College punishes student for not advocating specific political positions
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) reports:
Rhode Island College's (RIC's) School of Social Work is requiring a conservative master's student to publicly advocate for "progressive" social changes if he wants to continue pursuing a degree in social work policy.
[...]
RIC's campaign against [student Bill] Felkner began in Fall 2004 when social work professor Jim Ryczek suggested to Felkner in an e-mail that if he did not agree with the school's political philosophy, he should consider leaving or finding another line of work. Shortly afterwards, Felkner learned that RIC's School of Social Work not only recommended that he adopt a particular ideology but also mandated that he lobby the Rhode Island Legislature for one of several policy positions that he did not support. FIRE protested this action, and--despite an assurance from RIC President John Nazarian that "no student has been obliged to lobby for a particular cause before the General Assembly"--Felkner reports that Professor Sue Pearlmutter told him that his grade would be affected if he chose to lobby for an alternative policy position.
RIC's most recent offense against the U.S. Constitution stems from its policy internship requirements for graduate students. There are eleven general requirements that every internship must meet--and six of these require that students work towards advancing "progressive" policies such as "progressive social change." Felkner, who refused to accept an internship that would force him to promote policies he opposed, instead accepted an internship in the policy department of Republican Rhode Island Governor Donald L. Carcieri's office. Ryzcek reported Felkner's refusal to work for "progressive" policies to Lenore Olsen, the chair of the Master's of Social Work Program. Olsen subsequently informed Felkner in a letter that he could no longer pursue a master's degree in social work policy.
"RIC, as a state college, simply may not require its students to publicly advocate for social changes they don't believe in--'progressive' or otherwise," noted FIRE Director of Legal and Public Advocacy Greg Lukianoff. "Forcing a person to publicly state one thing when he or she privately believes something else is one of the hallmarks of a totalitarian state. It is shocking that [Rhode Island College] President [John] Nazarian would allow this."
Posted by webmaster
31 May 2005 @ 9:23am
Harvard promises $50 million for more "diversity"
Harvard University has pledged $50 million for a new diversity program:
In the wake of a firestorm over his controversial comments about the ability of women to excel in science, Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers yesterday pledged $50 million over the next decade to increase diversity at the school.
Responding to Harvard task force reports calling for sweeping reforms to increase the ranks of women scientists and faculty, Summers said the proposed changes "have the power to make Harvard not only more welcoming and diverse, but a stronger and more excellent university overall."
At the center of the proposals is the creation of a new post - Senior Vice Provost for Diversity and Faculty Development - who will be tasked with overseeing faculty recruitment with an eye on increasing the ranks of women and minorities.
Once again, the academy proves adept at concocting another plan to increase diversity of appearance within its walls. No word on whether any of that money will be used to help foster diversity of thought. The biggest diversity problem in higher education today is the monolithic uniformity of thought among professors. Because students are being exposed to such a narrow range of ideas, they're not only getting indoctrinated, they're getting ripped off.
One of these years, I hope to post a story talking about a school making a similar commitment to increasing diversity of thought, but I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by Evan Coyne Maloney
18 May 2005 @ 11:20am
Racial set-asides at University of Oregon
The Oregon Daily Emerald reports that the University of Oregon is using racial set-asides for certain class enrollments:
When senior Stephanie Ramey tried to sign up online for Math 243 Calculus for Business and Social Science for spring term she was denied access and informed she would have to contact the class professor.
The professor asked her to contact the Office of Multicultural Academic Support about enrolling in his class.
A staff member at the office said she couldn't register for the class because she doesn't identify as a minority, Ramey said.
White students are not banned from the classes altogether, but unlike minority students, they must wait until the first day of class and hope that there will still be space available:
Ramey attempted to enroll in one of six University classes this term that reserve the first 10 slots in an 18-student class for minority students, while requiring others who want to get into the class to arrive on the morning of the first day of class and meet with an adviser before being allowed to register for the remaining eight slots.
[...]
Students must identify as being African-American, Asian-American/Pacific Islander, Chicano/Latino, Native American or multiracial to enroll in the first 10 slots.
Posted by webmaster
17 May 2005 @ 9:21am
Dartmouth alums elect "insurgent" trustees
The alumni of Dartmouth College have elected two write-in candidates for Trustee positions. Todd Zywicki and Peter Robinson campaigned against speech codes and for greater intellectual diversity on campus. Neither Zywicki nor Robinson were on the university-approved ballot, but instead waged an insurgent campaign that followed in the footsteps of last year's maverick alum, T.J. Rodgers, the founder of Cypress Semiconductor.
Robinson, a former speechwriter for President Reagan, is currently a Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Zywicki now serves as a Law Professor and Senior Research Fellow at George Mason.
Posted by webmaster
13 May 2005 @ 7:38pm
Dartmouth ditches speech code
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) praises Dartmouth University for ridding itself of its speech code:
"FIRE no longer considers Dartmouth to have a speech code. Moreover, Dartmouth is clearly positioning itself as a national leader in the battle for free expression on campus," remarked David French, FIRE's president. "Although the situation at Dartmouth is not perfect, by removing from its website the documents that contained speech-restrictive statements and by confirming that those statements do not represent college policy, Dartmouth has taken an enormous step forward."
[...]
"Dartmouth's speech policies, along with those of the University of Pennsylvania, now lead the Ivy League in respecting individual liberty and free expression," remarked FIRE's French. "FIRE still has concerns regarding past punishments, but we are hopeful that--going forward-- Dartmouth students will enjoy the full range of First Amendment freedoms. Dartmouth's administration should be commended for this bold and important step." Concluded French: "FIRE looks forward to the day when the entire Ivy League joins this trend and recognizes that administrators may advocate for decency without mandating that students censor, under threat of punishment, their own speech for fear of transgressing someone else's notion of the good society."
Posted by webmaster
9 May 2005 @ 6:34pm
Supreme Court to review Solomon Amendment
The Solomon Amendment, which requires schools taking federal tax dollars to grant the U.S. military the same access to on-campus recruiting opportunities that private corporations get, will be reviewed by the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will decide whether some law schools may curb military recruiters' access to their students in protest of the U.S. armed forces' ban on openly gay members.
On its face, the case is a struggle between Congress's power of the purse and academic freedom; the court is being asked to rule on the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment, a federal law that requires universities to give military recruiters equal access, or risk millions of dollars in federal funding.
[...]
Thirty-one law schools, grouped under the banner of the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), say that the Solomon Amendment is inconsistent with their constitutional right to free speech. They say they should be free to shun a policy they consider discriminatory.
The schools are free to shun the policy, if they are willing to give up the money. It sounds like the schools that want military recruiters kept off campus are willing to take a stand only when there are no consequences; they want to take federal money and tell the federal military to get lost at the same time. If these schools were acting on principle as they claim, then they should be willing to do without the federal money.
Posted by Evan Coyne Maloney
4 May 2005 @ 9:02am
Academia, where liberals are conservatives
For the follow-up to Brainwashing 101, we interviewed one professor who described himself as "a liberal Democrat who voted for Hillary" but was nonetheless viewed as a conservative by his colleagues simply because he taught U.S. history without the usual mantra that America is the root of all evil in the world.
Today, we noticed a similar comment from a self-described left-wing professor who laments the ideological one-sidedness in law and economics:
I really don't think there's any social conservatism left in law and economics. Maybe compared to law faculties, but not compared to Congress or the American public. I'm a left winger in real life, but a right winger on just about any law faculty. Because I believe in things like incentives and trade-offs.
Posted by Evan Coyne Maloney
2 May 2005 @ 7:12am
|
