News Flash from NoIndoctrination.org

Academic Freedom Discourse

April 20, 2003

Dear Ms. Wright:

Thanks for your message; it is now clear to me where the problem may lie. I've received scores of email messages inspired by two web sites that are all aimed at "protecting academic freedom for students" and criticize the proposed revision of APM 010 at the University of California for threatening these rights. This is also your message. However, the perspective you offer on what constitutes the heart of academic freedom may not be as comprehensive as is deemed necessary by major universities worldwide. The heart of this freedom with respect to the educational mission is the ability to study all materials relevant to any subject, the ability to discuss, debate and dispute all points of view, the maintenance of an environment of openness in the classroom which encourages such dialogue among students and faculty. Robust and respectful discussion of all points of view with the goal of advancing knowledge and understanding are of the highest value. These are nearly universally valued in academic institutions.

Having noted this, I fail to understand how the proposed new APM 010 would do other than document that long-held understanding in academia, and extend the rights of students. In combination with the preexisting restrictions on faculty in APM 015 (Faculty Code of Conduct) this debate, discussion and dialogue referenced above must be within an environment free of discrimination (on viewpoint, etc, etc.), free of intimidation, and most importantly for your expressed concern, the faculty may not coerce the judgment or conscience of a student. Faculty are also constrained in APM 015 from infusing their courses with unrelated materials and judging a student's performance on any basis other than the course work. Those combined rules and values protect every students' right to read, hear, judge, speak in support of or refute materials or arguments relevant to any course.

For any number of possible reasons, you may prefer the formulation of academic freedom that President Sproul issued 70 years ago, but I and my colleagues who have been involved in these matters fail to see that statement as providing any protections for students to exercise their academic freedom as outlined above... As per your concern about "propaganda" and classrooms as "platforms" do you not think that that would constitute "coercion" ... The question in any case is what constitutes "propaganda," not whether such should be eschewed. On that score, people's views will differ dramatically in any given setting. But it is not because the rules allow it... open, robust debate and discussion is not only antithetical to "propaganda," in any setting, it is perhaps the best antidote to it.

In sum, while I appreciate all of the interest that has been generated with respect to the UC Academic Personnel Manual's statement on academic freedom, based on the email messages I have been able to review from people accessing your web site and that of Stanley Kurtz (cc'd above), if the understanding of academic freedom as I describe it above is valued, the rules we have, and will have under the new APM 010 (if adopted), not only protect all of those rights for the faculty, they extend additional rights to students.

I hope that this information and perspective is helpful to your discussions and please feel free to post this email message. It seems unlikely that anyone who prefers that UC would retain the Sproul formulation in APM 010 will necessarily be persuaded to see the matter otherwise but open, robust debate, such as these email exchanges, is treasured by U.C. faculty... I regret that I am unable to respond individually to each of those who took the time to write....

Sincerely,
Gayle Binion
Chair, UC Academic Senate

April 22, 2003

Dear UC Academic Senate Chair Binion,

Thank you for your comments on the Atkinson/Post proposal for a new University of California Statement on Academic Freedom (APM-010). As requested, I put your email response on our NoIndoctrination.org website along with these additional comments.

In your reply you state, "The heart of this freedom with respect to the educational mission is the ability to study all materials relevant to any subject, the ability to discuss, debate and dispute all points of view, the maintenance of an environment of openness in the classroom which encourages such dialogue among students and faculty. Robust and respectful discussion of all points of view with the goal of advancing knowledge and understanding are of the highest value." NoIndoctrination.org could not agree more; indeed, this vision of the classroom as a safe but challenging place for students and professors to engage together in open discussion and debate on ideas and views across the political spectrum is one we at NoIndoctrination.org embrace wholeheartedly.

Unfortunately for our shared vision, today's college classrooms fall far short of the ideal. This is the message repeatedly communicated by students who, as a last resort, turn to NoIndoctrination.org to communicate their frustration and genuine despair about the far too many instructors and professors who define "ignorance" as the holding of political and social views contrary to their own. These ideologically committed, activist professors use the substantial power they wield to present dogmatic views or to intimidate and ridicule students who do not fall in line with "correct" views. As one UCSB student poster reported, "I always felt that in her eyes I was an enemy, not a young student who had come there to learn and discuss and debate. She did not want to hear what I had to say if I did not agree with her. She was not open, she only wanted to silence the other side to the story. It seemed ridiculous because here she was teaching freedom and equality, yet she was discriminating against me based on my political views."

The Atkinson/Post proposal states that "Academic freedom depends upon respect for the academic competence of the faculty." Appropriate behaviors of classroom "competence" are clearly outlined in the current statement on Academic Freedom - but they are gutted in this proposal. This is why NoIndoctrination.org objects to the change. We find the UC Faculty Code of Conduct (APM-015) no substitute for the deletions. Seventy years ago when UC President Sproul issued the current Statement on Academic Freedom, there was a recognition that along with such a statement of freedoms must go responsibilities. This is the crux of our disagreement - a disagreement that is reminiscent of the debate whether to include a Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. Many of the framers were uneasy that protections merely implied in the Constitution could serve as sufficient guarantees against the abuse of power, and they demanded their inclusion. What anti-Federalist proponents of what became the American Bill of Rights understood, students in today's college classrooms are learning by bitter experience: that in relations of power, there is not a level playing field, and so certain checks and balances, certain constitutional restrictions on the exercise of power, must be in place. Like those framers, we believe specific protections must be included in this all-important Academic Freedom document. What is the rationale for eliminating them?

A document on Academic Freedom is overarching; it trumps all others - including the Faculty Code of Conduct (APM-015). You stated in an email exchange of April 19 that APM-015 "defines the limits of acceptable conduct by faculty, and defines what is punishable." Yet how often does UC actually punish a professor for browbeating students into particular social or political viewpoints, for intruding irrelevant material into courses, or for ridiculing and intimidating those students who hold legitimate alternative views? All these behaviors are condemned by the UC Faculty Code of Conduct (APM-015), but they are not being enforced. Evidence we obtained using the California Public Records Act shows that UC administrators are well aware of abuses - but the abuses continue. Professors claim their "academic freedom" rights, and administrators fail to take academic responsibility. Instead of removing important guidelines designed to prevent professorial abuse, UC should be finding ways to stop the kinds of abuses described on NoIndoctrination.org.

The very impetus for the founding of NoIndoctrination.org was the fact that administrators threw the "academic freedom" card in our face when we documented a clear case of indoctrination being perpetrated under the guise of "education." It wasn't until we actually researched this UC Statement on Academic Freedom (APM-010) that we discovered its safeguards against such classroom abuse. Now that we are insisting that UC live up to the high ideals contained in this document (now deemed somehow "outdated"), Atkinson and Post find it timely to change the ground rules. Apparently it is easier to change the document than it is to rein in those who exploit their position of power.

Power is what this is all about. Professors have it, and students do not. You emphasize that the Atkinson/Post proposal will "extend the rights of students." We do not find any concrete extension of student rights in this "conceptual foundation for academic freedom," as President Atkinson calls the proposal. Implied and conceptual rights are not enough. We urge the University of California Academic Senate to maintain the safeguards currently contained in its statement on Academic Freedom. Surely the University of California owes it to the taxpayers and tuition payers to protect its students from proselytizing zealots.

Sincerely,

Luann Wright
President
NoIndoctrination.org