Is That Legal?

It is no wonder the Democrats control much of state government in a state that almost always votes Republican in presidential elections. State Republicans so often waste their time on extra-curricular activities far out of the sphere of government. This pathetic excuse for political behavior might work in states with weak institutions of higher learning, but not in NC.
Still, tenure is a nice cushion against the assaults of such loonies. Where I teach the only complaints I have heard about political proselytizing faculty have been about conservatives, including one who bought Ann Coulter's TREASON and forced discussion on it in a class not even on the period discussed in Coulter's book.

A primary reason why Republicans are not in control of the North Carolina General Assembly is that districting has consistently entrenched the Democratic Party. I did a forum on this at the UNC Law School about three years ago, and the Democrat on the panel was very candid that the system was not fair, and the party was doing it to stay in power. His only rejoinder was that the Republicans would do it too if they were in the majority. Not exactly a ringing statement of justice.

I am not sure about the merits of Horowitz’s proposal, as I just briefly glanced at it, but I can certainly say that faculty tend to be significantly more liberal than the rest of America, and yet the majority of college educated persons voted for Bush, while a majority of non-college educated persons voted for Kerry. So the “liberals are smarter” line does not necessarily fly in that regard.

I used to be liberal, and I used to be in a grad school. Even during that time, the extreme leftism and intolerance of conservative points of view was breathtaking and really pretty stifling. Liberals do not even see their academic bias sometimes–this “lack of seeing the underlying values” critique is what liberals often make of conservatives, but they are just as guilty, believe me.

Tenure, the extraordinary luxury that endowment, government, and foundation monies lavish to insulate universities, the self-perpetuating way in which faculty are hired by faculty without much formal outside input aside from casual student comments or something, and the fact that a good portion of faculty have spent little or no time in the business world all, over time, create major systemic biases toward liberalism and unrealistic views of the world.

Well the Democrats have control for now but we'll see how long that lasts now that Knox Jenkins and the Republican Supreme Court have gotten into the business of gerrymandering.

Maybe law professors should be required to work in their subject matter during summers rather than to go teach in France. I mean law school would be much more informative for the students. You could tell them about getting on the Court appointed list, visiting clients in the pokey and whether the DA in Orange County will agree to reduce a DWI to a C&R.

I resubmitted those comments above--they may reappear--seems like this site takes a while to post comments.

Not sure if the above is humor or sarcasm at the benefits of being in the working world. If sarcasm, that makes it difficult to respond substantively, because it's not clear what substance there is underlying the irony. I reiterate my belief that excessive insulation from the world outside the academic subsidy creates problematic systemic biases in academia. I have two graduate degrees and have attended four universities, so I believe I have some basis for that assessment.

Regarding Knox Jenkins and the Supreme Court, the ruling was pretty clearly an anti-gerrymandering decision, based on the anti-gerrymandering provision in the N.C. Constitution. Even the Democrats often conceded that their districts were gerrymandered to safeguard their districts; surely you don't deny that!

From the Herald Sun article:


A brouhaha erupted on the Chapel Hill campus last year after an English instructor sent a scathing e-mail to an entire class reprimanding one student for expressing conservative beliefs about homosexuality.

I think a genuinely 'conservative' belief about homosexuality would be that its none of the government's business, but I assume that what the writer really meant was 'condemnation of homosexuality.' That's the real problem with bills like this. They claim to be protecting political thought, but what they're really doing is protecting bigoted and ignorant thought. This point is made even clearer by the sponsor of the Florida bill, quoted in the Independent Alligator article:

“Some professors say, ‘Evolution is a fact. I don’t want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don’t like it, there’s the door,’” Baxley said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue.

In other words, refusing to allow discussion of an unscientific 'theory' in science class is an example of the sort of liberal indoctrination students must be protected against. It is sadly typical of corkscrew logic of theo-cons by which preventing gay-bashing is 'anti-christian prejudice,' distinguishing between science and religion is 'closed-mindedness,' and the best way to ensure academic freedom is to make professors liable to lawsuits every time they open their mouths.

I don't know if these bills would eliminate universities' tendencies toward liberalism, but they would certainly go a long way in eliminating their tendencies toward education.

I don't think this is a good place to discuss the merits of either of the above positions, but I think that it is wrong to believe that someone who criticizes homosexuality is facially and conclusively bigoted. That is a valid religious belief, as well as there being many valid nonreligious justifications for discouraging homosexuality. Right or wrong, it is certainly valid. If you want to discuss further, feel free to email me.

Regarding creationism, I think it is a valid view of the world, though one I emphatically reject and one that I think is inconsistent with science. However, it serves as a valid point about the notion that all science, even science that appears decided, is by nature only a theory. As a B.S., I think that is important to understand.

I think the matter is important, and I can personally vouch for professors who think they are conclusively right and students are heathen ignoramuses. As I grow up, I have seen many professorial views to be themselves naive, misinformed, and/or self-centered. Political correctness is but one of many such types of biases on college campuses.

Editorial in today's Chapel Hill Herald (part of Herald-Sun).

The Herald-Sun incident is sad, IF IT IS TRUE, but reprimanding faculty for abusing students is the responsibility of department chairs, deans, and other university authority figures. It is NOT the work of state government.

At least where I live, NC Democrats are very popular, but national Democrats are not.

Natural selection (and evolution in general) is a scientific explanation for the diversity of biological life that has ample evidence, whereas intelligent design is neither scientific nor supported by evidence. I can see how scientists would be insulted by the unjustified attacks on their credibility and their scholarship. That said, no instructor has a right to berate a student for holding religious convictions that are difficult to reconcile with science. Scientists, I think, should do a Ben Franklin and ask students "How do we KNOW natural selection, and then intelligent design, is true? What is the EVIDENCE?" The differences among students are opportunities for discussion and, for that matter, enlightenment for all.

Fwiw, I think that a nonbinding Academic Bill of Rights makes some sense, given that the universities and the faculty's fairly generous jobs are funded by the people and are not some independent fourth branch of government, and the bill would not create a cause of action.

I do not think that a legal cause of action would be wise, but part of me sympathizes with the General Assembly's point here, which is to raise up this issue a bit to let the universities know that it's time to get their house straight. If they do so and start self-policing more adequately, nothing further need happen. If they pretend that there is not a problem or act in a reactionary fashion, the legislature will have to get involved to clean up some--maybe first with a nonbinding Academic Bill with the clear information that if the state employees continue to reject the legislature's preference for greater student freedom of thought and ideological diversity, some more action would be on the table. I do believe that academic biases are some of the most irrational biases out there sometimes.

An example of some pretty lame viewpoints of the faculty at UNC, not sure what new news there is in this matter:

http://www.herald-sun.com/orange/10-582491.html

What exactly is your objection to the bill as drafted? The articles you post breathlessly tell us that Horowitz is a bad guy (he may be) and that he simplistically divides the world between liberals and conservatives (perhaps he does), but neither of those critiques reaches the bill.

As an "assault on academic freedom," the bill's admonition that "Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should...[provide] students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate" seems pretty tame to me. Are you really arguing that professors should NOT expose their students to dissenting sources when appropriate?

As for the rest of it--gee whiz, is it all that controversial that you shouldn't flunk your students for dissenting from your politics? Is it too much to ask that people not be fired (or denied a job) because they don't toe the party line?

My objections are not about whether there should be diversity of thought in a classroom (of course there should) but about who decides, and on what basis. These objections have been well stated by the American Association of University Professors. I think the problems this proposal raises in most history classes are pretty obvious too.

I think that the op-ed from the History News Network has a point, but it is also significantly off-base. First, it makes this sort of rash, snide remarks about whether there is a liberal or conservative point of view to history. Clearly, there is. Different methodologies yield different results, and focusing on certain events to the exclusion of others changes the story and lessons of history, whether that be right, left, up, down, or backwards.

Let's take a hypothetical in which a clearly *depraved* ideology has taken over a public university... say, communism or white separatism or anarchism. That faculty is self-perpetuating in that the faculty generally pick their new colleagues in the departmental hiring process. Administrative input is often low, and trustee input a formality only. Shouldn't the board of governors or legislature step in?

Also, I agree with lostingotham that the two op-eds that were linked on the main page were these sort of self-righteous, generally sarcastic tirades that did little to advance rational argument. That was why I posted here in the first place.

Oh my god, this is absurd. Are people seriously defending this bill? Do you seriously consider it appropriate for students to be SUING professors for teaching them evolution instead of intelligent design? Do you really think litigation is a valid solution to that problem? Do you really think that's a problem at all? What professors teach in their class is NOT to be decided democratically by the students. They are being taught, after all.

Thanks to Sally for that AAUP link. I quote a bit of it here:

A fundamental premise of academic freedom is that decisions concerning the quality of scholarship and teaching are to be made by reference to the standards of the academic profession, as interpreted and applied by the community of scholars who are qualified by expertise and training to establish such standards.

Yeah, Judge Jenkins wasn't gerrymandering when he happened to adopt the legislative districts proposed by the Republicans. Do me a favor find the clause in the state Constitution does it provide for the judicial branch to determine legislative districts. But wait, the Republican Justices are conservative so I'm sure they just wouldn't make stuff up to suit their political views.

As to law professors going to District Court rather than teaching in France, I was being facetious. I do think, however, that Law Professors should be required to have more pratical experience than some professors actually do. The real change should be to provide a more practical and writing intensive type program.

sarah: I do not see anyone defending the Florida bill. lostingotham appears to defend the NC version of the bill, which requires state universities to adopt some fairness standards but does not, so far as I can see, create a private right of action for anyone. So, assuming that assessment is correct, your analysis is off-base.

Matt: The NC Constitution is fairly clear on the issue of dividing counties, and the NC Democrats were hiding behind the US DOJ. If the legislature refuses to follow the law, the courts do have equitable power to enforce the law. I think it was certainly within the power of the court system to enforce the Constitution in the manner that they did. If I had been the superior court judge, I might have handled it differently, but the court’s equitable power and authority to enforce the NC Constitution over unconstitutional acts of the legislature is the deciding factor. The NC Democrats were by their own admission gerrymandering to preserve their power. Senator Wellons said exactly that when he spoke at the law school. A redistricting map which more faithfully follows county lines, as required by the constitution, is not gerrymandering, no matter how you spin it.

Nice of you not to answer the question. The NC Constition only gives the Legislative branch the authority to create legislative districts. It does not give the Judicial branch the authority to legislate the districts through "judicial review." By adopting the Republican proposal that is what the Republican judges did in this case. They enacted a law that did not have the support of the majority of the legislature. Further, there is no provision in the NC Constitution that gives the Court the authority to review decisions or in anyway overturn a legislative Act which is by express provision of the Constitution within the sole purview of the Legislature. So not only did the Republican judges make a new law, they did it without any Constitutional authority to support their position.

With respect to the bill of "rights," I find it odd that students should need protection from offending points of view. On the other hand, how many law students would love to be able to sue their professor for using the Socratic method.

Matt, I think you are posting before doing adequate research and analysis.

First, what question have I not answered? I do not see any questions of yours in your prior post.

Second, when the Constitution and a legislative act are in conflict, the Constitution always controls. That is a bedrock feature of North Carolina law, ever since Bayard v. Singleton (N.C. 1787). Surely you are not contesting that principle?

Third, I do not see what “express” provision of the Constitution textually commits all redistricting decisions to the General Assembly. On the contrary, N.C. General Statute 1-267.1 expressly provides for judicial review of redistricting decisions.

Fourth, I assume you do not contest the actual merits of the Supreme Court's decision based on the clear “whole county” provisions of N.C. Constitution art. II, §§ 3(3) & 5(3). It appears your attack is on the authority of the judicial branch to review the constitutionality of a legislative decision.

While on the subject, the Volokh Conspiracy blog has a good link to an Inside Higher Ed commentary about how academics tend to resist all forms of scrutiny of their work outside the university walls and have a reactionary, circle-the-wagons approach to criticisms of systemic bias:

www.volokh.com

Link to article: http://insidehighered.com/views/2005/04/01/johnson

The reason that academics are wary of scrutiny by state legislatures is fear that said legislature will attempt to micromanage curriculumn and pedagogical choices. The evidence for this is the K-12 system. For example, one could not design a worse system than the textbook adoption system. The whole point of the US University system is that it is decentralized, with pedagoical and curriculmn choices made at the departmental and often individual professor level. It is also the best University system in the world. While it has its faults (which include grade inflation and yes, intellectual diversity issues) the solution is not to make that system closer to the K-12 system, let alone allowing students to sue professors. It is very tempting for state legislators to fume about these issues rather than addressing the fiscal crisis that require hard choices about taxes and government services. If professors allow them to suceed this time, they will do it again.