Fundamental to the ability of higher education to achieve its missions of educating students and serving the broader community is a free exchange of ideas on college campuses. It is this freedom that creates new ideas and analysis that challenges students to become critical thinkers and citizens and that allows institutions of higher education to fulfill both their functions of education and serving the broader community.
Though students’ ability to express themselves is vital to that free exchange of ideas, so too is the ability of faculty members to teach and research topics that are relevant, publish and discuss their conclusions and act as engaged citizens when outside their teaching duties.
In order for institutions of higher education to truly have this free exchange of ideas, the policies affecting campus and climate surrounding higher education must allow the following to be true:
- Faculty members must be able to research and publish their findings without outside interference;
- Faculty members must be able to teach all information and analysis relevant to their course and engage students in all of their observations and questions;
- Students should be able to take courses in a wide variety of subject matter, including topics often considered controversial;
- Both faculty members and students must be able to act as citizens on issues they feel strongly about;
- Students must be able to create additional learning opportunities outside the classroom setting.
Unfortunately, this most basic aspect of free speech in higher education has been under renewed and aggressive attack in the past few years. With both the so-called “intellectual diversity” bill and “academic bill of restrictions,” detractors of the free exchange of ideas on campus, namely the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) and pundit/activist David Horowitz are trying to impose new restrictions on what can be taught and discussed in higher education, while bringing undue scruitny over classroom content.
These bills and similar proposals to restrict the free exchange of ideas in higher education would force year in, year out scrutiny from politicians into what is being taught, and how it is being taught— a sure recipe for a climate where faculty members feel they have to favor “balance” and “sensitivity” over scholarship and real learning. It will force universities to restrict and regulate the views discussed in classrooms and the views of speakers. The best way to ensure a wide variety of opinions and ideas is to have classrooms and quads as free from restrictions as possible. Let the marketplace of ideas, not political correctness, rule the campus.
Tools and Resources:
Reports:
|
|
Facts Still Count:
In 2006, we joined the Free Exchange on Campus coalition in releasing
Facts Count, documenting many of the inaccuracies, misrepresentations,
and distortions that David Horowitz used to smear college and
university faculty members in his book The Professors. Horowitz is
back with the same partisan attacks on higher education that he was
peddling three years ago in his new book, One-Party Classroom, and once
again he substitutes ideology for factual analysis in pressing his
dubious case. We’re reminding Horowitz, with a new report that Facts
Still Count. For more information, read the report.
|
|
|
|
Education Works Best With Free Exchange of Ideas:
The Center and our
coalition, Free Exchange on Campus, released a report called
“Campus Voices.” Throughout the spring of 2006, our staff were on the
ground speaking with faculty and students in Pennsylvania about the
“Academic Bill of Restrictions.” The report finds that students and
faculty learn and teach best when they have access to a free exchange
of ideas, unencumbered by restrictions. For more information, read the report.
|
|
|
|
Facts Count:
"Facts Count" examines David Horowitz’s book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America (Regnery, 2006), which brings up 101 academics on charges of indoctrinating their students with their political views. Since Mr. Horowitz’s charges are aimed at the core of professors’ professional ethics, we believe that they are not to be taken lightly. For Mr. Horowitz to accuse a single person of these charges—let alone 101—a reasonable person might expect him to do three things: examine the facts objectively, support his conclusions with sound evidence, and make recommendations that are in students’ best interests. We believe that Mr. Horowitz fails on all of these counts. For more information, read the report.
|
|
Take action to protect the free
exchange of ideas on your campus:
Results
Working with our partners in the Free Exchange
on Campus Coalition, the Center has been a leader in the fight to stop
restrictions on what students can learn and faculty can teach inside
the classroom.
From 2006 to 2009, we have worked with a wide
variety of faculty, students, administrators and concerned citizens to
stop new attempts to restrict the free exchange of ideas on college
campuses. We’ve helped to defeat legislation and other proposals in:
Arizona (2006, 2007), Georgia (2008), Iowa (2009), Kentucky (2007),
Missouri (2007-2008), Montana (2007), South Dakota (2006), Virginia
(2007, 2008) and Texas (2007).
Additionally, in 2006 we worked
with a broad coalition of faculty, students and free speech advocates
to ensure that the Pennsylvania legislature would reject calls for
restrictions on their classrooms. Fortunately, in November 2006, the
Pennsylvania House Select Committee on Academic Freedom in Higher
Education concluded that "academic freedom violations [in Pennsylvania]
are rare" and that "requiring the adoption of a statewide academic
freedom policy...was not necessary." The committee was formed in
response to efforts to pass Horowitz’s so-called “Academic Bill of
Rights” to study claims of political bias in the classroom from
Horowitz and others.