<p>But education isn’t a series of facts. In the end, we need to choose between competing interpretations, both of which may have value. A responsible professor should present both sides of an issue, but that shouldn’t prevent him from expressing and teaching his own opinion, backed up by relevant facts. I’m sorry if academia has a liberal bias, but that is life. Preventing discrimination against conservative faculty is one thing, prohibiting professors from teaching is another.</p>
<p>This sounds like an attempt to stop some professors from using their classrooms and position of power as a political pulpit. There’s no reason they should be using it in that manner and I wouldn’t want my tax dollars supporting the furthuring of some professor’s political views. I don’t see how preventing them from campaigning for their personal political views would impact their ability to teach a subject - it should only enhance it.</p>
<p>“I don’t see how preventing them from campaigning for their personal political views would impact their ability to teach a subject”</p>
<p>But their job isn’t just to teach. Their job is to come up with new ideas and engage in scholarly debate about those ideas with other thinkers. In fields like law, public health, political science, philosophy, etc. it’s impossible to untangle the political from the academic.</p>
<p>If you want to stop all research at public universities in Arizona and basically turn them into big high schools with hired lecturers, go ahead and say so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are many published studies on evolution that present verifiable facts. Would teaching evolution be permissable under the proposed Arizona statute? What if the professor endorsed evolution?</p>
<p>See the problem, here? Who has the authority to define “verifiable fact”?</p>
<p>hanna:</p>
<p>I see your point but I think there’s some frustration with some overly biased (mostly left, perhaps some on the right) politic preaching professors abusing their position and not really serving the students well. I think you know the ones I’m referring to. Most students have experienced them and many have been very frustrated by them. I think for many of the undergrad basic courses the professor should focus more on attempting to present balanced material for discussion and education and leave their personal political views out of it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. I don’t actually know the ones you are referring, too. Give us an example of a college where the professors (and I’m not talking about a lone wingnut from either persuasion) are using the classroom to prosyletize.</p>
<p>If there are a couple of yahoos abusing their positions in Arizona:</p>
<h1>1, it strikes me as a management issue rather than something the legislature ought to be outlawing. I’m sure that there are lazy people working for the Arizona DMV who use work time for leisure and aren’t “serving” their customers well. That’s an issue for their superiors at the DMV; the legislature does not swoop in and outlaw coffee breaks.</h1>
<h1>2, this law is absurdly broad. If it’s supposed to solve a narrow problem involving a few yahoos, it shouldn’t be written to cover every imaginable kind of politically-tinged expression in every context. Yet that’s exactly what it does. Socratic dialogue, playing devil’s advocate to challenge a student’s assumptions, etc…that would all be illegal unless you’re discussing an electron cloud. This law basically bans seminars in every topic in the social sciences, biology, and a lot of the humanities.</h1>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are some nutcases out there. I’d say most of them are in the econ department ;-).</p>
<p>You know, I teach mostly research techniques these days, so I really don’t have much cause to get political … you would think. And yet, when going over sampling techniques, how on earth am I supposed to ignore US Census techniques that led to partisan bickering in the past? </p>
<p>I suspect I would just gloss over the whole issue of sampling?</p>
<p>And of course, practically everything has become subject to “partisan controversy” from when does life begin and when does it end, to whether the state has the right to seize private property, to what constitutes torture, to whether there should be speech code… ad infinitum.<br>
New slogan for those who teach in k-12 or at universities: “Mum’s the Word.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. In econ, you couldn’t even discuss issue such as minimum wage without running afoul of this law</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed, almost by defintion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Certain music would have to be banned if it had anything political to say. Same with dance. Drama would be impossible. You couldn’t allow certain books on the syllabus (basically, the vast majority of worthwhile books). Philosophy is out except in certain esoteric fields. History would be emasculated. Religion would also be impossible. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t be too sure about the “safe” ones. For instance, radioactive decay is the purview of physics, so I suppose one couldn’t talk about dating certain rocks or about the radioactive half-life of rubidium. And what about quantum physics? As Einstein said, “God does not play dice with the universe.” Surely, quantum mechanics would have to be relegated to the dustbin. Chemistry and biology include biochemical processes in DNA that could be construed to support evolution and, since evolution is subject to partisanship … well, scratch that.</p>
<p>I doubt that is what the concern is. Here is a much more concrete example of what the state is wishing to avoid.</p>
<p><a href=“InfoShop - InfoShop”>InfoShop - InfoShop;
<p>Barrons:</p>
<p>What the concern is is besides the point. The legislation as crafted, is way too broad. There are some real nuts in academia. Ward Churchill, for example, and to begin with. But that’s no reason to craft legislation that makes it possible to shut down legitimate scholarly discussion.</p>
<p>Barrons:</p>
<p>Are you suggesting we interpret the laws in this country not by what they say, but by “intent”?</p>
<p>Many states have crafted laws that limit politcal activities of employees and they have passed muster with the courts. I am sure there is a reasonable model out there. I doubt the majority in Arizona wants to close all reasoned debate–just that represented by groups such as I posted that are real although probably popular than 20 years ago. I have hears considerable anecdotal evidence of profs downgrading papers and test answers by students who do not agree with the prof’s political POV. The problem is real and the victims are the students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, if it’s anecdotal, it must be true, right?</p>
<p>Yup…</p>
<p>I’ve also heard some anecdotal evidence of such phenomenon. There is some evidence, not “considerable”. And the bias comes from various points on the political spectrum. But is this legislation going to eliminate this phenomenon?<br>
Suppose a student writes that the antiwar movement was responsible for the US defeat in VN and the prof disagrees with that and marks the student down. It could be that the paper was ill-argued and ill-written; it could be that the student wrote a good paper but that the prof’s bias came into play. But the prof was not making a statement–the student was–and it is not a case of current partisan controversy. So how would this legislation protect the student, if, indeed, s/he was a victim of the prof’s bias?</p>
<p>Further, is such a sweeping piece of legislation necessary to protect students against biased profs and teachers? There are mechanisms for appealing against unfair grades. There is also negative publicity.</p>
<p>Barrons:</p>
<p>OK. So, if you believe that political discourse should be banned from the university, how should the University of Arizona respond if a highly-partisan figure like Condoleeza Rice sought a return to academia? How 'bout the neocons at UChicago? Their theories should be barred from the classroom, right?</p>
<p>“I am sure there is a reasonable model out there. I doubt the majority in Arizona wants to close all reasoned debate”</p>
<p>But that’s what they did. Government bodies can hold hearings, or “notice and comment” periods, where experts can submit their perspectives on how to craft a policy that achieves the government’s end. They didn’t do that.</p>
<p>I agree that there are anti-political-participation rules out there that are constitutional and reasonable. I spent about three years under the rule that applies to federal judges and their clerks, which is one of the strictest rules out there. BUT…</p>
<ol>
<li><p>It’s inherent in the separation of powers that the federal judiciary needs to operate independently of the political branches. There’s no such need for independence, or even the appearance of independence, in universities. They are established and run by the political branches.</p></li>
<li><p>Judges are permitted to discuss and advocate any policies they want to in the cases that come before them. There’s no such loophole in the proposed law allowing professors to discuss and advocate policies that are directly related to the course material or a research project.</p></li>
<li><p>Judges ARE allowed to speak their minds in academic settings, and the enforcement of what’s too political to be permitted is very lenient (as it should be). They can’t endorse a candidate or party, but many judges have written famous books and articles on highly politicized topics such as the economics of adoption, the role of women in government, etc. So this law would give Arizona professors far less freedom than federal judges have, even though the stakes are far, far lower at ASU than in the judiciary.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>And that just doesn’t make any sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Three whacko legislators with an agenda report this out of committee. A majority of legislators, let alone a mojority of the citizens of AZ, have not indicated they approve this, and I doubt they will because it doesn’t make sense.</p>
<p>Someone earlier said this sounds like something being pushed by David Horowitz. Here is his comment on the proposal:</p>
<p>
</p>