Log in

View Full Version : "No teacher... shall advocate or teach communism w



coda
16th July 2005, 03:42
"No teacher... shall advocate or teach communism with the intent to indoctrinate, inculcate in the mind of any pupil a preference for communism."



Published on Thursday, July 14, 2005 by WorkingForChange
David Horowitz's Battlefield Academia
Sixties lefty turned right wing activist, provocateur, and GOP political consultant is leading a McCarthy-like charge of college campuses across the country
by Bill Berkowitz


A specter is again haunting U.S. colleges and universities.

At the beginning of the Cold War in the early 1950s, Joseph McCarthy, the infamous Republican Senator from Wisconsin, stalked the political landscape hurling reckless charges that hordes of Communists had infiltrated the U.S. government before, during and after World War II.

Sen. McCarthy and his band of self-proclaimed patriots also trained their guns on the creative community -- writers, directors and actors working in Hollywood and on Broadway -- as well as public school teachers and academics on college campuses across the country.

The hysteria these men stirred up through largely unsubstantiated charges caused thousands of people to lose their jobs. Some committed suicide.

Flash forward 50 years: David Horowitz, the 1960s left-wing radical turned right-wing activist/provocateur and Republican political consultant, has picked up McCarthy's baton. Disguised as an attempt to broaden free speech on campus, Horowitz's Academic Bill of Rights -- which aims to stifle the speech of liberal academics -- has been making the rounds of state houses and college campuses during the past year or so.

In Florida, State Representative Dennis Baxley (R-Ocala) has introduced an Academic Freedom Bill of Rights after he "attended a conservative conference in St. Louis last summer where Horowitz spoke about academic freedom," the St. Petersburg Times reported.

Baxley's legislation, which in late March passed out of the House Choice and Innovation Committee by an 8-to-2 vote (the only two Democrats on the committee voted against it), was a broad assault on academic freedom.

In addition to guaranteeing that students would "not be punished for professing beliefs with which their professors disagree," the bill would have advised professors "to teach alternative 'serious academic theories' that may disagree with their personal views."

"Some professors say, 'Evolution is a fact. I don't want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don't like it, there's the door,'" Baxley maintained.

According to a legislative staff analysis of the bill, students who felt their views were disrespected in the classroom or thought they were singled out for "public ridicule" by their professors would have the right to sue them and the university.

"Despite the state Senate's decision not to consider Baxley's bill, I have heard that he hasn't given up and may reintroduce the House bill next session," Susan Greenbaum, the president of the Faculty Senate at the University of South Florida, told IPS.

"Baxley also appealed directly to the state's university presidents to implement his proposals administratively. As chair of the Education Council and as a member of the Education Appropriations Committee, a very important House committee, Baxley certainly has their attention."

"The real test," Greenbaum pointed out, "will come in whether there is an escalation in student grievances at Florida universities, and what happens to those complaints. However, what seems to be lacking in this whole issue is real student dissatisfaction. They have garnered almost no action among students on these campuses; David Horowitz presented a pitiful array of dubious anecdotes when he testified in Tallahassee."

In addition to Florida, legislators in 13 other states have introduced some type of "Academic Freedom" legislation. California and Maine are considering "an academic bill of rights [containing] an eight-point credo designed to increase political diversity in the classroom."

In early June, the Christian Science Monitor reported that "four state universities in Colorado... [had] adopted the principles under legislative pressure in 2004."

In Minnesota, right-wing state senator Michelle Bachman, a vocal opponent of gay rights, introduced two bills modeled on Horowitz's complaints, one targeted at state colleges and universities and one at state high schools.

Horowitz, who operates a number of projects -- including the online magazine Frontpagemag.com -- out of the well-funded offices of his Los Angeles, California-based Center for the Study of Popular Culture, set up Students for Academic Freedom in 2003 to do the grunt work. Since then, the Washington-based outfit has been making headway on college campuses across the nation.

Students for Academic Freedom is not only involved with lobbying state legislatures; on some campuses, they and similarly minded groups have launched an all-out assault on liberal professors, using classic McCarthyite tactics.

At Santa Rosa Junior College (SRJC) in Santa Rosa, California, the struggle over academic freedom took a particularly ugly turn earlier this year. Conservative students, supporting a California version of a Student Bill of Rights, issued "leaflets quoting Section 51530 of the [California] Education Code," and then "anonymously posted [them] on the doors of ten faculty members" at the College, veteran journalist David Bacon reported.

The leaflet quoted the code:

"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 statute says, means teaching "for the purpose of undermining patriotism for, and the belief in, the government of the United States and of this state."

Claiming responsibility for the action, SRJC Republicans issued a press release stating that they "did this because we believe certain instructors at SRJC are in violation of California state law."

At the same time, a news release with the headline "Operation 'Red Scare,'" appeared on the website of California College Republicans. In McCarthyite cant, the organization's chair, Michael Davidson, told reporter John Gorenfeld "a lot of the college professors are leftovers from the Seventies -- and Communist sympathizers."

Meanwhile, in Florida, Horowitz's local partner, Rep. Dennis Baxley, appears to see himself as a modern-day Daniel fighting the lions of liberal academia. During the debate over his legislation, Baxley claimed he was called a McCarthyist by "leftist critics [who] ridicule me for daring to stand up for students and faculty."

Then, similar to a tactic used by Sen. Joseph McCarthy himself, Baxley claimed that he "had a list of students who were discriminated against by professors," but, the St. Petersburg Times reported, he "refused to reveal names because he felt they would be persecuted."

Horowitz's efforts at campuses across the country, and Rep. Baxley's work in Florida "represents an inversion of the original intent of academic freedom, which is to protect the right of professors to express controversial ideas without fear of retaliation," Susan Greenbaum maintains.

"This protection is designed to shield free inquiry and encourage innovation. It enables the creation of new knowledge and secures the basis to challenge old ideas," she continued.

"In Baxley's bill -- which is really the Horowitz bill -- students are customers, whose tastes and prejudices must be accommodated. Professors are likened to vendors who must take care not to offend or disturb those who have come to purchase their wares."

"It's like the Wal-Mart model: Maybe they can import holographic images of professors made in China, attractive classroom automatons who can be programmed to present marketable and politically acceptable material," she said dryly.

Bill Berkowitz is a longtime observer of the conservative movement. His WorkingForChange column Conservative Watch documents the strategies, players, institutions, victories and defeats of the American Right.










http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0714-23.htm

southernmissfan
16th July 2005, 04:04
This really isn't surprising. Authoritarian fundamentalists have always been "anti-intellectual" and anti-science.

Hegemonicretribution
16th July 2005, 13:45
That really is disturbing. I do however see where the bill is (and where it SHOULD) coming from. I agree that teachers should not be trying to put foward a preference for communsm, or capitalism or anything really. All work should be judged entirely free of idelogical preference. However their preferences will no doubt come through, which is fine. As long as there is equal marking, and no bully boy tactics used to sway minds then they should be left well alone.

Failing that, No teacher or proffesor should be allowed to advocate (or teach) anything, at all, ever.

Mr Flibble
16th July 2005, 20:55
teachers should explain both sides of the political fence so people know more about what they belive in

lennonist-leninist
16th July 2005, 21:06
I also think that teachers should be able to explain both sides,the good and the bad points of each. But sadly i think that the goverment is to afraid to do this becuse the people that are learing this might find that it is a better idea for socity, then what thay live in now.

cormacobear
16th July 2005, 22:36
If MIT accepts they'll have to fire chomsky. That's sad but hopefully it means a flood of brilliant leftist academics fleeing oppression for thre free speach to the north.

Commie Rat
17th July 2005, 04:37
In addition to guaranteeing that students would "not be punished for professing beliefs with which their professors disagree," the bill would have advised professors "to teach alternative 'serious academic theories' that may disagree with their personal views."

"Some professors say, 'Evolution is a fact. I don't want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don't like it, there's the door,'" Baxley maintained.

That to me is like being in maths and have the teacher saying Pi = 3.14ect. and you saying no i dont like that then s/he cannot correct you, evolution IS a fact, there is no point in learning if your learning the wrong facts

amos
17th July 2005, 06:19
Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 17 2005, 03:37 AM

That to me is like being in maths and have the teacher saying Pi = 3.14ect. and you saying no i dont like that then s/he cannot correct you, evolution IS a fact, there is no point in learning if your learning the wrong facts

I agree, but there are many in the US who don't. The folks at The Panda's Thumb (http://www.pandasthumb.org/) seem to be doing their bit to combat the creationists, but I find it bizarre that in a modern, industrialized country there should be arguments going on as to whether Evolution exists.

The whole academic freedom thing reminds me of Clause 28 in Britain (which Blair did actually repeal).

Cheers
Amos

coda
17th July 2005, 06:53
We all have to strongly fight against that kind of cencorship. Intellectual Freedom is very important for both students and teachers. The National Education Association has a policy in favor of tenure & Academic Freedom and are proponents in protecting the right of educators to teach radical theories in higher education and open dissent from authoratitive popular opinion. How some schools are able to get around tenure is in hiring adjunct professors instead with low pay, no benefits, no contracts, no voice.

Chomsky as far as I know doesn't teach any kind of political ideology while on the job..not that I know of, atleast... he's a linguisist professor and does the rest in his free time. But on the other hand, Ward Churchill, tenured professor at U of Bolder in native American studies...and I'm sure a lot of this recent proposal is based around the backlash surrounding Churchill who also writes anti-imperialist expositions and has come under massive fire and public ridicule calling for his resignation because of an essay regarding 9-11, "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens" that resurfaced due to some conservative students from Hamiltion college wanting to block a speech he was presenting there. Churchill had to "resign" his chair position as Head of Ethics Studies at U of Bolder and they are currently investigating his background and writings to find something legit reason to permanently remove him.

So far he's endured right wing attacks calling for his resignation on the shaky grounds that he's isn't native American at all and got the position due to false pretenses, (however, the position shouldn't even require race credentials in the first place, though it's fairly obvious he is native American just by looking at him; but he needs "blood quantum" to verify that claim and that whole Nazi practice and Certificate of Degree of Blood the Dept.of Interior BIA requires is the most racist bunch of shit--anyway that's for a whole other post. They are now claiming that some of his scholarship and thesis' are either plagerisms or just plain out fabrications and mischaracterizations, that he doesn't hold a PhD, which was apparent when they hired him,..... and last but not least that he's a gun-toting commie terrorist evidenced by a picture of him with an automatic rifle, ---which is really absurd considering that the Repubicans are the big pushers and backers &members of the NRA! Here's the pic --- ala Che! http://www.satyamag.com/apr04/churchill.html

Anyway, the poor guy has gone through some shit just for stating his anti-genocidal views!

http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/backlash.html
http://www.colorado.edu/EthnicStudies/facu..._churchill.html (http://www.colorado.edu/EthnicStudies/faculty/w_churchill.html)


****if anybody wants to fight against this attempt to censor freedom of learning and also support Ward Churchill & Academic Freedom, you can sign this petition of the AIM chapter of Bolder/Denver.

http://www.coloradoaim.org/wardpetition.h

Xiao Banfa
19th July 2005, 07:57
Professors are inclined to the left by their nature. They are intellectuals who have studied political science and socialism is scientific. If an objective analysis is made, socialism will come out on top. The very nature of courses like anthropology, sociology lends itself to socialism.
When my Mum was at uni in the 70's something like 90 percent of the lecturers of politics were marxists! She gave me some her old books from that era and they consist of left wing academics writing about imperialism- after discovering the mechanics of imperialism you'd have to be an immoral cynic to not be some kind of socialist.

This brings up an uneasy question- would the Kerry administration have permitted this?

red_orchestra
19th July 2005, 08:34
In Canada--- the general rule in public schools is to be politically neutral, whatever your personal view. However, because the public school system is extrememly pro-Union, all of the course material is fairly left of centre in terms of its political/ social views. One of my teachers that I had in Grade 10 was an active Marxist Socialist and he alway maintained a level playing field when it came to political and social views in the classroom. Hey, thats the way it should be.

Teaching about Communism is good. so is educating about the evils of Fascism and various police states. just don't preach...

Bannockburn
19th July 2005, 13:06
No, you're right this isn't surprising whatsoever. The evolution/creation debate is a farce, and Christian's who try to push this theory is completely out to lunch. There is zero evidence to suggest intelligent design, and there is no good grounds to teach it in universities. With like examples, you might as well teach witchcraft, and worshiping the sun or something.

Nevertheless, I'm not seeing a liberal assault of academia. I'm currently in university in Canada, and my major is philosophy. So, if its up to me, I can take a religious class. I actually did do that. Now, this is where religion can have its place. Nevertheless, there should be absolutely zero reasons why it should be taught in science class, and honestly it only supports Christian principles. Think about it. If I'm in my evolutionary theory class, and some guy brings up intelligent design, or Christian creation stories as a defense, then argues within those lines, and that it should be protected under a “Bill of Rights”, it should be listened too, and if its not you can get sued? That is completely absurd. I suppose that if somebody brought up creation stories of Greek mythology should also be listened too? That is the thinking. Yet, nobody is willing to accept 17 different creation stories, why should Christianity simply be singled out? Obviously it is a promotion of Christianity.