Academic Bill of Rights - Conservative litmus testing writ large

Senator Michele Bachmann (R) District 52 and Representative Ray Vandeveer (R) 52A aligned themselves with David Horowitz as they proposed that Minnesota enact Horowitz's Academic Bill of Rights. Horowitz is editor-in-chief of Frontpage Magazine . He recently visually compared Barack Obama, Bruce Springsteen and Hilary Clinton with Al-Zarqawi, Bin Laden and Ramzi Yusef in his new mecca for conservative tinfoil hatters, Discover The Network.

Horowitz, and by extension Bachman and Vandeveer, believe that American universities are basically indoctrination centers of liberal thought. Their solution is an ungraceful, overly wordy set of rules they call the "Academic Bill of Rights," though nowhere in the document is an actual right defined. To be fair, the Academic Bill of Rights is a nice pyramid of words - there isn't much to disagree with as a statement. But my disagreement with the implementation of the ABOR as policy is profound. I simply couldn't be more opposed to it or to the people foisting it on our state.

The first problem is methodological. As policy, the ABOR corrupts what it sets out to protect: The pursuit of truth. Horowitz says that the "unsettled character of all human knowledge" means "that there is no humanly accessible truth that is not in principle open to challenge." This is true, there is no humanly accessible truth that is not open to challenge (interesting point for Bachman, a fundamentalist Christian). Horowitz asserts that since there is always a challenge to humanly accessible truth, therefore challenges should always be provided. But the problem is that certainty exists, even if certainty can be modified later with new data. Sometimes the path is less clear. In niether case is it an absolute that a challenge to truth be provided. Shall we, when confronted with the equation 2+2=4, spend time challenging the result? If I take a class on capitalism, shall Marxism be presented for contrast? Or should I take a class on Marxism at which Capitalism will be taught? Am I being "abused" if my professor fails to challenge me with an opposing viewpoint? Lacking education, how will I know? Intellectual diversity opposes truth and spiritual depth and critical thinking. It turns distilled human thought to mush and fear.

But advancing the notion of intellectual diversity as an academic principle is not the purpose of the ABOR. Though Horowitz maintains that the document is scrupulously free of ideology, the very existence of the ABOR is expressly political. In fact, it is an instrument that can only be political. I swear, the ugliest action takes place under the prettiest language. While promoting a document that pretends to remove politics and religion from the classroom, Horowitz has tapped the main vein of academia and mainlined political litmus testing directly into it - mostly conservative litmus testing. It is ironic, no...It is insane that the state of Minnesota or any state in America is considering enacting this insidious KGB-esque framework.

Because the ABOR mandates "intellectual diversity," and because this is a concept that is largely in the eye of the beholder, it places the responsibility for enforcement on the student. If a professor advances an unwelcome idea, the student could percieve it as "abuse." Students would record "abuses" and report them to a higher authority. After enough momentum is gained, offending professors would get drummed out of schools. Student organizations would be formed for the purpose of spying on professors and catching them in ideological peccadilloes. Perhaps the history class isn't quite "American" enough. Perhaps the theology professor isn't quite "Christian" enough, or is too "Christian." Perhaps the gym teacher made a remark about a GOP candidate that didn't sit well with a young republican, or a business professor takes pot shots at a Democrat. Perhaps a biology student is offended by the teaching of evolution to the exclusion of Intelligent Design.

This is not a hypothesis. Horowitz has organized 150 chapters of Students for Academic Freedom across the country. From the handbook:

E. Focusing On Specific Professors and Departments

As you complete this process, you may begin to get a sense of which professors are particularly partisan in their teaching. If you know that a student is taking a class with one of these professors, make sure to ask whether they have encountered abusive actions in the classroom. Some departments are known for their ideological and partisan leanings. These include Cultural Studies, American Studies, English Literature, Women’s Studies, African-American (or Black) Studies, Chicano/Latino/Hispanic Studies, Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender Studies, American-Indian Studies, and Asian-American Studies. Fertile ground is also found in the Political Science, Sociology and History departments, although to a lesser degree than the departments mentioned above. If you have received numerous complaints about a particular professor, consider sitting in on their class for a session or two. Bring a hand-held tape recorder if possible and take notes about the context and situation of classroom interactions. Notes are essential for understanding later what you are hearing on the tapes, or recording comments or dialogue probably not picked up by the tape recorder. If possible, recruit a student who is taking the class for credit to help you.

Can you say political officer in every classroom?

[Update: via Orcinus

LittleMolly McPherson president of the Santa Rosa Junior College Republicans and political officer in training, has posted Red Stars on the doorways of faculty members she believes teach communism with the intention to indoctrinate.]