Lynn Cheney's anti-liberal agenda in schools has come out in the open. Pennsylvania republicans have started an investigation in to supposed liberal bias on campuses.

Hearing on campus bias met with jeers

Panel investigating 'indoctrination' at state colleges

Thursday, November 10, 2005

By Bill Toland, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05314/603768.stm

High on buzzwords but low on data, a controversial legislative panel created to investigate political "indoctrination" at state colleges held its first hearing yesterday at Pitt's student union.

By the end of hour one, student protesters had interrupted the hearing, strutting through the ballroom and chanting "HUAC, go away," a reference to the McCarthy-era House Un-American Activities Committee.

By hour two, the "select committee on academic freedom in higher education" heard its first overt mention of communism.

And by afternoon's end, the panel and its invited speakers had walked through a minefield of evolutionary theory, creationism and Holocaust deniers, issues that had varying degrees of relevancy to the subject at hand.

The inquiry is controversial because Democrats and college professors view it as a thinly veiled attempt by majority Republicans to stamp the autonomy, not to mention the liberal political ideology, out of academia. Republicans in the House say the inquiry is necessary because conservative students have reported being intimidated, or graded unfairly, by liberal professors.

State Rep. Gibson Armstrong, a Lancaster County Republican who spearheaded the creation of the panel, said that he's collected 50 complaints from students who say they feel intimidated, or "indoctrinated." Democratic lawmakers wonder about Mr. Armstrong's accounting methods, given that none of them has received a single complaint.

"I don't think we're brainwashing anybody, [which] is what you're implying," said state Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Squirrel Hill.

The vote to create the panel -- which doesn't have any legislative authority and doesn't require the governor's signature -- was a party-line tally, 108-90. Democrats voted against it, GOP for it.

As a result, the initial admonition that came from state Rep. Tom Stevenson -- "This is no witch hunt," he said -- went largely ignored by the people convinced that the inquiry, if not a witch hunt, is at least a red scare.

He told the audience, which grew as the afternoon wore on and classes let out, that the inquiry would focus on a college's institutional duties, not an individual professor's ideology.

But it didn't take long for the first speaker, Stephen Balch, president of the National Association of Scholars, to note that college professors at state schools tend to be more often liberal than conservative. Though there's no comparable study of Pennsylvania's state-owned and state-related universities, Mr. Balch examined the political donations from Pennsylvania professors, concluding that humanities and social sciences professors were more likely to donate to a Democratic candidate than to a Republican one, by a 30-1 margin.

As for Mr. Balch, a registered Republican, he's donated money to a group called "The Freedom Project," which is dedicated to advancing the Republican agenda and keeping Congress out of the hands of "union bosses, trial lawyers and campus radicals."

Mr. Balch said the liberal majority at colleges can be damaging in a variety of ways. First, it leads to the indoctrination of students, which runs contrary to a professor's mission to pass down knowledge, but not ideology. Second, the liberal majority is a self-perpetuating circle -- alternative voices, namely conservatives, don't feel welcome, and are less likely to apply for faculty or graduate school positions.

The staff becomes "so one-sided, so inbred," that they no longer recognize the possibility of competing viewpoints, he said.

Third, the exclusion of alternative political viewpoints leads to unchecked advocacy and activism, which, in Mr. Balch's eyes, ought not be the mission of a professor, or a state university.

If colleges go out of their way to promote ethnic and racial diversity among the faculty and the student body -- a concept that Dr. Balch's group disagrees with -- then it should at least go to the same lengths to promote diverse political viewpoints, he said.

And if they don't, it is within the Legislature's purview to hold schools accountable and tell them to "get it right," he said.

Hogwash, said Joan Wallach Scott and Robert Moore. Ms. Scott, a gender studies professor and former chair of the American Association of University Professors, and Mr. Moore, a St. Joseph University professor, said the concepts of academic autonomy and faculty tenure are in place to prevent government from telling teachers how to teach -- or how not to teach.

They also objected to the "academic bill of rights," outlined in House Resolution 177 (the one that authorized the special panel).

The "academic bill of rights" is redundant in the places where it calls for a grievance procedure for students who feel they've been graded unfairly or capriciously, because all universities have such grievance procedures in place, said the two professors. Where the "bill of rights" is not redundant, it is either unnecessary or downright dangerous.

Mr. Moore said he is skeptical of the claims of rampant political intimidation or unfair grading that are collected mostly online, without any fact-checking.

"I'm a social scientist," he said. "I would like to see data."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Bill Toland can be reached at btoland@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1889.)

Pitt provost: Political bias not a problem

Friday, November 11, 2005

By Bill Toland, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05315/604712.stm

At a legislative hearing yesterday, University of Pittsburgh Provost James Maher defended the school's procedure for shielding students from professors trying to influence them politically, and denied that such a problem exists to any measurable extent.

"There aren't a whole lot of cases," he said.

Mr. Maher was first to testify during day two of the House of Representatives' ongoing investigation into political "indoctrination" at state and state-related schools. The hearing, held at Pitt, was the first of four scheduled.

The "select committee on academic freedom in higher education" was set up by House Republicans. The chief proponent, Rep. Gibson Armstrong, R-Lancaster, says he's collected examples from college students who say they feel intimidated by their professors' liberal politics, or that the professors discuss politics at inappropriate times, like during biology classes.

He -- like Students for Academic Freedom, the Washington, D.C.-based group trying to promote these inquiries nationwide -- worries that colleges "permit liberal-left advocacy and activism to flourish openly." Mr. Armstrong said students at state schools "should be protected from the imposition of ideological orthodoxy."

Democrats are skeptical, saying the Republicans are just trying to intimidate professors and colleges, which are home to more liberals than conservatives. They also wonder why 50 students statewide sought out Mr. Armstrong to complain about liberal professors, but didn't complain to any other lawmakers.

"I am always suspicious when I suspect someone is cooking the books," said Rep. John Pallone, D-Westmoreland.

Mr. Armstrong served as Mr. Maher's chief adversary yesterday, asking whether familiar campus terms like "cultural studies," "advocacy," "gender diversity," "economic justice" and "social justice" were all really code words for what are liberal political philosophies.

Mr. Armstrong also asked if Mr. Maher was concerned that, among Pitt professors who contributed to recent political campaigns, 119 contributed to Democratic candidates, while only 33 supported Republicans.

Mr. Maher reminded Mr. Armstrong that Pitt has 4,000 faculty members, so the number who are politically motivated enough to contribute to a campaign is actually quite small.

Pitt senior Rachael Dizard attended the bias hearing and spoke to the panel after the invited speakers were finished.

She'd "never once been penalized for arguing with one of our professors," she said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Bill Toland can be reached at btoland@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1889.)

David Horowitz is behind the Students for Academic Freedom


Letters to the editor: 7/17/05
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05198/538789.stm

Educators should push for academic freedom


I wish to respond to "In Search of Bias" (July 11 editorial) in which the Post-Gazette claims that rooting out political intolerance in academia is "best left to real educators," an intended slap at H.R. 177 and our Academic Bill of Rights which inspired the legislation.

Real educators have created the current anarchy in which biology professors at Penn State University show political propaganda films to their biology students. Policy HR 64 in the Penn State Policy Manual says very clearly: "No faculty member may claim as a right the privilege of discussing in the classroom controversial topics outside his/her own field of study. The faculty member is normally bound not to take advantage of his/her position by introducing into the classroom provocative discussions of irrelevant subjects not within the field of his/her study."

If defending the academic freedom of students is best left to real educators, why haven't they done something about this?

The American Council on Education in conjunction with 27 higher education organizations issued a statement last month affirming the core principles of the Academic Bill of Rights and of state Rep. Gibson Armstrong's House Bill H.R. 177.

If the editorial board of the PG is serious about academic freedom, it will write another editorial urging Penn State University administrators to contact the legislative sponsors of this bill and offer to enforce its provisions. This was done successfully in Colorado, where legislators withdrew their academic freedom bill when the administrators of the state higher education system signed a memorandum of understanding to precisely that end.

In the absence of such an agreement, it would be foolish of the Pennsylvania Legislature to leave to these educators a task they should have performed in the first place, and didn't.


DAVID HOROWITZ
Chairman
Students for Academic Freedom


SARA DOGAN
National Campus Director
Students for Academic Freedom
Washington, D.C.

Editorial: In search of bias / The House's disingenuous search for 'intolerance'
Monday, July 11, 2005

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05192/535998.stm

Whenever dunce caps are handed out, you can be sure that members of Pennsylvania's House of Representatives will be first in line for a fitting.

The latest example of the Legislature meddling in affairs best left to real educators is the goofy proposal to root out alleged "political intolerance at Pennsylvania's college campuses."

In the great echo chamber of national right-wing politics, a peculiar notion of conservative victimization is taking hold. College Republicans are complaining that "liberal" university professors are holding their conservative ideologies against them and grading accordingly.

This is either paranoid nonsense or a truly scandalous misuse of academic authority. Proof of any kind of bias would be of great interest to the presidents of the schools where it allegedly occurs. Bias is a four-letter word at most campuses.

Last week, a resolution stating that "students and faculty should be protected from the imposition of ideological orthodoxy" passed in the House, 108-90. An investigative committee composed of the House's education subcommittee will survey the "problem" and decide what legislation, if any, is necessary. If we're lucky, this folly will never get off the ground.

Putting politicians in a position to determine the legitimacy of academic bias is like hiring foxes to patrol henhouses. Democrats wouldn't do any better because elected officials are creatures of political brinkmanship, not academic integrity.

Rep. Gibson Armstrong, R-Lancaster, is responsible for introducing this wrong-headed proposal. More than a dozen states are contemplating similar bills aimed at stopping the "intimidation" of conservative students by liberal academics, though none has passed yet. Rep. Armstrong hopes Pennsylvania will be in the vanguard of a new civil rights movement.

Whatever problems conservative students may or may not be having with liberal professors requires a surgeon's scalpel, not a chainsaw intended to upset the delicate balance of academic freedom. Anyone who would trust the Pennsylvania Legislature to make informed judgments about the ideology of professors deserves an "F."

Much ado about nothing on the part of the neo-conservatives.
College campuses are full of idealistic young people. Professors work in that
environment.

Plus, I always go back to my own little theory:
the reason more profs are liberal is that they think !

They think in shades of grey and deeply, which is usually not something
which leads one down a path of conservative thought.

Yeah the bias is slanted towards facts. That is what really irks the Republicans.

First this then the Intelligent Design debate in Dover, PA....... PA is becoming the laughing stock of the education community.

House urges end to liberal bias on Pennsylvania campuses
Wednesday, July 06, 2005

By Bill Toland, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05187/533383.stm

HARRISBURG -- Hoping to root out political intolerance at Pennsylvania's college campuses, the state House of Representatives is forming a committee to investigate claims among some college students that professors gave them unfair grades because of differing political ideologies.

But critics of proposals like these say political conservatives, emboldened by election successes over the past decade, are making a thinly veiled charge at the last bastion of liberalism -- college campuses -- armed with flimsy evidence and in search of a problem that doesn't really exist.

Rep. Gibson Armstrong, R-Lancaster, says he's collected about 50 examples of "intolerance" from college students. Armstrong's proposal, which parrots others made in legislatures across the country, is based on the concern among Republicans that conservative students are at worst graded unfairly, or at the very least feel intimidated because their views don't match those of their liberal professors.

The resolution was approved last night by the House, 108-90, after the House voted to end debate on the subject, even though several representatives remained in the speaking queue. By that point, debate on the resolution had consumed parts of two days, with the House interrupting debate Monday night, Independence Day, so everyone could go watch the fireworks.

Gibson, in explaining the proposal, said that he hopes to guarantee "free speech and tolerance" at the colleges that are owned or partly owned by the state. The resolution, which does not need the governor's signature, says that "students and faculty should be protected from the imposition of ideological orthodoxy," and students should be "graded based on academic merit, without regard for ideological views."

The investigative committee, composed primarily of the House's higher education subcommittee, plus two appointees, would explore whatever problems exist and then determine if corrective legislation is necessary.

The movement to temper the liberal stronghold on college campuses germinated quickly. So far this calendar year, more than a dozen state legislatures have considered bills that would either restrict professors, or set up a committee or grievance process that would explore the allegations of unfair treatment.

None of the proposals has passed into law, and wherever they have been advanced, they've created controversy among lawmakers, students and especially university professors. Pennsylvania's version has been percolating since April, and has already drawn opposition from teachers groups, like the American Association of University Professors.

One of the driving forces behind the movement is the Students for Academic Freedom, a Washington-based group founded by activist David Horowitz. In an interview with The Christian Science Monitor, he said the past six months have been a "watershed in the academic-freedom movement" and hopes the movement to monitor teachers for bias will eventually trickle down to public elementary and high schools.

Students for Academic Freedom says its goal is to "end the political abuse of the university and to restore integrity to the academic mission as a disinterested pursuit of knowledge." The group plans to distribute a book called "Unpatriotic University," which tells readers that colleges are full of "anti-American rhetoric, and [shut out] conservative points of view both in classrooms and on speakers' platforms."

Much of the Pennsylvania bill was borrowed from the Horowitz group's "academic bill of rights."

Rep. Mark Cohen, D-Philadelphia, referred to the Horowitz group and said the resolution is just "an attempt to respond to a national movement. ... We're just trying to fall in line."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Bill Toland can be reached at btoland@post-gazette.com or 1-717-787-2141.)

Hi!

There has been a movement over the past year in Florida, headed by a Republican State Representative from the Marion County (Ocala) area, to try to push the agenda that there is not enough encouragement of "conservative" thought or ideas in the State's universities. Of course, he is also the representative that is pushing for legislation to allow gun owners to take their guns to work - as long as they leave them in their vehicles.

Just thought you'd like to know that this is not an isolated incident.

God Bless,
TammyJo58

"More than a dozen states are contemplating similar bills..."

OK, PA and Florida are doing this;

Does anyone else know what is going on in the other 10 states?

Legislatures Eye Classroom Politics

Updated 12:26 PM ET January 19, 2006
By MARTHA RAFFAELE
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pu...8f7snn82&src=ap

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - Christian DeJohn returned from a National Guard tour in Bosnia only to fight his own war with academics at Temple University who he says have held up his master's thesis because of political conflicts in the classroom.

To some conservatives, the case represents a national trend by some liberal professors to infringe on conservative students' right to free speech at public colleges and universities.

The debate has reached more than a dozen state legislatures, which dole out the taxpayer funds to those schools, but so far there's been more talk than action.

Legislation modeled after an "academic bill of rights" advocated by conservative activist David Horowitz, founder of Students for Academic Freedom, was introduced in at least 15 states last year, but none has passed it, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Among other things, the document exhorts professors to present a wide spectrum of intellectual views in the classroom and discourages them from basing students' grades on their religious or political beliefs.

Julie Bell, the conference's education program director, said legislatures have not forced the issue because even public universities typically enjoy considerable autonomy in setting academic policies and procedures.

"Most legislatures have backed away because they really do acknowledge that separation," Bell said.

An Ohio state senator suspended his push for legislation last year after state universities approved a resolution requiring them to ensure students are not graded based on political opinions.

In Pennsylvania, legislators investigating whether their state's public colleges are hospitable to divergent intellectual and political views traveled to Temple for a hearing last week where a small number of students including DeJohn voiced their complaints.

DeJohn, who entered graduate school four years ago, said he suspects that approval of his thesis is being delayed partly because of conflicts he had with a military history professor who, DeJohn said, often criticized the Iraq war and the Bush administration during class. DeJohn contends the delay is also retaliation for a critical response he sent to a professor after he received an e-mail invitation to a campus war protest while he was serving six months in Bosnia.

"These are people who are sitting in judgment on whether I graduate," DeJohn told the lawmakers.

The student's professors both said their decision was based on academic reasons and not on DeJohn's military status, according to Rep. Lawrence Curry, a committee member who said both testified during the public-comment portion of the hearing.

Pennsylvania's inquiry was authorized by the state House at the behest of Rep. Gibson C. Armstrong, who says he merely wants the committee to assess whether political orthodoxy is a widespread problem and whether a legislative remedy is warranted.

"I don't think anyone on this committee is interested in seeing the government ... interfere in what happens in our state college classrooms," the Republican said at the hearing.

William E. Scheuerman, vice president of the American Federation of Teachers, said universities fear the prospect of government micromanagement.

"Merely the threat of government intervention is enough, believe me, to frighten college administrators and some faculty so they are less likely to raise tough questions," he said.

Advocates for tighter controls are trying other strategies, as well. At the University of California, Los Angeles, a conservative alumni group offered students money to police professors accused of pushing liberal views _ a move that sparked a former congressman and two others to quit the group's advisory board, saying Wednesday that the tactic was extreme.

Horowitz said verifying the accuracy of every bias complaint is difficult. But he told the lawmakers at Temple that the American Council of Trustees and Alumni found last year that half of students surveyed said professors frequently comment in class on politics _ even when it is not relevant to the course.

"I would not be here if I weren't persuaded by 20 years of walking around campuses and seeing this," Horowitz said.

Rep. Dan Surra, a member of the Pennsylvania committee who has questioned the need for the investigation, said nothing so far has swayed him. Students in his rural district complain about such issues as tuition, but not about professors' biases, the Democrat said.

"I've said it's the educational equivalent of the hunt for Bigfoot," he said.

___

On the Net:

National Conference of State Legislatures: http://www.ncsl.org

Students for Academic Freedom: http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org

My Dad heard on the news today that republican alumni are paying current college students $100 to tape and report on any professor who says anything political against conservatives or this adminsitration.

Hmmm can't say I agree with that. Libs like you to think they think more or are smarter but my experience is the opposite really. The libs tend to dominate teaching the social sciences, history, pol. science, philosphy etc... I have found that engineering departments tend to lean either to idependent or conservative. And for my money engineers make the US work, they tend to be smarter and problem solvers. The libs don't really do much.

Reading too much of Ayn Rand leads to a very narrow view of who makes contributions to the community. If we experience catastrophic economic collapse due to a peak oil crisis, your beloved engineers (a great many of them foreign students) will not have the jobs and labs needed to develop renewable energy. We who fit into your pea-brained stereotype of "libs" will do as well as anyone else because we like to think outside of the box.

Engineering tends to be a far more conservative discipline in its intellectual approach, it's not surprising for the pattern to carry into politics. The best physicists tend to be apolitical or their own brand of liberal because of the type of approach their field requires. There's also the fact that some feilds have more two way communication between teacher and student (as far as actual exchange of ideas) which also has impact.

I think worrying about political leanings in colleges is pure BS, both from the people who want to enforce some conservative standard and those who want to make it PC. In fact, I think there's too little freedom afforded academia by both sides.

I don't have a problem with teacher's in a certain discipline leaning heavy to one way or another. As long as you teach your topic without bias, present both sides etc... then its fine. In political science courses in college I think its fine for a professor to espouse his opinion and why if it helps engage the students to think critically about certain issues.

As a professor I don't have problem the policy that you suggest here. I do take objection to the notion that one discipline or occupation "makes the US work" more than others. Higher education needs to be more inclusive than that. We are interdependent.

I'm not the one who started that the libs actually think etc, I just responded to it.

and the ones on both sides who want thought control are co-dependent.

Most of us on both sides have no problem figuring out the basics of a good policy, how do we get heard above the crazies on both sides who twist everything into one extreme or the other?