Academic Bill of Restrictions Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is the Academic Bill of Rights?

It's a misleading, politically motivated attempt to restrict academic freedom and free speech. Horowitz and his followers claim that conservative professors are discriminated against in the hiring process and that liberal professors use their classrooms to indoctrinate students, neither of which is true and Horowitz knows it. He is using this claim to advance a policy, ABOR, which would force professors to favor academic balance and sensitivity over rigorous scholarship.

2. Is there a problem with academic freedom?

To be clear, there IS NOT a problem with academic freedom - the Academic Bill of Restrictions, however, would create a huge problem.

Horowitz articulates two supposed problems with academic freedom: 1.) Universities discriminate against conservative professors in the hiring process, and; 2.) Liberal professors indoctrinate students. He has failed to prove either of these problems.

To "prove" that conservative professors are discriminated against in the hiring process, Horowitz conducted studies of professors' political party registration. However, once pressed to explain how that is evidence of a problem, even he has backed off - "We did this [voter registration study] not to establish a principle for balancing faculties or even because we believed that these categories provided a useful intellectual standard."

To "prove" that liberal professors are indoctrinating their students, Horowitz has compiled a list of complaints by distressed students. These complaints signify that a lot of students aren't too happy about hearing a different viewpoint, but not much indoctrination. For instance, one student writes that his professor "talked about flags as symbols of states and argued that new Iraqi flag was not a result of a transparent and fair process. Argued AS FACT that new flag had similar colors to Israeli flag and that this could be problematic. Claimed AS FACT that other Arab societies had red, green and black in their flags. Very biased. Had no visual proof of this."

3. Don't most universities already have a mechanism to protect students' academic freedom?

Yes. On the occasion when a professor does behave inappropriately, students have avenues for recourse within the university. Even some of the complaints on Horowitz's website reveal this to be the case. For example, at the University of California one professor suggested in his course description that conservative thinkers avoid his section of a class about the Middle East conflict. The University recognized that this was inappropriate and the professor apologized and changed the course description.

4. Isn't the academic bill of rights meant to protect academic freedom?

No. David Horowitz and his cronies might claim that ABOR is meant to protect academic freedom, but it's not. The best way to protect academic freedom is to leave it free from restrictions - the Academic Bill of Restrictions would introduce limitations on what professors can and cannot say in the classroom. This is precisely the opposite of academic freedom.

5. What's wrong with the academic bill of restrictions?

First and foremost, the Academic Bill of Restrictions would undermine academic freedom, which is the guiding principle of higher education. Horowitz and his academic bill of restrictions would have a professor favor political balance and sensitivity over legitimate scholarship. Take a look at one passage from the academic bill of rights - "Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas by providing students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate. While teachers are and should be free to pursue their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views, they should consider and make their students aware of other viewpoints. Academic disciplines should welcome a diversity of approaches to unsettled questions."

For many, evolution is an "unsettled question." Does this mean that a biology professor would be forced to teach creationism in a scientific setting? Or even that history professor would have to teach holocaust revisionism, just in the case that a couple of bigots are in the class?

The bottom line is this - the academic bill of restrictions would substitute political sensitivity for legitimate scholarship, and that jeopardizes the education of all students.

6. Isn't it a good thing to present a variety of perspectives in the classroom?

Not necessarily. Many ideas don't have a place in the classroom. There is a reason why some theories perpetually arise in the classroom - they are rigorously tested and have withstood peer review and criticism. For instance, no responsible biology teacher would ever introduce creationism as a valid theory, because it isn't supported by any scientific evidence - creationism is an idea that's preached, not a theory that's taught. The Academic Bill of Restrictions could force a biology professor to teach creationism even when he or she knows that it's inappropriate in a scientific setting. The bottom line is this - course material should be determined by the marketplace of ideas rather than political sensitivity.

7. Horowitz claims that his bill of restrictions wouldn't impose a political balance in the classroom - Is that true?

a. No, the academic bill of restrictions would impose an artificial balancein the classroom.
b. The problem, according to the SAF slogan, is that "you can't get an education if you're only hearing half the story."
c. The evidence to support this problem is predominantly students who feel that classrooms don't present a diverse set of viewpoints.
d. ABOR itself mandates that professors teach a diverse set of perspectives in the humanities and social sciences.
e. If the problem is a lack of balance, if the evidence is supposed to prove a lack of balance, and ABOR mandates balance, then what else could he want?

8. If there isn't a problem to begin with, and the academic bill of restrictions would actually undermine academic freedom, then why is Horowitz doing it?

The sole motivation behind the Academic Bill of Restrictions is the political agenda of David Horowitz. Make no mistake, Horowitz and his supporters do not care about academic freedom and free speech. Just take a look at an excerpt from a recent fundraising email sent out by Horowitz:

The fact that Ward Churchill -- or any tenured professor -- can come out and glorify the murderers of innocent people is truly upsetting. But you and I know what is even more angering …

… the fact that this is nothing new! The radical left has embedded itself on our campuses to the virtual exclusion of other voices, other ideas. The University of Colorado has known about Ward Churchill's views for more than 30 years!

In fact, Churchill wrote the essay that has everyone so upset four years ago! Churchill's peers promoted him, granted him tenure and elected him chairman of the university's Ethics Studies Department with full knowledge of his anti-American ideology.

This passage makes Horowitz's intentions strikingly clear - his campaign for academic freedom is nothing more than a cover for his witch hunt to get rid of liberals on campus and replace them with conservatives. Horowitz should be ashamed that he's jeopardizing the education of America's young people simply to advance his own political agenda.