Drawing comparisons to Hitler, Mao and the Committee on Public Information, Dr. Kurt Smith of Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania attacked the Pennsylvania state committee on Academic Freedom for the hearings they have been holding throughout the commonwealth.
“Pennsylvania’s university professors stand accused today, investigated by this very committee, cast as leftists, Communists, and Socialists, who have conspired to secretly indoctrinate students in their leftist ideologies. Have we learned nothing over these past two millennia?” asked Smith, an assistant professor of Philosophy.
Smith argued that House Resolution 177, which created the House Select Committee on Academic Freedom in Pa., did not arise from the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) as is claimed. Smith said that there is no General Report on Academic Freedom and Tenure, only the 1915 and 1940 statements of purpose. Instead, Smith concluded that the wording for part of House Resolution 177 is taken directly from the Academic Bill of Rights promoted by David Horowitz.
Smith did not mention that Horowitz has said that the idea for ABOR is taken from the 1940 statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure of the AAUP, on many occasions and has said the ABOR merely grants rights to students where professors are supposed to be held responsible according to the AAUP’s statement.
Instead Smith condemned the similarities between HR 177 and the ABOR. He said, “In rooting itself in the Academic Bill of Rights, HR 177 simply embraces the many problems lurking about in that document. In playing off the ‘marketplace of ideas’ metaphor, both documents reveal a failure to understand the very concept of academic freedom as historically construed by the AAUP, the nature of higher education in a free society, and the ins-and-outs of what really goes on in the classroom from a teachers’ perspective…academic freedom as I am now describing it is not a freedom given to students—period.”
Smith said he believes students do have rights, and have academic freedom, but it is not the same kind of academic freedom as teachers.
“What makes the Academic Bill of Rights and HR 177 problematic, I think, is that they fail to draw the distinction between faculty and students in this respect, and as a result, the former misleadingly argues that a ‘Bill of Rights’ needs to be instituted to guarantee students the same academic freedom as that given to professional faculty members,” said Smith.
While Smith did make it clear that students do not have the right to demand that certain perspectives be taught, nor do they have the right to not be offended, Smith never explained what rights students are entitled to.
The philosophy professor also attacked Rep. Gibson C. Armstrong, a member of the committee, at length claiming he [Armstrong] has a “strange interpretation” of the marketplace of ideas, saying Armstrong “fails to understand” where the debates of scholarship occur, and accusing him of “playing fast and loose with the facts” as David Horowitz does.
At the conclusion of Smith’s testimony, the chairman of the committee, Rep. Thomas L. Stevenson, R-Allegheny, chose to allow Rep. Armstrong to begin questioning because Smith had laid many charges at his feet.
A somewhat heated discussion then took place between Rep. Armstrong and Smith. Here are some excerpts:
Armstrong: “Do these hearings have value?”
Smith: “It if is about investigating indoctrination, No. If it’s about policies it could have been found out by phone.”
Armstrong: “This is a fiduciary responsibility. Billions [of taxpayer money] go into higher education and there is precious little accountability.”
Smith: “What are professors to be held accountable for?”
Armstrong: “For what they do in class.”
* * *
Armstrong: “No one has been accused or singled out. All we are doing is trying to determine if universities are enforcing their policies.”
Smith: “If that were true I wouldn’t be here.”
* * *
Armstrong: “We know nationally there is a bias problem.’
Smith: “What? No, we don’t.”
* * *
Following the exchange, the other Representatives were given opportunities to ask questions. Rep. Frankel, Curry and Quigley asked Smith a few questions.
Questions were concluded after 30 minutes by Stevenson who throughout the hearings remained the most impartial of the committee members until Smith’s testimony.
“A half hour ago, I was ready to jump down your throat, but you’ve toned down,” said Stevenson. “I have? No,” replied Smith.
Julia A. Seymour is a staff writer for Accuracy in Academia.
