Ohio liberals, don't breathe too deeply.

[Thomas Veil]

Legislator wants law to restrict professors

Religious, political discussions targeted

Sunday, February 20, 2005
Reginald Fields

Plain Dealer Bureau



Columbus



-- A state lawmaker wants to monitor Ohio's college and university professors, who he says are polarizing campus classrooms by imposing their left-wing ideas on impressionable young students.

Students are being "indoctrinated and not educated," says Sen. Larry Mumper, a Marion Republican, who introduced Senate Bill 24, described as an "academic bill of rights."

The measure seeks to restrict religious and political classroom discussions that Mumper believes could cross over from intellectual debate to controlling persuasion.

It would force Ohio's public and private universities and colleges to adopt policies forbidding classroom talk on topics not related to the course.

It would also chastise professors for imposing their political views on students or for penalizing pupils for holding different opinions.

Critics, who call the bill the "academic bill of restrictions," say it is an assault on free speech.

"This bill doesn't take away free speech -- that is, if we have free speech in college," the senator said. "A lot of students are complaining that there is a bias from the professors against their attitudes." Mumper said the bill is based on principles promoted by conservative activist David Horowitz.

Horowitz has made a career of attacking liberals and has been accused of inciting racial tension through his strong opposition to slavery reparations. His books include "Hating Whitey and Other Progressive Causes."

Lawmakers in California and Colorado have already killed similar bills. Indiana is considering one like Mumper's.

Mumper's bill, which has drawn national attention, will get its first hearing Tuesday in the Senate Education Commit tee. Some observers have already dubbed it dead on arrival. But there is a smattering of support for it.

Youngstown State's faculty senate drew up a resolution opposing Mumper's bill, saying it "would impose serious and unnecessary restrictions on the methods of teaching, research and grading used by college and university faculty."

The University of Akron's faculty senate is also preparing a resolution.

"We want to get on record and say the assumption that we are all liberal radicals is unwarranted," said Rudy Fenwick, an Akron sociology professor and chairman of the faculty senate. "The assumption that we oppose all ideologies is unwarranted."

But some campuses are having difficulty agreeing on a position.

Cleveland State University's faculty senate couldn't reach a compromise earlier this month for its resolution. Most of the faculty vehemently oppose Mumper's bill, citing an infringement on academic freedom, but a strong minority thinks the proposal has merit.

"I think there needs to be a guarantee that no student will be prejudiced for voicing a personal opinion that might be at odds with the professor," said Cleveland State law professor David Forte, a self-described conservative.

Forte figures that more than 90 percent of college and university professors are liberals, and many of them cannot help but exude their bias in class, he says.

"If it is a political science class, [students] will get a liberal perspective and they won't hear many opposing views," Forte said. "Many students are uncomfortable with this."

Forte said Mumper's bill isn't perfect and should not include private schools. The senator said he is willing to remove private schools from the bill.

As a political science professor at Cleveland State, Rodger Govea is sensitive to Forte's charges. Govea is president of the Ohio Conference of the American Association of University Professors, which opposes Senate Bill 24.

"It is one of the first things you face: Students think you are going to say something ideological," he said. "So you learn early on to walk that line. Because if they think you are being ideol ogical, they won't listen."

Govea said Mumper's bill is based on a fallacy.

"He's way overstating that liberal component," said Govea, who added that students aren't nearly as gullible as supporters of Senate Bill 24 suspect.

An opinion piece in Akron's student newspaper, The Buchtelite, took a cynical shot at the bill, saying Ohio should consider raising the voting age: "Since we are apparently unable to form our own beliefs, we probably should not be casting ballots. Or do most students just vote the way their professors vote?"

Mumper's bill gets an A-plus for seeking diversity but an F for its approach in trying to achieve it, said Christine Link of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio.

Under Mumper's bill, Link envisions campuses forced to invite two guest speakers for every lecture - a liberal and an opposing conservative voice - which she finds impractical.

"If a university brings in someone for equal rights for women, then do they have to bring in someone who speaks in favor of not having equal rights for women? It looks that way," she said.

Mumper said he isn't seeking a quota system. The bill does not say how professors would be policed or what sanctions they would face for violating the measure, if it becomes law. It does, however, require the school to set up a grievance procedure.



To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:

rfields@plaind.com, 614-228-8200

© 2005 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission.

Good Lord.

As if it wasn't bad enough that Ohio was the state that put Bush over the top, now this ding-dong wants to officially sanction limitations on free speech.

It takes a lot of chutzpah to propose something like this, but the neo-cons are, let's face it, emboldened to try to get away with stuff like this.

This figures to be just the latest assault in a state where the governor and the state legislature have been Republican for many, many years now...where (not coincidentally) the economy has been driven into the ground...where gay marriages are now forbidden by law. (Apparently Ohio aspires to become Alabama, circa 1950. )

I hope to God they're right about this thing being DOA, because if it passes, this brazen attempt to close the open minds of young people (and thus control future elections) could be coming to a state near you.

Polarizing, indoctrinating link

[Dont Hurt Me]

Free Speech......................................Govt going crazy because one party runs it all at the moment. These guys sit on their hands waiting to pass any new kind of law to restrict society yet again and we can create a few more law breakers for the Police state system. Next thing you know is big brother is everywhere and its no longer about the people its about big brother. What kills me are the poles on cnn and seems many of these zealots would be happy with the quasimilitarychurchstate!

[pseudobrit]

The mere thought of such restrictions is antithetical to the very essence of academia.

This lawmaker should be publicly whipped.

[jadam]

I hope this does get passed and I hope it gets sent to the supreme court...

[pseudobrit]

I think it's just quid pro quo.

We've already taken the intelligence out of politicians.

Might as well take politics out of the intelligent.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally Posted by pseudobrit

I think it's just quid pro quo.

We've already taken the intelligence out of politicians.

Might as well take politics out of the intelligent.

aint that the truth. It scares me too think about how these guys are trashing our rights, liberty and freedoms while professing to bring these same rights, freedoms and liberties to other countries.

[Thomas Veil]

What gets me is they're closing in on all sides. They've got all three branches of government under their control. They've cowed the mainstream media and dominated the rest with right-wing TV and radio, which they use to propagandize. They frequently keep protesters in pens. Their "anti-terrorist" legislation allows them to peek at what kind of books you read, what kind of web sites you visit, etc. They influence elections with lies hiding under the guise of free speech. And now they want to make sure that young people don't pick up any "bad ideas" too.

I see this as closing off one of the last "loopholes" in their dominance of the public debate. College kids, if they'd voted in slightly larger numbers in Ohio, could've prevented another Bush presidency. So this is being done because the vote in Ohio was too close for comfort for the Republicans. Apparently the game is not yet rigged enough to insure them a victory.

[IJ Reilly]

Restricting free speech so that some people won't feel uncomfortable... what's that called again?

Oh, that's right -- political correctness!

[Dont Hurt Me]

Think of all the folks through history who fought and died for our free speech and then we elect Knucklehead Politicians who wants to vote it away. I still say we have more to fear from our own Govt then we do much else. Garbage like this proves it to me everyday. Govt wants to tell us to how think,eat,breath and live. Last thing we need is some stupid conservative passing reactionary laws because of one loudmouth professor. Debate makes us strong quelling free speech makes us weak.

[mactastic]

How about a law saying that polititians can't stray off topic as well? I mean, if it's good for one government employee, it's good for all of them, right? I'd like to see how THAT goes over!

And while we're at it, how about a law preventing impressionable youth from being indoctrinated with conservative ideology in the workplace, which, as we know, is overwhelmingly conservative. At least from any company that recieves federal monies or exploits federal tax loopholes there can be no penalizing anyone for opposing views etc....

[dsharits]

Wait a sec. If this was the other way around, you guys would see no problem with squashing the free speech rights of the classroom. I know this for a fact, because it's happened before. How about when prayer was made illegal in schools? Liberals say that prayer might be offensive to someone of a different religion. It's all about equal rights and recognition of all beliefs, right? But now that it goes the other way, it is an abomination against the right of free speech, and it's not in line with the Constitution. You all say that you are fighting for free speech and the rights of the American people. You all are completely content if a liberal agenda is being taught in the schools and colleges, but the minute someone steps up and mentions the "G" word or defends Christian morals or beliefs, you immediately jump down his throat saying that it would make people with other religious beliefs uncomfortable. The truth is, you liberals are intent on pushing your ideas into students' heads, while not allowing the slightest hint of conservative values to disturb it, otherwise it would be unfair to other religions, you say. But as soon as someone tries to stop your ideas from being taught, it becomes a violation of free speech. Thank you for showing us your true colors. Now I can see what demoralized hypocrites and outright liars you really are.

Daniel

[Dont Hurt Me]

Wrong Free speech is just that. No spin. Now you want to change issues talking about schools but they have gone downhill since god and discipline have been removed and soon they will try to remove patriotism. whole nother subject dsharits (DISCLAIMOR) patriotism has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

[dsharits]

I'm in total agreement with you on the fact that free speech is an American right, and it is being taken away in this situation. The problem that I have is when people say it's okay in one situation, but as soon as they are cornered, it is wrong. But yes, free speech belongs to all Americans, and nobody should be able to take it away.

Daniel

[zimv20]

Originally Posted by dsharits

How about when prayer was made illegal in schools?

nice try.

free discussion of religion in a classroom setting isn't the same as a ritualized prayer ceremony. the former is fine, the latter is not.

if there were something like the Liberal's Creed, and a school system wanted to force its students to recite it at the beginning of class, i would have a problem with that.

i have no problem w/ free discussion of religion, just as i have no problem w/ free discussion of politics.

[mischief]

There is no Liberal Agenda. Liberals do not exist as a cohesive group with a set of priorities used for the whole lot of them. This is a MYTH perpetuated as propoganda by the neocons.

[dsharits]

Originally Posted by mischief

There is no Liberal Agenda. Liberals do not exist as a cohesive group with a set of priorities used for the whole lot of them. This is a MYTH perpetuated as propoganda by the neocons.

Fine, have it your way. Democratic Agenda.

Daniel

[IJ Reilly]

Originally Posted by dsharits

Fine, have it your way. Democratic Agenda.

Daniel

Come on, this 100% pure political correctness in action. This is precisely the kind of nonsense the right has been accusing the left of perpetrating for decades. So now the shoe is planted firmly on the other foot. Kind of painful, isn't it?

[blackfox]

Originally Posted by dsharits

Fine, have it your way. Democratic Agenda.

Daniel

As opposed to un-democratic?

I have never understood why so many people are unable or unwilling to grasp anything beyond a binary concept.

If you are anti-republican, you must therefore be pro-democrat. Many people are actually anti-republican and anti-democratic, yet still pro-america.

Even more illustrative, is the tendency to extrapolate of a single issue. You're anti-abortion? well, you must be a Conservative. You're against the War in Iraq? You must be a Liberal.

And on and on at such a race to the lowest-common denominator, that all rationality, critical-thinking and understanding is lost in a sea of self-righteousness and rhetoric.

The scopes are so narrow, compartmentalized and ideologically-driven as to be incoherent taken as a whole, and certainly not effective.

Is there to be a tit-for-tat, partisan ideological sniping for everything, leading to two necessary conclusions - the dissolving of all regulatory apparati (and anarchy), or the "corpse in armor", suffocated by the total legislation/control of all behavior (totalitarianism)?

Is it not possible to judge things on their own merit(s), without the endless comparisons diverting the issue.

For the record, I do not like this bill because the use of the wording "controversial" is vague, and ill-defined, as are those who judge such matters. This should bother "Conservatives" as well as "Liberals", as both are likely to be caught in the dragnet. But that might be too thoughtful to consider...
bah.

[Thanatoast]

Let them pass it. When people realize that Ohio's schools are restricted and required by law to teach conservative ideology students will stop attending universities in Ohio, the best and brightest will move out of the state and the problem will solve itself.

Not before taking the rest of us down with them, but that's another thread...

[blackfox]

Originally Posted by Thanatoast

Let them pass it. When people realize that Ohio's schools are restricted and required by law to teach conservative ideology students will stop attending universities in Ohio, the best and brightest will move out of the state and the problem will solve itself.

Not before taking the rest of us down with them, but that's another thread...

But that's not what would probably happen and subsequently what I am worried about.

Sure, it might to a degree, but I feel that there would just be a deluge of litigation, suspensions, firings - in short - total paralysis of the institutions of higher learning. Or, alternately a curriculum so bland as to be useless, rendering the University's useless at their task.

It will make educational arena like the political arena - which is to say, crap.

This affects conservatives and democrats alike, as it strikes at a cornerstone that underpines Democracy.

[mactastic]

Originally Posted by dsharits

Wait a sec. If this was the other way around, you guys would see no problem with squashing the free speech rights of the classroom. I know this for a fact, because it's happened before. How about when prayer was made illegal in schools? Liberals say that prayer might be offensive to someone of a different religion. It's all about equal rights and recognition of all beliefs, right? But now that it goes the other way, it is an abomination against the right of free speech, and it's not in line with the Constitution. You all say that you are fighting for free speech and the rights of the American people. You all are completely content if a liberal agenda is being taught in the schools and colleges, but the minute someone steps up and mentions the "G" word or defends Christian morals or beliefs, you immediately jump down his throat saying that it would make people with other religious beliefs uncomfortable. The truth is, you liberals are intent on pushing your ideas into students' heads, while not allowing the slightest hint of conservative values to disturb it, otherwise it would be unfair to other religions, you say. But as soon as someone tries to stop your ideas from being taught, it becomes a violation of free speech. Thank you for showing us your true colors. Now I can see what demoralized hypocrites and outright liars you really are.

Daniel

Nice try buddy, but I would have just as much of a problem with either side forcing their views on kids. I'm sure you've heard about the several cases where teachers have been disciplined/reprimanded for espousing anti-war views in class, haven't you? If not, I'd suggest you read up a little.

And 'you guys' have just as much of a problem with what you call 'free speech' when it's on the other foot. Do you think it's ok for a teacher to wear a Wiccan pentagram in class? How about a crucifix? Exactly. You've got no problem with one, yet 'you guys' would eagerly protest the other and say 'theliberals' are out to indoctrinate our kids. Yet a teacher goes into class wearing a crucifix and it's 'religious freedom'. 'You guys' can't have it both ways.

[IJ Reilly]

But there's more... the new "flunk a conservative, expect harassment" gambit:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502220005

[pseudobrit]

Originally Posted by dsharits

Wait a sec. If this was the other way around, you guys would see no problem with squashing the free speech rights of the classroom. I know this for a fact, because it's happened before. How about when prayer was made illegal in schools? Liberals say that prayer might be offensive to someone of a different religion. It's all about equal rights and recognition of all beliefs, right?

No, it's not. It's about matters of faith having no place in an academic setting.

I went to Catholic schools all my life and even they weren't stupid enough to mix religion class with science/reading/history/math classes.

Now I can see what demoralized hypocrites and outright liars you really are.

And now I can see you've taken the plunge into outright trolling.

If your accusatory tone and namecalling is going to be a theme, I think the forum would be better off if you'd just bugger off.

[chanoc]

Originally Posted by pseudobrit

The mere thought of such restrictions is antithetical to the very essence of academia.

This lawmaker should be publicly whipped.

100 lashes!

I am a Socialist-atheist-quasi-humanist college student, and I never got my views from the Alaska State academic environment. I know there are professors with views similiar to mine, yet they are in the natural sciences, anthropology, and philosophy fields. Currently I am finishing an AAS in CIOS, and the carrer academic professors are 90% right-wing. Although in fall '05, I am returning for a BS (or BA) in the "Leftist Anthropology Department".

[StarbucksSam]

Excuse me while I watch Patrick Henry roll over in his grave.