Here’s something from the Independent Florida Alligator via Discourse

Republicans on the House Choice and Innovation Committee voted along party lines Tuesday to pass a bill that aims to stamp out leftist totalitarianism by dictator professors in the classrooms of Floridas universities.

The Academic Freedom Bill of Rights, sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, passed 8-to-2 despite strenuous objections from the only two Democrats on the committee.

The bill has two more committees to pass before it can be considered by the full House.

While promoting the bill Tuesday, Baxley said a university education should be more than one biased view by the professor, who as a dictator controls the classroom, as part of a misuse of their platform to indoctrinate the next generation with their own views.

Bad law is often discussed on this site but this bill is a nice example of Composition’s concentration at this point of the semester on cause and effect analysis. What would happen given the passage of such a law?

Here’s more

According to a legislative staff analysis of the bill, the law would give students who think their beliefs are not being respected legal standing to sue professors and universities.

Students who believe their professor is singling them out for public ridicule  for instance, when professors use the Socratic method to force students to explain their theories in class  would also be given the right to sue.

Some professors say, Evolution is a fact. I dont want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you dont like it, theres the door, Baxley said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue.

Questions:

How would a court establish degrees here? A student might always say, “You don’t respect enough.” This is classic irony. Students in general aren’t typically as up as the teacher is on the subject. How would they know, therefore, what the alternative arguments are–hence, what would form the basis of a lawsuit? “The professor didn’t want to talk about trig. He wanted to talk calc.”

In the latter example, I don’t know of any scientist who would argue that Evo is a “fact.” That reflects a misunderstanding again of method; and it’s not the issue. And why would the scientist enter into a discussion over ID given that there’s really nothing evidenciary to relate the idea to. Such a subject, perfectly fine for religion class and British Literature, would be misconduct in the biology classroom.

Dare I say that I question the competence of such lawmakers. Such a law would be totalitarian in and of itself because it doesn’t conduct freedom. It inhibits it in the spirit of cynicism. Blake would roll in his grave.

So, if Connecticut is trying to promote distrust in government, it’s doing a pretty fine job of it. See this for more.

From Jonathan Chait via The Courant/LA Times (needs account):

A pair of studies recently found that Democrats vastly outnumbered Republicans among professors at leading universities. Conservatives gleefully seized upon this to once again flagellate academia for its liberal bias.

Am I the only person who fails to understand why conservatives see this finding as vindication? After all, these studies show that some of the best-educated, most-informed people in the country overwhelmingly reject the GOP. Why is this seen as an indictment of academia, rather than as an indictment of the Republican Party?

Conservatives have a ready answer. The only reason faculties lean so far to the left is that deans, administrators and entire university cultures systematically discriminate against conservatives.

. . .

The main causes of the partisan disparity on campus have little to do with anything so nefarious as discrimination. First, Republicans don’t particularly want to be professors. To go into academia – a highly competitive field that does not offer great riches – you have to believe that living the life of the mind is more valuable than making a Wall Street salary. On most issues that offer a choice between having more money in your pocket and having something else – a cleaner environment, universal health insurance, etc. – conservatives tend to prefer the money and liberals tend to prefer the something else. It’s not so surprising that the same thinking would extend to career choices.

There’s more going on about this topic at Michael Drout’s weblog. I don’t necessarily know how to respond to the disparity question in higher education, nor do I know if Chait’s arguments make sense in practice due to the absence of qualification. They may and they may not. It may be one of those non-issues that just gets a lot of time because it’s easy. Is there any evidence that a liberal or leftist bias in higher education is particularly a bad thing?

I’ve never liked the use of the word tolerance in public discourse because in my mind tolerance implies a superior/inferior heirarchy. Those who are tolerated get the short end of the flag pole, in other words. I tolerate is an ironic expression of power “over” someone.

Heterosexuals must tolerate homosexuals and so forth; gay men aren’t generally viewed as tolerating the straight. It doesn’t matter that logically such language and means of organizing are, in my mind, pointless.

To tolerate is, however, a better condition than outright hatred.

Now that the creation/evolution fight is back in full force all around the country with religion being presented as science, it would seem that even the slightest disagreement with the pious, in terms of religion or politics, is met with scorn, ridicule, and abstention from reality (and very little tolerance). A recent CBS poll claims that 55% of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form. Current young earth creationists insist that the Grand Canyon was the result of the Biblical Flood. Intelligent Design proponents claim that nature is too complex to have happened via evolution. Nature demands a designer, they claim. Interesting “belief.” Belief for me is fine, but it shouldn’t be a part of a science curriculum. Belief is a matter of choice. Science doesn’t really ask anyone to “believe” anything, an idea which can be taken grossely out of context.

To tolerate ignorance is unethical. Why should I conclude that the Grand Canyon was forged a few thousand years ago and that humans were created by “God” in present form? What is the evidence for these contraptions? Where are the experiments?”

Right.

As I follow the aftermath of the election, in which my choice lost, I note some reactions. One is the disappointment at the loss, as a force of the lead up and hard work and hoping of the Kerry supporters; the other is the call for a new approach, a change in tactics, and/or over analysis of causes.

I was, of course, disappointed, but I don’t advocate a change in tactics. Congresspeople are hanging their heads, wishing the world was different. But I hope that the powers that be avoid a see change in approach for the Dems, because this would miss the point. The numbers, number one, are on any scale closely competitive nationally. State by state tells an uneven yet interesting story, which I interpret loosely as able to change quickly, depending on future events. In some cases, as in Ohio, the vote reveals a narrow split, as does New Hampshire. Consider Missouri at 53/46 and Alabama at 63/37. Some states show a marked split, while others, especially in the blue, are tending to red. I won’t double check this, but either way, the point remains the same. From sea to sea anything is possible even in the face of state by state trends, under the auspices of federalism.

The “attitudes” of any given time span always trend. At the moment, the trend is conservative. Anyway, this all means that a few million people, which, in my mind, are the same people you meet every day and have nice conversations with, could just as easily have swung Kerry’s way, but didn’t. In some cases, people will vote against their interests, to use Thomas Frank’s (What’s the Matter with Kansas?) phrase, and go with an anti-Roe vote or on terrorism issues (closer perhaps than any moral vote), all the while feeling their pocketbooks whithering as the world slowly changes under their feet. People vote on the visceral, not on the intellectual.

In any event, “reaction” is rarely a good way of going about solving a perceived problem. I myself have come to many conclusions about the things I think are fair, good, or honest, and I don’t plan on changing those things because of a close loss. Iraq is a great mistake; the arts and sciences need strong support; education needs teachers to have a stronger role in how learning happens; the press needs to stop trying to be the boss’s friend; and people of whatever kind need to be left to pursue what they wish or care to pursue.