On a visit to some colleges and universities the bias so frequently alleged by conservative students and their concerned parents appears fully-formed before the naked eye and ear.
Last month, at George Washington University, I filled in for Sara Russo of Students for Academic Freedom in a debate on the Academic Bill of Rights designed by SAF’s founder—conservative author and activist David Horowitz. I faced off against a young lady named Megan Fitzgerald, who works with a group called Campus Free Speech. Later, I learn that Miss Fitzgerald has requested and been given the exclusive right to make presentations on ABOR at Temple University where it is under consideration.
Personally, I found her personable and intelligent and even, on that occasion, reasonable. It was clear, though, that my presence threw her: She was expecting someone from SAF and, accordingly, was prepared to use much of her time personally attacking Mr. Horowitz.
When I got there, she was checking connections for her power point demonstration. On her computer screen, she had two points:
1.) ABOR
2.) David Horowitz
Hence, with me there as a last-minute substitution, we went low-tech. Consequently,
what Miss Fitzgerald wound up doing was:
1.)Agreeing that speech codes have got to go.
2.) Suggesting that rather than ABOR, students could use in-house grievance procedures and appeals to boards of trustees.
I pointed out to her that, at best, grievance channels at colleges and universities are where complaints are buried. At worst, these grievance procedures give administrators a chance to harass and intimidate students.
The boards of trustees are a more intriguing possibility that we did not get a chance to explore. Actually, these boards are a great potential check and balance on wayward college administrators and renegade professors.
Boards of trustees have the final say on tenure, for example. The problem is, boards rarely respond to internal pleas from students. They only act in response to external pressure and then it has to be a groundswell of public opinion.
Witness the board of regents at the University of Colorado removing Ward Churchill as department chair only after his disparaging comments about the victims of the September 11th attacks made Fox News. Additionally, several students in the audience made well-taken points:
1.) That Fitzgerald’s dismissal of complaints that were anonymous belies the precarious potential fate of students going public with grievances and jeopardizing grades and recommendations.
2.) That academic bias is so pervasive that it has spread to science departments.
I have seen this happen, particularly when support for the theories of, alternately, the dangers of global warming and the exclusive certainty of evolution are a prerequisite for employment and/or tenure and promotion at many leading colleges and universities. Just look at how many of the global warming skeptics in academia are retired.
The GWU event was sponsored by the Minnesota Student Association. Because the debate took place at 11:00 AM on a Sunday before an audience of college students, I decided to stir them up a bit.
“The political balance on college faculties in and of itself should mean nothing,” I told them. “The military votes Republican in about the same proportions that professors vote Democratic by but it never comes up in their recruitment, training or service.”
“Support for tax cuts or vouchers do not come up in target practice or on an obstacle course. Academia can learn a lot from the military,” I said. “They should let them back on campus.”
As I predicted, this got about a half dozen heads shaking, eyeballs rolling and students sighing. “Well, I’ll just leave that there because I know that you will want to come back to it in q and a,” said I.
Much to my surprise, it never came up. No one who reacted so negatively to my pro-military comment asked a question about it or approached me afterwards to take issue with my remarks.
It eventually dawned on me that these students have been conditioned by their education to react the way they did. In other words, they have been taught to reflexively reject notions such as mine but they have no idea why.
Malcolm A. Kline is the executive director of Accuracy in Academia.
