Student's Bill of Rights in Ohio

[seafoamgreen]

I don't know if anyone cares about this, but this is pretty scary if you're in academia. There are so many potential problems with this bill.

State Bill Number 24 (http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=126_SB_24)

A BILL
To enact sections 3345.80 and 3345.81 of the Revised Code to establish the academic bill of rights for higher education.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF OHIO:
Section 1. That sections 3345.80 and 3345.81 of the Revised Code be enacted to read as follows:
Sec. 3345.80. The board of trustees of each state institution of higher education, as defined in section 3345.011 of the Revised Code, and the board of trustees or other governing authority of each private institution of higher education that holds a certificate of authorization issued under section 1713.02 of the Revised Code shall adopt a policy recognizing that the students, faculty, and instructors of the institution have the following rights:
(A) The institution shall provide its students with a learning environment in which the students have access to a broad range of serious scholarly opinion pertaining to the subjects they study. In the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, the fostering of a plurality of serious scholarly methodologies and perspectives shall be a significant institutional purpose. In addition, curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social studies shall respect all human knowledge in these areas and provide students with dissenting sources and viewpoints.
(B) Students shall be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study and shall not be discriminated against on the basis of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs. Faculty and instructors shall not use their courses or their positions for the purpose of political, ideological, religious, or antireligious indoctrination.
(C) Faculty and instructors shall not infringe the academic freedom and quality of education of their students by persistently introducing controversial matter into the classroom or coursework that has no relation to their subject of study and that serves no legitimate pedagogical purpose.
(D) University administrators, student government organizations, and institutional policies, rules, or procedures shall not infringe the freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of conscience of students and student organizations.
(E) The institution shall distribute student fee funds on a viewpoint-neutral basis and shall maintain a posture of neutrality with respect to substantive political and religious disagreements, differences, and opinions. The selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speakers' programs, and other student activities shall observe the principles of academic freedom and promote the presentation of a diversity of opinions on intellectual matters. Except as provided by law, the institution shall not permit the obstruction of invited campus speakers, the destruction of campus literature, or other efforts to obstruct a civil exchange of ideas.
(F) Faculty and instructors shall be free to pursue and discuss their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views, but they shall make their students aware of serious scholarly viewpoints other than their own through classroom discussion or dissemination of written materials, and they shall encourage intellectual honesty, civil debate, and the critical analysis of ideas in the pursuit of knowledge and truth.
(G) Faculty and instructors shall be hired, fired, promoted, and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in their field of expertise and shall not be hired, fired, promoted, granted tenure, or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs.
(H) Faculty and instructors shall not be excluded from tenure, search, and hiring committees on the basis of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs.
(I) The institution and its professional societies shall maintain a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements that divide researchers on questions within, or outside, their fields of inquiry recognizing that:
(1) Knowledge advances when individual scholars are left free to reach their own conclusions about which methods, facts, and theories have been validated by research;
(2) Academic institutions and professional societies formed to advance knowledge within an area of research, maintain the integrity of the research process, and organize the professional lives of related researchers serve as indispensable venues within which scholars circulate research findings and debate their interpretations.
Sec. 3345.81. The board of trustees of each state institution of higher education, as defined in section 3345.011 of the Revised Code, and the board of trustees or other governing authority of each private institution of higher education that holds a certificate of authorization issued under section 1713.02 of the Revised Code, shall adopt a grievance procedure by which a student, faculty member, or instructor may seek redress for an alleged violation of any of the rights specified by the institution's policy adopted under section 3345.80 of the Revised Code. Each board of trustees or other governing authority shall provide students, faculty, and instructors with notice of the rights and grievance procedure by publication in the institution's course catalog, student handbook, and web site.

[frenchstudent]

What potential problems do you see?

[ms. chevious]

students often fail to realize that criticism/poor grades result from poor execution of an argument, not the ideas expressed in that argument. i think this bill could be misinterpreted/misused by students who think criticism is of them as a person, not of their work. they also get pissed when they can't come up with arguments to justify their opinions, so when they are critiqued, they mistakenly feel 'persecuted'.

and there IS a HUGE difference between philosophy and "opinion." anyone can have an opinion; philosophy engages with others who have ideas about the topic, reflects upon various perspectives, asks critical questions, and, most of all, gives a well-explained, logically sound and valid, self-reflective argument to support itself. i don't grade "opinion" - indeed, if you give me a paper filled with unfounded opinion, i'll flunk it. however, a diversity of philosophical perspectives makes for a productive class.

[seafoamgreen]

I wanted to mention the source of this bill.
Students for Academic Freedom (http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/)
One of the people connected to this David Horowitz, who does Frontpage.com, a conservative website.

[seafoamgreen]

What potential problems do you see?

For one thing, this is a right-wing attack on academia, which is always an easy target, but I think it could end up hurting conservative students as much as liberal students.

Second, students do have rights. There are department means of dealing with political bias or other professorial indescretions, as well as the university or college ombudsmen. This takes that power away from individual colleges and puts in the hands of state legislators and the new bureaucracy this will produce.

Third, i think it will have a chilling effect on what professors include in class.

[markalot]

(C) Faculty and instructors shall not infringe the academic freedom and quality of education of their students by persistently introducing controversial matter into the classroom or coursework that has no relation to their subject of study and that serves no legitimate pedagogical purpose.

That one scares me. While I understand what they are trying to do this could be abused.

[postfeminist]

Ah yes, Horowitz & his Front Page mag... they wrote this article (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10633) about the college where i work...

thanks for posting the bill, sfg...it was a disturbing read.

[Handy Smurf]

For one thing, this is a right-wing attack on academia, which is always an easy target, but I think it could end up hurting conservative students as much as liberal students.
I dont really understand what point you're trying to make here

[seafoamgreen]

I dont really understand what point you're trying to make here

One-David Horowitz, who drafted the original version of this bill, is a right winger.
Two-Read frontpage.com, or John Leo's columns in US News and World Report. Academia is often a target as a liberal institution.
Three-If colleges cannot hire based on political, ideological, and religious beliefs-what happens to Christian colleges?
While this is targeted at liberal professors, will conservatives in the economics department(and they are mostly fiscal conservatives) have to teach Marxist state planning in addition to free market economics?
And avoiding controversial topics silences everone, not just liberals and leftists.


This format of this post is due to the fact that there were several tacit arguements in that sentence and i felt it best to address all of them.

[Docta]

i sent an email to my state senator urging him not to vote for this bill.

got a letter from him yesterday:

"This bill is meant to be ideologically neutral, not protecting one political or religious belief over another. From speaking with the bill's sponsor it is meant to protect students who disagree with their professors from being punished at grading time. I will reserve judgment on the bill until hearings are conducted in the committee."

and yup, he's a republican, bah! this bill is an attempt to bring fox news' view of fair and balanced to the classroom and legislate curriculum to include things like creationism in biology classes. complete crap. the bill talks about allowing academic freedom when truly it will limit the academic freedom of the professoriate, another lovely right wing tactic with language. but hey, at least we can get "choose life" printed on our license plates now, none of that pro choice propoganda though.

[Wondertastic]

i still don't get it.

quote which parts of this bill you think are going to forever change the academic world in ohio.

i don't see where everyone is getting this from.

[frenchstudent]

And avoiding controversial topics silences everone, not just liberals and leftists.



As an ex-nontraditional student, I can see where this would begin to get ugly.
Having those heated discussions in class about certain current events helped me sprout the curiosity to get involved and learn about important things that were happening in the world we live in today. Those dicoveries shaped most of the opinions I have today. I would hate to have not experienced that. I would be a totally different person.

[postfeminist]

but hey, at least we can get "choose life" printed on our license plates now, none of that pro choice propoganda though.

WHAT??? i have not heard about this...

[Docta]

Ohio Drivers Can Get 'Choose Life' License Plates

Wed Feb 16, 6:22 PM ET

Ohio Gov. Bob Taft has signed a bill authorizing the sale of license plates with the message "Choose Life."

Part of the proceeds will go to nonprofit groups that counsel pregnant women intending to put their children up for adoption.

The groups cannot be involved with any abortion activities, including referrals to clinics that perform abortions.

While most of the Tri-state is divided on the issue, most people can agree that the new plates are controversial.

"I just don't think it's something that needs to be advertised on cars like that when it's a licensing requirement by the state," said Francine Glassmeyer, of Terrace Park.

Speciality plates cost extra and are strictly voluntary, News 5's John London reported.

Drivers can get plates that spread the word about protecting kids, honoring vets and even their alma mater.

"I don't think it's a Republican issue or a Democrat issue. I think it's a cultural issue," said Bill Myles.

Officials said in order to start the process, a group must collect 1,000 signatures, name a nonprofit beneficiary and take the request to the Legislature.

Planned Parenthood (news - web sites) was in favor of two license plates. "Trust Women" was an option, but it didn't get enough support, London reported.

"I think everybody knows that the choose life language has been appropriated by the Right-To-Life movement. This is definitely a political billboard that we're talking about," said Sue Momeyer, of Planned Parenthood.

While some see politics at work, others say it's all in the message.

"For instance, I doubt the Ku Klux Klan would ever be allowed to get a license plate or anything like that," said Paula Westwood, of Right-To-Life.

The "Choose Life" plates can be ordered online or at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. They will be distributed in mid-May.

linky (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=410&ncid=410&e=3&u=/wisn/20050216/lo_wlwt/2588116)

[Wondertastic]

That one scares me. While I understand what they are trying to do this could be abused.


i can see how that one would be a big problem. the scary thing is that this could easily pass in ohio. they would love a bill that could avoid controversy, change, and thinking differently. hopefully the academic community will put up a huge protest. in the long run, it would seriously damage the quality of the professors at colleges, since most of the good ones would probably leave if this was put into effect.

[seafoamgreen]

I was going to go through each section and make arguements against it, but i'm getting the house cleaned before i go out of town so i'll just make a couple of general points right now.
1. Students do have rights and the ability to appeal grades based on ideological differences, both in their college and in the individual department. A lot of students don't know this, which points toward the need for generalized college introductory courses, that introduce students to campus facilities and services, to be made mandatory. We had this debate in class last week, every student who thought this was a good idea (who were not ideologically motivated) had no idea that they had these rights, or that there was an ombudsperson's office where they could lodge complaints.

2. Students do influence departmental hiring/firing/promotion through course evaluations and other means, like filing complaints and participating in awards that honor good professors.

3. Some departments by their very nature are ideologically biased. Women's studies, literary theory sections of english departments often have leftist bias, because that is where the discipline emerges from. On the other hand, business schools and economic departments are based in free-market (often conservative ideology).

4. There will always be a liberal bias in academic institutions as a whole. If democrats are in power, colleges tend to get more state/national funding, since democrats tend to believe a little more in gov't spending. Republicans place less priority in funding academics and the arts, but would rather give tax cuts. Thats why you see more liberals in academia and more conservatives in the business world: you don't bite the hand that feeds.

5. This law applies to both state institutions and private colleges. I fear that this could hurt private colleges, like Oberlin (where i live) where students attend because of the leftist slant, or religious colleges where students expect a different ideological bias.


I think a student bill of rights might be a good thing, but this one is an ideologically based attack on academia, rather than student rights. If you read some of the writing on Horowitz's website, you will quickly get that idea.