The Bill is nonsensical, of course.
It's clearly ideologically motivated, as Mike points out. What I can't figure out is why the conservatives appear to be so threatened by what they perceive as a liberal bias in academia. After all, they've been complaining about it for decades, likewise the ostensible liberal bias of the press. If there is one, the last election only goes to show how ineffective academia and the press are in shaping public opinion.
Conservatives appear to have nothing to worry about.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: James Russell <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:59:49 -0500
Subject: Re: [UTCSTAFF] House Bill 432 not monkey business
There is no question in my mind that the organization promoting the ideas in this bill is ideologically motivated. They believe that "liberals" dominate universities in this country; the bill's advocates are trying to intimidate them. They will probably succeed in many cases.
Years ago the Tennessee legislature passed a bill calling for a moment of silence in public schools in this state. It does not sound as if there is anything wrong with a moment of silence. But the legislature made it mandatory. More important was the content of the debate accompanying the bill in the legislature; the debate made it clear that the legislative intent was to bypass court rulings that mandatory prayer in public schools was unconstitutional. Because of the obvious legislative intent of the moment of silence law, it was struck down as unconstitutional.
Given the current political climate in this state and across the country, I doubt that such student bills of rights will be deemed unconstitutional by any court--even though it may well violate 1st amendment rights. But, as UT's president has made clear, it is unnecessary. There are plenty of remedies available to students when they can document that they are treated unfairly because of their political views. It does behoove faculty to respect the views of students if they want their own to be respected.
Mike Russell
-----Original Message-----
From: Jillian Zwilling <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:44:42 -0500
Subject: [UTCSTAFF] House Bill 432 not monkey business
After reading Melissa Burchfield's posting about House Bill 432, I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly with her concern. As someone who teaches speech and debate courses, the students in these courses handle controversial topics as part of the course and learn to create arguments that are complex and research- based. This often means that students in the class are presenting and/or listening to others present issues that the whole class obviously does not agree upon. We often cover issues that deal with religion, politics and a whole host of issues that could be offensive to a class member. I think that allowing students to write, speak or debate about issues that they find important is a good exercise in critical thinking and listening for all involved, regardless of whether they agree with the topic or not. There is a line that must be established in class about how to cover such issues in a way that does not marginalize those who do not agree, but nevertheless, those topics are still presented. I also share Melissa's concern that grading is sometimes seen as a reflection of whether I agree with the argument presented, instead of being based on the merit of the argument itself.
I think it would very negatively impact my class to ask students to stick to speaking and debating about "safe" topics in fear of offending someone in class. I hope that this is not the situation that will evolve should this bill be passed, but I can see the implications would be very great for those who teach and cover "gray areas".
Jillian Klean Zwilling
Department of Theatre and Speech
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
239 Grote Hall
615 McCallie Avenue
Chattanooga, TN 37403
(423)425-5537
Christopher Stuart
UC Foundation Assistant Professor
English Department
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
|
