Can government legislate "Intellectual Diversity" (without becoming the Thought Police)?
Georgia's “Intellectual Diversity in Higher Education Act”: A breath of fresh air – or the first step down a slippery slope?
By Jeff Emanuel Posted in Academia | Culture | diversity | Georgia — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
“Academic freedom” has been a growing buzzword in recent years for conservatives paying attention to the goings-on at America’s college campuses. The leftist tendencies inherent in academia are, of course, not a new development, though they have been better-documented of late by conservative writers, such as UNC-Wilmington professor Mike Adams, and activists, like David Horowitz.
Case after case of liberal activism and indoctrination has been publicized by conservative individuals, and by organizations like the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). As a result, acts which in the past might have gone unnoticed and unquestioned – such as a Northern Kentucky professor’s demolishing of an anti-abortion display, or the University of Georgia’s disqualification of a Christian fraternity from student-organization privileges due to its requirement that its members be Christian – have been both exposed and corrected through quick, vigilant action on the part of those who were willing to stand up for actual equal treatment of college students, regardless of political affiliation or religious beliefs.
However, despite the watchfulness of those on the outside, America’s universities maintain their seemingly irreversible liberal bent. Part of this is because of a natural imbalance in the ideology of those employed there; another part is that one rarely seems able to find a professor they can peg as "conservative," due to the fact that those who lean right - bless their souls - do their job correctly, and rarely reveal their personal political inclinations in the classroom.
Read on . . .
Campus conservatives have long worked responsibly and within legal boundaries to express their views and to fight for a more open academic environment. Some conservative activists, though, have made a pastime of purposely bending and breaking rules for the “greater good” of exposing perceived liberal bias in the enforcement of those rules. Unfortunately, the actions of the latter have had the doubly regrettable result not only of reflecting poorly on the majority who fit the former profile, but also of quite possibly setting back the movement for conservative equality on campus by a significant margin due to their brash, distasteful tactics which serve both to align the administration against them and to dissuade their fellow campus conservatives from speaking out when they in turn are wronged unjustly, lest they be painted with the same brush.
The current intellectual state of our college campuses is clear. So, what is it that needs to be done? Can conservative students still survive in academia? Or has the liberal bias on campus – in the form of speech codes, student conduct guidelines, and professorial indoctrination – gotten so out of hand that government needs to intervene?
There have been recent moves to involve the State in issues of academia, but they have largely taken place in the courts. The threat of a lawsuit was the impetus in overcoming the University of Georgia’s aforementioned opposition to the registration of a Christian fraternity; likewise, two students at Georgia Tech scored a dubious success last year when the suit they filed against their Institute resulted in the scrapping of campus speech codes – a victory, due the imbalance in plaintiff expectation and reality, which was as ironic as it was dubious, as their success directly resulted in the abuse the plaintiffs received during their legal crusade being made wholly and permanently permissible.
Now, in Georgia, the legislative branch appears poised to get in on the act, as well. The sponsors of controversial House Bill (HB) 154 (or the “Intellectual Diversity in Higher Education Act”), is currently working its way through the state’s General Assembly, ostensibly hope to help shield students from unwelcome political indoctrination in the classroom, to help remove the yoke of political correctness from inter-student discourse and expression, and to help prevent teachers from being denied tenure (or worse, fired) because of their political leanings – in other words, they hope to help break the liberal grip on academia.
On the surface, these seem like admirable enough goals. What measures, though, would actually be put into place should HB 154 pass – and would the passage of this legislation serve as an end in itself, or would it only encourage government to further legislate the thoughts and actions of those on this nation’s college campuses? For, regardless of whether or not this bill would actually provide a temporary respite for conservatives students and faculty who have long had to struggle to get by in an environment which is predisposed toward modern liberalism, there is the worrisome prospect that HB 154 is simply the first step in a process to legislate the actions and, more importantly, the thoughts of those who inhabit America’s “marketplaces of ideas.”
In all fairness, the Intellectual Diversity in Higher Education Act does not regulate either thought or action on the part of students or faculty in Georgia’s colleges. What it does do is two things. First, it proposes a definition of the term “intellectual diversity” (the “foundation of a learning environment that exposes students to a variety of political, ideological, and other perspectives”), and suggests ways of demonstrating a commitment to that diversity. These suggestions range from “conducting a study to assess the current state of intellectual diversity on…campus,” to “including intellectual diversity issues in student course evaluations,” to “creating an institutional ombudsman on intellectual diversity.” The bill contains twelve such suggestions in all. Second, HB 154 directs the state’s Board of Regents to “require each institution under its control to report annually to the [Georgia] General Assembly, detailing the steps that the institution is taking to ensure intellectual diversity and the free exchange of ideas.”
This is the only legal directive in this bill – the requirement for annual submission of a report to the state legislature on the steps being taken to ensure intellectual diversity on campus and in the classroom. However, it is not this bill, per se, that should worry conservatives, as the ideals sought by this legislation are positive. Rather, it is the potential for further legislation which is a cause for concern - legislation which could result in further legal regulation of ideology and expression.
Speech codes, political correctness, glorification of superficial racial diversity, and uneven enforcement of regulations have all contributed to the destruction of the image (as utopian as it may have been) of the American university as a place where young people can be exposed to truly diverse ideas and viewpoints. However, within the attempt to correct this situation through legislation lies the potential for the scales not only to be balanced, but to be tipped in the opposite direction – or in any direction future lawmakers (and judges) may decide. The legislation of thought, whether it be the regulation of speech or the enforcement of the availability of diverse of viewpoints, leads down the same slippery slope, regardless of intent – and, for the rational conservative, the final destination is not a desirable one, regardless of the “greater good” which may have been served in getting there.
« The City: A New Journal of Faith, Culture, and Politics — Comments (3)
Can government legislate "Intellectual Diversity" (without becoming the Thought Police)? 22 Comments (0 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I can't tell if you're serious or joking?
Sorry, I thought you were being provocatively obtuse, taking a stand obviously meant to generate discussion.
As far back as 30 years ago if you couldn't walk into an institution of higher education and not know the way it leaned within half a day, it was because either you had blinders on or didn't want to know.
So yes if a university has a staff that 90 percent+ registered to democrats and or natural law, green etc I would say there is a serious lack of diversity.
If speech codes are selectively enforced there is a problem. If professors can take class time to urge students to support, the nuclear freeze, nuclear free zones, candidates, etc there is a problem. If a history departments course in American history consists of all the atrocities in our history there is a problem.
Yes when the meter is wavering in the middle it can be hard to measure. When its pegged to the left its not that difficult.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
A quota system? We already have that in place (race-based), and I sure don't want to go down that road again.
Thoughts?
The Georgia people are on the right track it seems. This seems like something where once its help up to the magnifying and given some solid scrutiny the situation can correct itself.
Would you want to send your children to a school where the faculty is 80% green and 20% democrat ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I like the idea of disclosure.
The Georgia people are on the right track it seems. This seems like something where once its held up to the magnifying glass and given some solid scrutiny the situation can correct itself. People will send their progeny to schools that reflect their values, thus creating a mirror of our country's diversity.
Would you want to send your children to a school where the faculty is 80% green and 20% democrat ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I think that a better response would be to just completely defund all of the state universities and remit those monies, instead, to graduates of Georgia high schools or those who have been Georgia residents for 5 years in the form of higher/continuing education vouchers. Then let the students decide which schools they want to go to. Of course, the schools would also have to be allowed complete tuition-setting authority, and I think you would need to lift residency restrictions, also.
I think that is the best free market solution to providing intellectual diversity in higher education.
but, adding on to my earlier comment, what is a good way for prospective students to assess the intellectual diversity of the institutions they're considering attending?
Really, stop trolling. The leftist bent of college campuses is even better documented fact than that of the MSM. If you aren't going to an explicitly conservative one, you're attending a leftist one. At the conservative one, you'll at least be exposed to the "arguments" of the left because you can't avoid dealing with them on a daily basis.
that U.S. college campuses, overall, do or don't have a liberal bent. I'm saying that legislation like the bill discussed in this diary is troublesome because it's almost impossible to quantitatively assess the political makeup of a given faculty. My response to EzOnTheEyez was motivated by the same problem - is a market-based voucher system likely to resolve the problem if students don't have a way to assess the political tilt of schools?
I haven't read the National Review College Guide, so I'll take your word for it that it's a good alternative resource for college applicants. I'd be interested to learn more about the metrics they use. Offhand, though, NRO's Corner is a good example of the type of problem I'm talking about. It's obviously a conservative blog, but there is a huge diversity of opinion on current political issues and core beliefs. As demonstrated by the Corner, political ideology is a spectrum - it's not as simple as ensuring that a college campus has equal numbers of professors who voted for Bush and professors who voted for Kerry.
Here's one where the Gramsci adherents have won altogether. The whole notion of "academic freedom" in a state funded educational institution is simple foolishness, yet everyone in the country views academic freedom and freedom of speech in the classroom as something sacrosanct. It is not.
A state paid teacher or professor in a state owned educational institution is not engaging in an individual endeavor and his speach is not his own, it is the government's speech and no first amendment rights obtain to him. The government has every bit the same right to dictate to a teacher or professor what he will say in front of a classroom as it does to dictate to a DMV clerk what he will say from behind the counter. Both academic freedom and tenure as a predicate of that freedom are a fiction ginned up by the ed schools and educators and bought wholesale by the res publica. While they complain that teachers shouldn't have to fear a band of farmers with pitchforks coming after them for what they teach, I submit that those farmers have every right to come after a teacher with pitchforks if they don't approve of what he teachers; he's teaching in their school and being paid with their money.
We have abdicated our control over school boards and boards of regents and turned them over to the left wing educrats. Even in Red States with Republican governors and legislators, we appoint educators to boards of regents and the National Extortion Association owns practically every school board in the Country.
If we want to do some good for the Country, this is a good place to start.
In Vino Veritas
American Universities are priveleged, rich, self-absorbed, pay no taxes, charge huge fees, receive vast government subsidies, and immune to criticism. How have they repaid that? By permitting our kids to behave boorishly, by protecting incompetent and seditioius professors, and by using student athlete's talents and health to make millions of dollars.
I would say Universities fell down a slipper slope many years ago. They are addicted to their power and prestige and position.
Of course, like any other addict, they are going to resist demands they get reform. They are enjoying wallowing in the gutter far too much. They confuse calls to clean up their act with a slipper slope.
Agreed, they fell down that slope in the 60s, if not before. It's potentially a slippery slope, in my opinion, because of the legislation involved, and the likelihood of further, more invasive law to come. Given government's penchant for using the inch that's given them and taking 5,000 miles, I'm concered about what could come down the road as a result of this first domino falling.
is not as sensational as some other kinds, but it is in some ways worse because of its oppressive nature. It's part of why I use a pseudonym here.
The problem I have with the Georgia law is that it doesn't address the problem. It just gives the schools a chance to brag about their worship of Holy Diversity.
--
More such drivel at theAcademy
First, I think the legislation is horrible because it entrenches a mentality of victim status for conservatives, who are tempted to hide behind the David Horowitzes of the world instead of becoming the learned intellectual conservatives who accomplished more on college campuses with the force of reason than they ever did with provocation. It will also convince the left, from the radical to the run of the mill left-leaner, that academia is under siege.
Second, "equality" on campus is something that will not be realized in our lifetimes. Take, for instance, campus speech codes. They exist on campuses nationwide and even though in virtually every form they have been struck down colleges refuse to preemptively dismantle them and insist upon a court challenge before they do so. The irony is that after all the little battles waged, be it at Dartmouth in the early 80's or on a number of campuses after 9/11, the status quo has not changed perceptibly. Multiculturalism and relativism do not face a serious ideological rival in educational pedagogy. A particularly aggressive contingent of conservatives may bequeath a legacy to its successors but for most you have years of ebb and flow depending on individual personalities and national politics. The opposition, however, has tenure, seats on the hiring committee, and unassailable administrative positions.
Your larger point is, I think, correct. Campus conservatives need to proffer an intelligent, reasonable alternative that sows the seeds both among the perceptibly right leaning and among the apathetic and even the leftists who may not "see the light" for years or even decades to come. This is also what helps to train a generation of politicians, of pundits, and of other people of political consequence. Instead of trying to destroy the edifice, use it to our advantage as a means of creating and honing conservative intellectuals.
(UofM Ann Arbor, 88-92) nearly all the politicizing was done not by professors or staff but by students, of whom there was a small but fanatic clique of leftwing True Believers forever ready to take up the cause du jour as an excuse for a street party, er I mean, political demonstration. And they were responsible too for much the Stalinist intolerance of contrary opinion, cowing even the instructors and the administration.
Among my professors politics was almost never mentioned and I had only bare hints of which way they leaned. Of course I was a physics major, and the natural sciences (mathematics, engineering, medicine etc.) are fairly apolitical by nature, apart from the motto "Research grants for everyone!". For sure I avoided any class in a department which had "studies" in its name, where I susect students did and do get indoctrination in leftist cant not education.
or didn't know how to see it. (Penn State 83-88, University Park) My initial classes were, like yours, Physics classes as I planned to pursue astronomy until it finally became apparent that my differences with arithmatic made me unsuited to the profession. Our Physics 224 (Theoretical Quantum) instructor never stopped talking about his good Chinese friends and what a wonderful country it was. Granted, the Physics 222 proff was just the sort of crust experimentalist living in the sub-basement we need more of, and based on his classes, I couldn't tell you what his bias was. But the rest of them you could sense where they were, and the 224 guy was the worst of the lot - clearly sympathetic to communist Chinese (and frankly, not a very good instructor either).
PSU regards itself as a nice conservative campus, and we were only minorly annoyed by the shantytown constructed by the student activists on the mall. When I left the major I first thought to switch to Journalism, but was told by the instructor for that class that I was too interested in the truth to be there. Having left the sciences I needed to take more of the Liberal Arts classes so wound up in a Poly Sci class with a prof who worshipped John Stuart Mills and his statist philosophy (I didn't recognize it as such then but do now). I also experienced the wonder of an Asia literature class with a proff who was in Vietnam during the war collecting oral histories. He was all upset about one recording that would have been so wonderfully seredipitous with the well timed ringing of a monastery bell at the end of a poem, but it was interupted by gun fire down the river and he and his colleagues took cover. And of course even before that there was the anti-nuclear public speaking teacher I had to take classes from. (Although on the bright side there, the combination of her opinions and a lapdog student managed to p**s me off enough that I threw away the speech I was going to do and substituted a "Why I love the Bomb" speech about how it had prevented WWIII and I was free to attend college instead of going off to fight (die?). I had the whole class vigorously applauding at the end (even the previous speaker) so she had to give me an A+ for the speech.)
Yes, it was more evident in the student council which tried to force the university to switch from having exlcusively Coke machines on campus to Pepsi (part of their South Africa campaign), and the speakers they chose for student events (although I will grant they did manage Ben Bova and G. Gordon Liddy). A fellow student described one of the leaders as "slightly pink around the edges but solid Red in the middle hardcore feminist." It was also generally evident at the student newspaper, whose reporter for the Liddy debate was obviously in a different universe than my friends and I were (the debate was about "harsh treatment" of terrorists and a PLO-type beuracratic functionary was debating Liddy; the debate started with the functionary hiding behind the mike, while Liddy pulled it off the podium and stepped in front of the podium to address the students; from there it just went downhill for the functionary) who thought Liddy lost the debate and provided none of the lines Liddy delivered that brought the house down. But none of this would happen if there were even a modicum of balance in University philosophies. And make no mistake about it, the "my subject is apolitical so my students don't know what my politics are" bit is just about the most valuable piece of propaganda they can get to advance their cause.
Man, you really are a gadfly :-).
But from a modern perspective (which is always unfair to apply) you may have a point:
Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. -- On Liberty
More such drivel at the Academy
almost all my professors in the Humanities were pretty openly Marxist in their views. Sure there were a few conservative anachronisms in the hard sciences, but most of us majoring in keeping our 2-S avoided them like the plague; they expected you to work. The Liberals would keep you in school no matter what you did - or didn't.
In Vino Veritas
Don't we already have freedom of speech?
Freedom of assembly?
Freedom to worship as one chooses?
Can't we just enforce those laws? This reminds me of the illegal immigration problem. All these politicians want to write new laws when all that's needed is to enforce the laws already on the books.
This is a very thought-provoking essay.
Even if I agreed with the idea of "legislating thought," as you put it, the problem is that there's no good way to quantify political opinion. How, exactly, would the legislature assess the intellectual diversity of a given college's teaching staff?