ways of passing ideas, not mandating restrictions on the sharing of ideas. We need to have enough faith in the human mind to assume that given enough information most of the time for most people, the best decision will be made. If we can’t assume this, we are left with the result of the ideas of whichever party has the best manipulators.
 
Written By: darohu
URL: http://
A Republican Assault on Liberty
Calling it a Republican assault on liberty seems quite a stretch when there isn’t a republican party plank like this and even David Horowitz believes it goes too far—not to mention most Republicans probably haven’t heard of it to even pass judgement yet. Between that, the fact it only restricts speech while on the public dime—perfectly reasonable in certainly any* other unelected public position—and the fact it hasn’t gone anywhere in the general legislature, Dale, you freaked out a little too soon.

*I can’t think of any exceptions.

If this guy is the majority leader, and this committee is set up how most legislative committees are, it was going to leave committee intact unless he was caught in bed with a live boy or dead girl.

It is probably true only half a handful of people in the AZ legislature think its a good idea, and the bill will never get to the gov’s desk.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Endorsing, supporting or opposing any litigation in any court.
This provision would seem to bar professors from testifying as expert witnesses.


I agree that the proposed legislation is a bad idea. If it applied to lawyers, though, I could support it. ;)
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Mr. Franks eloquently states why this is a bad piece of legislation. In passing, let us contemplate the state of affairs which prompted its introduction.
History will show that the American dream came perilously close to disappearing in the Ninties. Leftist forces (or parties, if "forces" sounds too whacko for you)funded think tanks and asked them to determine how they could win elections and maintain political power so as to implement their leftist ideologies. Perfectly legal and simply practicing freedom of speech and association, etc.
Fast forward to today’s reality (no pun intended). Remove Fox News from the picture and you have a problem. Those think tanks have produced a system of, not mind control, although that is the concept, but mind manipulation. Observing the small amount of time and thought many voters [urban liberals] invest before exercising their franchise, they have created and maintained an alternate universe in which leftism is the only sensible way to deal with "reality".
"One is entitled to one’s own opinion; one is not entitled to one’s own facts."
Daily, let me repeat, Daily, one can readily observe the MSM peddling the Liberal Narrative, campuses using it to stamp out non-leftist thought, not to mention the nutroots, who are trying to organize a boycott to destroy Fox News. So, at what point does this process cross the line from being admirable political advocacy and become a conspiracy to deprive voters of the truth they need to make our system operate? I suggest that we are a lot closer to that point than is being recognized. Hence, my mini-crusade against those who propagate the LN.
Speak of the devil... observe the mental meltdown of the local LN-pusher when pressed to admit the artificial nature of his political universe. Some of his contributions add to the debate going on here. They are, however, mere cover for his zealous pushing of the LN. The pushers know in their hearts that their agenda can best be promoted by maintaining the alternate universe (where, for instance, John Kerry thoroughly routed the SwiftVets, who were driven from the field in shame). That was, of course, before Kerry was deprived of his rightful election by Republican shinanigans.
I believe that there is a growing awareness of the pernicious nature of the LN. Look at the falling subscriptions to the NYT. Look at the frequency of questioning the MSM promoting the LN. Getting after Reuters and AP was a very positive step.
Think about it. Take away Fox News and the next fall-back position is Al Jazeera.



 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
Yes, I wasn’t serious about AJ.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
" So, we must teach economics in a way that elides the results of the minimum wage, if the local city council is addressing it?"

No, it is quite simple and safe to present the conclusions of various other economists, as long as you don’t cite yourself. Professor A can cite Professor B as saying minimum wage laws bite, and Professor B can cite Professor A. They just can’t cite themselves. Stupid, maybe, but not destructive of any freedom.

It can be done. I have had economics, and other, professors who taught these things and I still do not know where they stand on the issue. If I read their published papers I probably would, but even that is no guarantee if they are sufficiently objective.

This reminds me of the old controversy about teaching Communism in schools. Some said that it was not possible to teach ABOUT it, that any mention of it was advocacy one way or another.


"This provision would seem to bar professors from testifying as expert witnesses."

I don’t think so. That is not part of their job description. They can do it on their own time.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
One good thing that might come of this, perfessers would probably be unable to require the use of textbooks or other publications written by themselves or another Perf. at the same institution. That alone would almost justify such a law in my mind.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
One good thing that might come of this, perfessers would probably be unable to require the use of textbooks or other publications written by themselves or another Perf. at the same institution. That alone would almost justify such a law in my mind.
The best calculus book I ever had was written by my prof and produced by the college copy center.

Downsides and upsides.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
The bill, as I understand it, would seem to place limitations on the ability of the Arizona equivalent of Scott Erb.

I think the law that Tim draws here, is a rather solid one. Somebody teaching at a private college, has all the ability of the world to speak their mind on whatever subject. They’re not doing it on the government’s time, or the government’s dime. More, it seems to me, the obvious intent of the legislation is to keep such people from passing off their political movements and paranoia as fact.

Law, it is said, is a necessary evil. Bteween allowing the indoctrination at government expense to continue, and the law being enforced, I would view this particular law to be the lesser of the two evils.

I disagree, Dale, that this is a matter of free speech. Nothing, and I mean nothing, is preventing these professors from going private, so that they can expound on their views. What’s really going on here, is conditions of their employment. I’m quite sure that there are many bright minds who are willing to work within those parameters. That’s called a free market.

We’re talking, in reality, about the difference between freedom of speech, versus a guaranteed audience, Particularly one that in general dozen know enough to challenge the nonsense they’re teaching as fact, all provided by the largess of government. Somehow, that situation does not seem to me a libertarian nirvana.


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Let’s consider also, that if there are a large number of parents who object to the type of restrictions being placed on professors, they will be eventually erect nongovernment schools where such nonsense can be taught freely. There is nothing stopping them from doing precisely that... assuming they have the desire.

Of course, we both know that won’t happen, because they do not so desire.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
In Oregon a govt employee already has these restrictions "while working". Where’s the outrage for Oregon public employees?
 
Written By: Rick
URL: http://
Calling it a Republican assault on liberty seems quite a stretch...
The sponsor is a Republican. The senate committee that voted it our was a Republican-majority committee.

Sounds Republican to me.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
In Oregon a govt employee already has these restrictions "while working". Where’s the outrage for Oregon public employees?
Public employees in most states are forbidden from engaging in political stuff on the job. They do this because it is important that the citizenry perceive public employees to administer public programs impartially. Moreover, studying, writing, and expounding on public policy is not their job.

University professors, while nominally state employees by virtue of where the money ultimately comes from that goes into their paychecks, are in a wholly different class. Their jobs, in many cases, require them to study, write about, and expound upon public policy issues, and to debate those issues freely. It is the very essence of what being a professor is all about.

What an academic bill of rights is supposed to do is create an environment for free inquiry, unfettered by the bonds of political correctness. What the AZ bill does is impose a speech code, and essentially shuts that debate down in the professor’s professional capacity.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
I think the law that Tim draws here, is a rather solid one.
Of course you do.
Let’s consider also, that if there are a large number of parents who object to the type of restrictions being placed on professors, they will be eventually erect nongovernment schools where such nonsense can be taught freely. There is nothing stopping them from doing precisely that... assuming they have the desire.
Let’s consider also, that if there are a large number of parents who object to leftist views being taught by professors, they will be eventually erect nongovernment schools where such nonsense can be dispensed with. There is nothing stopping them from doing precisely that... assuming they have the desire.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
(Correction ’law Tim draws/LINE Tim draws’)
Let’s consider also, that if there are a large number of parents who object to the type of restrictions being placed on professors, they will be eventually erect nongovernment schools where such nonsense can be taught freely. There is nothing stopping them from doing precisely that... assuming they have the desire.
Let’s consider also, that if there are a large number of parents who object to leftist views being taught by professors, they will be eventually erect nongovernment schools where such nonsense can be dispensed with. There is nothing stopping them from doing precisely that... assuming they have the desire.
Perhaps.... But why should that be allowed in EITHER direction? The law makes no such distinction of the sort, which is as it should be. Nor did I, myself.

But I note YOU did. Why?

I say again, that this is not a freedom of speech issue. What this issue comes down to, is the conditions under which the audience is assembled.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Dale wrote:
Sounds Republican to me.
And I reiterate:
Calling it a Republican assault on liberty seems quite a stretch when there isn’t a republican party plank like this and even David Horowitz believes it goes too far—not to mention most Republicans probably haven’t heard of it to even pass judgement yet.

If this guy is the majority leader, and this committee is set up how most legislative committees are, it was going to leave committee intact unless he was caught in bed with a live boy or dead girl.

It is probably true only half a handful of people in the AZ legislature think its a good idea, and the bill will never get to the gov’s desk.
In short, there is no evidence this is a "Republican" bill, beyond the fact that a single person who happens to be a republican is pushing it.

Does Reyes make the surge in Iraq a Democratic Party idea? A Democrat is proposing it.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Does Reyes make the surge in Iraq a Democratic Party idea? A Democrat is proposing it.
Actually he’s not. He changed his mind.

However, even if he had supported, he had no power to implement it.

The only person with that power is George Bush, so yes, that makes the surge a "Republican" idea ... especially with almost every Democrat, to include Reyes, lining up against it.

As for bills, it is identified with whichever side proposes the legislation. The House will introduce a "Democratic budget" this year. You don’t get to be a "Republican" when it’s convenient and not be one when it may reflect badly on you.

A Republican legislator is proposing the bill. As far as I and most reasonable people feel, that makes the bill a Republican bill, because he has the power to introduce legislation and he’s a representative of the Republican party.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
A Republican legislator is proposing the bill. As far as I and most reasonable people feel, that makes the bill a Republican bill, because he has the power to introduce legislation and he’s a representative of the Republican party.
I’d say it’s a Republican bill if Republican’s were lining up behind it.

Until Dale shows otherwise, they ain’t.

Conservative democrats in red states propose and sign onto state bills which are clearly not Democratic Party bills.

There is no reason to think this is not one guy pushing his agenda with his majority leadership, as opposed to someone with the mass of the national party behind him.

If you are claiming the Republicans should disown him and toss him from the leadership position for this, or own the bill, then two things are true:

1) You don’t understand how true it is there are 51 Republican and Democratic parties nationwide and;

2) You are showing the overly doctrinaire, pigeonhole (bird brained?) thinking which has given neo-libertarians all the same relative success the Libertarian Party has seen.

Oh, wait...

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Tell you what, give Jon Henke a heads-up, and get the RP’s position on this bill.

G’head.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Tell you what, give Jon Henke a heads-up, and get the RP’s position on this bill.
Jon doesn’t speak for the RP. He speaks, if at all, on the Senate Minority Leader’s positions. That’s all.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Maybe it’s a RINO idea like this one
 
Written By: RRRoark
URL: http://soslies.blogspot.com
He speaks, if at all, on the Senate Minority Leader’s positions. That’s all.
Sounds more authoritative than you are, that’s a fact.

Bet’cha he can find out for sure, too.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Take a look at the update, Tom. The Republicans in the Gov’t Committee all voted for it.

So, it’s a bill introduced by the Republican Majority Leader, and passed out of committee on a party line vote, with all Rs in favor and all Ds opposed.

Is it a Republican bill yet?

Or do you want to throw out some further inane qualifications?
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
The Republicans in the Gov’t Committee all voted for it.
Try reading again Dale, please.

I never said they didn’t, I said that since the originator of the bill was the state majority leader, it was leaving the committee intact unless he was caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl.

Now what do you suppose I meant by that, or will you not engage the point?

Also, at the very most, without being silly, you can make a weak case it is an Arizona Republican party bill—and where is it a plank in the AZRP’s platform, or something they are clamoring for?—not a national Republican party bill.

As it is you are mulishly overreaching.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
"Downsides and upsides."

Your experience have been much better than mine, evidently.

***********************
"I think the law that Tim draws here, is a rather solid one."

I really, really hate to disagree with someone who agrees with me(there seem to be so few), but the more I think about it, the less I like the idea. It would just be too hard to enforce fairly, and there will always be someone who claims that although the Prof. didn’t actually explicitly endorse X, he tacitly endorsed X by asking loaded questions, using suggestive facial expressions and body language, etc. The technique of playing devil’s advocate would also be very risky. Testifying as an expert witness, even on their own time, could be seen as using their employment for establishing their credibility. Some things, though, like endorsing candidates, have no legitimate place in the classroom.

The correct route is to hold the school administration accountable for what goes on in classrooms. That is, after all, their job. But passing a law that someone else is responsible for enforcing is so much easier than oversight.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"it was leaving the committee intact unless he was caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl."

I think that these days you can forget about the live boy being a disqualification.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I’m from Utah and I’m a Republican, and I have no problem believing this is a Republican bill. The Republicans out here in the state legislature are always passing all sorts of crazy bills For The Children (tm). They did one a couple years ago that would have required people who rent server space to not allow any porn on their servers. Like people who rent out server space are going to be able to look at every goddamn file that gets uploaded. But it was to protect people from evil, evil porn, so it was OK!

Maybe I’m just a Potterhead, but it reminds me of Dolores Umbridge’s Educational Decree Number Twenty-Six. And anyone who’s read Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix knows how well that worked out.
 
Written By: Wacky Hermit
URL: http://organicbabyfarm.blogspot.com
Moreover, studying, writing, and expounding on public policy is not their job.
Incorrect. It is the responsibility of many state employees (perhaps not the DMV types, but the R&D types at, say, your state’s Department of Finance or Department of Insurance) to have excellent commands of public policy issues which affect their department. In fact, many state employees (mostly executive level, but also mid-level management types) are frequently called on to issue position papers on public policy and/or testify in front of legislative committees. They have to be able to advocate for the policies enacted by (or recommend by) their department head (Secretary of State, Commissioner of Insurance, etc.). That type of responsibiliy absolutely requires participation in the public policy process.

Your argument that federal employees (the military, for example) and state employees should be expected to abide by rules restricting freedom of speech, but that professors are some sort of special class that should be exempt is highly reminiscent of Animal Farm. All government employees are equal, but some are more equal than others? Is that how your thinking on this issue works, because that’s what it boils down to, IMHO.

Personally, I’m against speech codes in general (be they university speech codes, or the type of anti-political speech code being discussed here). If idiotic politicians insist that they are going to be passed, however, then they must be applied to ALL government employees, not some sort of highly discriminatory, selective application system. That absolutely sends the wrong message that certain people are "better" than others because of their chosen profession. Also, enforcement must be equal across the board. If Joe State Trooper gets fined for having a candidate’s bumper sticker on his car, then Jane Professor needs to be equally fined for the same thing. Otherwise you are creating a subset of people who are above the law. Not very liberty friendly.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
I agree with Omar here on the idea that we should just kill the speech code for everyone. I seem to recall that such laws have been found perfectly legal (i.e. not a violation of 1st Amend. rights) in certain situations, but being legal doesn’t necessarily make it right. And applying it to professors just seems like another point along the slippery slope (sort of like the M-F abomination).

Dale correctly points to why public employees are often restricted this way:
They do this because it is important that the citizenry perceive public employees to administer public programs impartially.
But that also identifies the problem — we may perceive that public employees are impartial, but that doesn’t ensure (or even encourage) impartiality. Let them support candidates, speak at rallys, march to Washington, or hold vigil in Crawford, and let everyone seem them doing it. The more attention called to it the better. Maybe then more voters would begin to understand just how impartial public employees really are. What have now is just a lemon’s market in government, since the true motivations, biases, preferences, etc. of the employees are not allowed to be known.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Interesting story here.
Because the story involves the AP spreading a possibly specious story attacking a Republican politician, one might suppose that I would be loudly seconding the call for the MSM to “stop this sh*t”. Not so.
Apparently, the story about Romney’s far lost ancestor is TRUE. Attempting to pressure the MSM to print only stories that are palatable to you or favorable to your politics is the very crime that is in issue here. I object to the LN because it is largely, if not entirely, made up of FALSE information, designed to further the cause of the Democrats, carefully polished so as to appear to be the truth. Because of liberal control of the MSM, universities and a good portion of the blogosphere, there is a real danger that they can manipulate the truth as perceived by the average voter. Certainly they can currently very effectively frame issues in a manner that clouds truth that they do not like.
Is passing more laws the appropriate method to fight this scourge? No.
Speaking the truth and calling attention to the invidious practice of propagating the LN is the way to go. Even stupid liberals are interested in the truth, as lazy as they are in seeking it out.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/2007/02/24/to-the-msm-stop-this-sh*t/ will work as the above link with one correction.
By the way, stupid liberals are the sheeple who get all of their political information from the NYT and their cocktail party liberal friends. At no time should practicing ideologues such as Professor Erb be included in this group.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
Mike;

But that also identifies the problem — we may perceive that public employees are impartial, but that doesn’t ensure (or even encourage) impartiality.
Correct so far. However, your solution lacks a degree of practicality;
Let them support candidates, speak at rallys, march to Washington, or hold vigil in Crawford, and let everyone seem them doing it. The more attention called to it the better. Maybe then more voters would begin to understand just how impartial public employees really are. What have now is just a lemon’s market in government, since the true motivations, biases, preferences, etc. of the employees are not allowed to be known.
I would submit to you that if the political activism of college professors hasn’t been directly attached to the left in perception, given their upfront and overly loud activism since the nineteen sixties, that perception, that illusion of impartiality will never be broken by the means you describe.


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Hey Dale;

Would it be gauche to ask what your thoughts were as regards the firing of Ward Churchill... He of the "little Eichmans" fame?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Would it be gauche to ask what your thoughts were as regards the firing of Ward Churchill...
I’m perfectly fine with it. The University thought he was a plagarist and general whack job, so they dumped him.

What they didn’t do was pass a law preventing all professors from speaking their mind, because one professor was a dumb-ass.

Which pretty much makes your question utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
This just proves the addage "No mans Life, Liberty, nor Property is safe when the Legislature is in session"

<)))))))<
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
Dale;

They do not propose to prevent all professors from speaking their mind. What they are doing only applies to professors taking public money. It is, in fact, an employer’s setting terms of employment. How, after all are those conditions to be set other than a law, when government is the employer?

Which brings us to another point; I am amazed, that thus far nobody, including yourself, has raised the issue of government getting out of the business of education totally, so as to prevent such conflicts from occurring. I am particularly amazed in that happening, given that so many people in here are of a libertarian mindset.

And I ask, yet again, why should political leanings of either direction… left or right… be allowed to be taught as fact, on the government dime? To illustrate this in a bit more contrast, (and given the ’little Eichmans’ allusions brought up by Churchill), let’s try replacing ’leftist’ with ’NAZI’. Would we even be having this discussion, if we had professors espousing Nazi viewpoints as fact in a classroom setting?




 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider