posted
This bill passed the other day at Princeton University in response to the Establishment.
Any thought or comments?
Princeton University Student Bill of Rights
Believing in the need to affirm the importance of the principles of academic freedom and intellectual diversity within the University community, and seeking to further promote an intellectual environment of free inquiry and free speech without intimidation of any given set of beliefs, the undergraduates of Princeton University do hereby declare their desire for the following principles to be observed:
1. We affirm that students should be solely graded on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study; professors must never allow a student's political affiliation or religious beliefs to negatively affect his/her academic performance.
2. Teachers are entitled to freedom in teaching their subject as they see fit, but not to the point of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination, or to the exclusion of other opinions or viewpoints. Such actions represent a violation of the principles of a student's academic freedom and the principles of free and open sharing of ideas.
3. It is an abrogation of the University's commitment to the pursuit of truth for the hiring, firing, promotion or granting of tenure to ever be based on their political philosophy, public notoriety, or personal connections. Instead, all faculty hiring and the granting of tenure should be based solely on their contributions to academic discovery.
4. Selection of speakers, allocation of University, and/or USG funds for speakers programs and other student activities must observe the principles of academic freedom and promote intellectual pluralism.
5. An environment conducive to the civil exchange of ideas being an essential component of a free university, the obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature or other effort to obstruct this exchange will not be tolerated.
While we have not the power to declare the above binding or irrevocable, it is the position of this body that any act in violation would contravene the "fundamental principles of free discovery" to which Princeton University is committed.
Posts: 117 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think these rights are poorly constructed.
For instance, "tenure should be based solely on their contributions to academic discovery"? This suggests research should be the sole criterion for tenure. Shouldn't their ability to teach well be an issue too? Or, for that matter, shouldn't the professor's willingness to respect the student bill of rights be a factor?
#4 is totally vague, not explaining what "the principles of academic freedom" and "intellectual pluralism" are. It is also possibly conflicts directly with #5, where it says the obstruction of invited campus speakers will not be tolerated. What if the speaker who is invited is of the sort that opposes intellectual pluralism?
#2 prevents science teachers from refuting Intelligent Design Theory, because it disallows the exclusions of other "opinions or viewpoints". I think education necessarily entails the rejection of one viewpoint or another to some degree. Teachers need to be free to do so as they see fit, or they will not be able to teach very well, or at all.
#1 suggests that student should be graded "solely" on the answers and knowledge of subjects, but this seems to exclude many other important things that could be graded - such as a student's ability to perform the roles a certain field demands (like performing a lab), a student's participation in class, etc. - which is much more than simply what they know and can answer on a test.
Underlying all of this is also a mistaken assumption that education can and should be separated from a teacher's beliefs. I don't think this is possible, or desireable. Beliefs, if well thought out, should be integrated with one another. To restrict one's ability to fully discuss how different beliefs, including political and religious beliefs, connect to one another is to weaken one's ability to fully consider all the implications of a belief. It hurts understanding.
I think a more fundamental demand on professors should be made: Promote critical thinking rather than indoctrination. Teach students to think for themselves, to see the reasoning and fact that supports the things they are learning, and to take a philosophical approach towards all subject areas, rather than teaching students to reflexively accept things and making them unable to see beyond a certain viewpoint. And to respect other beliefs, meaning not that one should consider all other beliefs as acceptable, but rather that one should consider each as a possible alternative that can only be rejected insofar as reasoning and fact dictates that it should.
I think this is true whether we are talking about religious and political beliefs, or subject-specific beliefs. The approach to this may vary, but I think as long as this intent is being followed, then professors are doing their job.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres: not excluding other opinions or viewpoints does not mean including all other opinions or viewpoints.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: professors must never allow a student's political affiliation or religious beliefs to negatively affect his/her academic performance.
I'm thinking that should be "professors must never allow a student's political affiliation or religious beliefs to negatively affect his/her evaluation of the student's academic performance." If the belief is affecting the actual performance, that's not something the professor is responsible for.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Tres: not excluding other opinions or viewpoints does not mean including all other opinions or viewpoints.
What do you see as the difference? I think there's a hard exclude (we won't discuss <insert theory> because it is wrong) and a soft exclude (just don't bring it up, and hope no one else mentions it). The message from both of these is that the theory has no weight, either because it's explicitly taught to be wrong or because it isn't worth the professor's time to teach about it. In both cases I think the theory is being excluded from consideration.
I think a central aspect of education is to exclude bad theories and ideas. The concept of "intellectual pluralism" is very strange to me. While there are subjects on which intelligent people can disagree intelligently, that can not hold true for all subjects.
As for the actual bill of rights, I don't think there is a single right ennumerated. There are lots of restrictions on faculty and administration, but not a single affirmative student right.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The most basic thing to note is the difference between some and all. The statement in no way implies all other viewpoints be presented in order to avoid violation; some, or even one, would be sufficient to meet its requirements.
Thus there would be no need to teach intelligent design, the teacher could present some other view on evolution they disagree with.
And then there's that reading it as Tres seems to suggest is indefensibly silly; including all other viewpoints in any given class is literally impossible, and I have a hard time imagining the principle was intended to involve that.
As for your soft exclude, note the statement does not require they teach other viewpoints (except insofar as necessary to avoid 'indoctrination'), merely that if a student brings something up they do not rudely dismiss it.
Including at least some other viewpoints shouldn't be hard, though; even the most doctrinaire professors I've had have always done at least a brief survey of different perspectives in the field, even if they express a clear personal preference for one or some.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:3. It is an abrogation of the University's commitment to the pursuit of truth for the hiring, firing, promotion or granting of tenure to ever be based on their political philosophy, public notoriety, or personal connections. Instead, all faculty hiring and the granting of tenure should be based solely on their contributions to academic discovery.
How is a person's contribution to academic discovery evaluated? And whatever the criteria is, aren't we highering professors with an eye to anticipate their future work, in addition to, and not merely as an award for past academic endeavors.
"Contributions to academic discovery" admits so many interpretations that it seems a silly clause to add, in addition, discovery for the sake of discovery seems an unworthy goal, "contributions to Princeton's role in the betterment of mankind," is a bit more my speed. But I'm not at Princeton. If they want to spend their energy discovering how many licks it takes to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop, it's their endowment.
quote:Teachers are entitled to freedom in teaching their subject as they see fit, but not to the... exclusion of other opinions or viewpoints.
I guess the question is whether this implies the exclusion of allother opionions or any other opinions. My initial reaction was definitely of the "any" type, which is why I thought the principle was insupportable. If it's of the "all" type I think it's largely meaninigless.
I appreciate the sentiment of the principle, having sat through one very indocrinating lecture from someone in Women's Studies, where "other viewpoints" were dealt with quite rudely IMO. However, I don't think the phraseology of the "right" is in anyway indicative of the true nature of the principle.
I would have written something like: "Students have the right to have their opinions discussed in an intellectually open and rigorous manner." Obviously not right still, but I think it's an improvement over what they've written.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Were this a legally binding document, I'd agree that the rights are poorly worded. However, this is much more a mission statement or assertion of principle and as such, legalistic nitpicking isn't really important.
Of course, to me as a Penn alum, this is just more proof that Princeton sucks (I'ts true. We even have a song about it.) When I hear about things like this, it makes me wonder if other people are having remarkably different college experiences than I did. I can't imagine a prof getting away with demonstrating obvious political or ideological bias at the school without getting reamed. If one of my profs tried to pull that crap on me, I'd have them up before an academic review board before the ink was dry.
What kind of pussilanimous students must you have where people could get away with this? Oh, wait, we're talking about Princeton.
edit: My Princeton bashing is intended in the spirit of humorous collegiate rivalry. I figure I should specify this, because everyone knows that Princeton people, besides sucking, are all little whiners.
I'm less complaining about the lack of legalistic rigor (despite my logical quandry about "any" or "all") than I am about the ideology behind what was written. To my reading these students are asserting illogical and contradictory regulations on everyone, including themselves. Where did you get this originally, Dr. Evil? Is it an official student government, some student advocacy club or just a bunch of morons at a dining club who thought it'd be cool to stick it to the establishment?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Princeton College Republicans put the whole thing together. I have a feeling they were tired of being put down by the Establishment. Posts: 117 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres: not excluding other opinions or viewpoints does not mean including all other opinions or viewpoints.
"No, we aren't excluding your viewpoint. We simply are not including it in any of our class discussions."
Would any conservative student seriously accept this explanation for why a more-liberal professor is refusing to discuss conservative ideas? Or vice-versa?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax #2 prevents science teachers from refuting Intelligent Design Theory, because it disallows the exclusions of other "opinions or viewpoints". I think education necessarily entails the rejection of one viewpoint or another to some degree.
Let's face it we are all intelligent people, we know full well that Intelligent Design is simply a backdoor way of sneaking religion into the discussion of science. But that shouldn't prevent us from examining the science of it and putting it into perspective.
So, I don't think 'Intelligent Design' should be refuted, but I very much DO think it should be put into perspective.
And here is the perspective-
The Religious Right is not the first group of people to consider this possibility. Scientist have given due consideration to the possibility that an Advanced Alien Lifeform visited earth at a critical period in it's history and sowed the seeds of intelligent life here. That is valid scientific speculation. But never more than speculation since there is no way to prove it.
So, the concept of 'Intelligent Design' is a valid field of inquiry. However, the current crop of 'Intelligent Design' proponents are not trying to prove their theory, they are trying to disprove the 'Theory of Evolution' by pointing out that Evolution is a flawed theory; there are holes in it. But that proves nothing, since all our knowledge of science is incomplete and filled with holes.
For example, the scientific model (atomic model) that explains chemistry fails to explain electricity, and conversely, the model that explains electricity fails to explain chemistry. Our knowledge of chemistry and electricity is incomplete; it's filled with holes. But that doesn't stop us for using both chemistry and electricity effectively.
The same is true of the Theory of Evolution, it has great gapping holes in it, but there is sufficient evidence that it is a valid area of scientific inquiry, and can be applies as science as is. At some point we will fill in the holes and modify the theory as needed.
It is also possible that at some point in the future we will unearth evidence that an Alien Lifeform visited earth and interferred with our evolutionary path. That we really were 'intelligently designed'. Though I seriously doubt that we will ever see evidence that the 'intelligent designer' was the ultimate supreme spritual being. I leave that last aspect to 'faith' which is where it belongs.
Sorry, I know I'm hopelessly off topic and also entering into a 'hot-button' subject, but I had to get that off my chest. It is worth discussing 'Intelligent Design' in the classroom, but when you frame that in the likelihood that an Alien Race Bio-formed the earth, the Religious Right is probably not going to be too happy about it.
I do however agree with the statement -
Tres: not excluding other opinions or viewpoints does not mean including all other opinions or viewpoints.
Class time is limited, you are there to learn the central accepted appliable aspects of a given subject. Alternate lines of inquiry and discussion are valid, but time limits prevent discussing every hairbrained theory on the market. So simply, limited time prevents the inclusion of every possible theory.
You are there to learn the accepted aspects of a core subject. Even under the best of circumstances and with the very best of teachers, information is alway excluded. As an example, Freshman Physics or Freshmant Economics is more basic, more information is exlcuded, than Graduate Studies Physics or Economics.
Further, you could spend your entire life in deep study about these subjects and never know all there is to know. So, like it of not, information is alway left out as a realistic and practical consideration. But within the bounds of realistic and practical, all relevant aspect of a subject should be covered.
I think this document, flawed as it may be, is intended to reaffirm free and open speech on college campuses. Far too much genuine free speech is being suppressed on college campuses by Political Correctness and liberal values. You are allowed to speak against the war, but heaven help you if you support the President and speak for the justification for war. You can support the Young Democrats Club, but woe unto you if you dare to vocally support the Young Republicans Club. You can have liberal speakers on campus, but heaven help you if you try to book a conservative speaker.
I think or hope that it is this suppression of free speech in the name of Political Correctness that this Bill of Rights is trying to stop.
And just for the record, I am a Liberal (but rational) Democrat.
posted
They don't get much choice other than to accept it. Of course, it would behoove a professor to discuss something a student brought up, but unless a professor is being particularly egregious, there's essentially nothing students can do (for good reason), regardless of the professor's political persuasion.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I can see this as a backdoor approach to demanding creationism and other political policies be taught at college levels, not be educated professors, but by the loudest students who have been fed talking points. Remember, in our society, whoever yells the loudest must be right. Classroom discussion on evolution, cosmology, history, sexuality, just about anything, could become a battleground between ideological students expressing their "right" to disagree, and professors doing their job.
Indeed what test could not be answered with repeating the theological phrases? Why is the orbit of Neptune different than that of the Earth? "Because God wills it to be that way." What is X for the question 5X+2X=(3Y/(4X+7Y)) "Whatever God wishes it to be." Mark them wrong and you are breaking their rights.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: For instance, "tenure should be based solely on their contributions to academic discovery"? This suggests research should be the sole criterion for tenure. Shouldn't their ability to teach well be an issue too? Or, for that matter, shouldn't the professor's willingness to respect the student bill of rights be a factor?
In my experience at a large research university (where I manage the tenure process) academic discovery is by far the most significant criterion for tenure. Teaching is considered, but is not generally a deciding factor.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Huh, I wasn't even aware this had happened... perhaps because USG has no power whatsoever to enforce these measures.
I wonder what Robbie George,conservative politics prof at Princeton and member of the "President's Bioethics Council," thinks of this. From what I understand, he teaches his courses in the foundations of law by expressing his own views and asking students who disagree to object. I'm not sure if that passes the litmus test of rule #2 or not.
Obviously students shouldn't be graded, evaluated or stopped from speaking based on the ideology they express, so I agree with these parts of the bill. Although, what is a teacher supposed to do if a students starts expressing racist sentiments that are hurtful to the other students and to the classroom environment?
Sometimes a student holds opinions that are expressly about his classmates. He might think his classmate's religion is morally corrupt, that his race is impure, that his sexual practices are morally abhorrent, or that he's a dick for treating his girlfriend badly. Which of these opinions are OK to express in class? Not an easy question!
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: There are Republicans at Princeton?! Surely you jest. How about a linky.
I grew up in Princeton; it's a very preppie/yuppie environment. There were many George Bush Sr.-type Republicans in town, and they certainly had their share on campus.
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a related topic, let me share my brief refutation of the notion that there is some sort of widespread political litmus test for tenure or for hiring professors.
If you look at the stats, of course, they scream out that there must be. Because such a high percentage of faculty identify as liberal. But think about this. Pretty much everyone who ends up working in a university first goes through a graduate program in their discipline. And I bet if you took surveys of graduate students, they would be just as liberal on average as professors, if not more.
So if conservatives are somehow weeded out, it must happen at the level of graduate admissions. But that would be impossible. The only thing an admissions committee sees is your test scores, your rec letters and a sample of your academic writing. Nothing in this will clue them in about your political views. There's no way for grad students to be weeded out based on politics, but grad school is where the selection seems to occur.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Try here for the link. Honestly, I linked into this information and found it interesting and I don't have the time to go looking to see where I got it from exactly. But I do believe it was from this site.
quote:They don't get much choice other than to accept it. Of course, it would behoove a professor to discuss something a student brought up, but unless a professor is being particularly egregious, there's essentially nothing students can do (for good reason), regardless of the professor's political persuasion.
Well, they can claim it violates their student rights, and complain - which seems to be the point of this proclamation by the Princeton undergrads.
quote:Class time is limited, you are there to learn the central accepted appliable aspects of a given subject. Alternate lines of inquiry and discussion are valid, but time limits prevent discussing every hairbrained theory on the market. So simply, limited time prevents the inclusion of every possible theory.
But this just shows that some things DO need to be excluded from class discussion, if only for the sake of time. You could call it "not including" instead of "excluding" if you want, but I don't think many students will see a difference between the two in practical situations. If a student wants to start talking about some pet theory of his for half the class period, which fellow students of mine did frequently in my college classes, then professors should not be required to talk about it. They should be able to say that that particular belief or theory is not covered in their course, and move on. And if Bill O' Reilly wants a certain set of beliefs to be included in a certain course, professors should be free to decide to exclude those beliefs anyway, if those professors don't deem the beliefs relevant.
More importantly, professors need to be free to reject beliefs too. If someone says the earth is flat, a professor needs to be free to say that they are wrong. A student can't just claim his student "rights" are violated if he is taught something he doesn't believe is true, or doesn't want to believe is true. This too is a way of excluding beliefs that is necessary - the outright rejection of those beliefs.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: In my experience at a large research university (where I manage the tenure process) academic discovery is by far the most significant criterion for tenure. Teaching is considered, but is not generally a deciding factor.
Which I think is a travesty. Do you believe it's a good way of granting tenure? Why or why not? I've never understood why teaching is so devalued. Or rather, I think I understand perfectly why teaching is so devalued (research is more lucrative for the university) and am apalled that most major universities have adopted this stance.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see anything wrong with granting tenure primarily on research qualifications. This is very different from employing or rewarding primarily on research qualifications.
Tenure is a status intended to free one from many considerations so one has the academic freedom to pursue research projects. Hence the primary consideration for it is research qualifications.
Plenty of faculty members may be hired on their ability to teach, and may be amply rewarded for it. It would make sense to provide a moderately similar status for teachers.
However, were someone given tenure who didn't really do research, and their knowledge of the field gradually became inadequate to teaching, there would be no real way to fire them. Researchers, however, are specifically evaluated on their constant acquisition of new knowledge, so this is much less of a problem.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tenure is a status intended to free one from many considerations so one has the academic freedom to pursue research projects. Hence the primary consideration for it is research qualifications.
Why, though, do professors need to be granted freedom from considerations to pursue research projects but not to pursue improved teaching, or greater university civic dialogue, or ... Why is research afforded special priviledge?
In practice, most universities do tie compensation and advancement primarily to research and movement along the tenure track. I don't know much about hiring practices, but my understanding that they are also research centered. As I understand it, pre-hires always pitch what sort of grant proposals they'll be making and to whom. That's not solely what they're graded on, but it is a significant factor.
As for the "falling out of touch" idea, I think that's a problem with tenure in general. The university can never protect itself from dinosaurs while granting tenure.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The professorial track is generally research-oriented, at least at research institutions (there are teaching schools, btw, that don't do much in the way of research), but every university I'm familiar with has instructor positions, often well-paid, that they use to fill gaps in the instructional ability of their professors.
Regarding the need to be free from many considerations, research is distinct from teaching in that it often involves extremely long-term expenditures of personal time in pursuit of often indistinct goals and can often result in no particular benefit despite considerable inputs. Without protection (only granted to those vetted for ability and willingness to keep up research, of course), researchers are less able to maintain the freedoms necessary to pursue such aims. Teaching, however, may be pursued without as much protection. A teacher's performance in a given semester is unlikely to be affected by whatever will change in five years time, up to and including perhaps not having the position then.
And of course, there is also that without research there would be little new to teach in many fields.
Of course one cannot protect completely from dinosaurs, but someone who does no research is virtually guaranteed to become a dinosaur on any evolving subject.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why, though, do professors need to be granted freedom from considerations to pursue research projects but not to pursue improved teaching, or greater university civic dialogue, or ... Why is research afforded special priviledge?
I'd answer that with another question: Why is going to schools with great researchers but poor teachers considered better than going to schools with great teachers but poor researchers? Why do we (particularly employers) consider graduates of research-oriented universities to be smarter than graduates who went to schools where they were actually taught better? If the purpose of school is to be taught, why do so many kids pick the schools with the best researchers over the schools with the best teachers?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'm sure we're seeing the same thing just from different angles. What's your discipline, BTW (just out of curiosity)?
Most instructors I know would like to be tenure-track and are, in general, not compensated on a similar pay scale to professors. I resonate strongly with the idea of "long term expenditures of personal time in pursuit of often indistinct goals and can often result in no particular benefit despite considerable inputs." But the tenure process exacerbates this problem more than anything, because (prior to becoming tenured) professors must be focused on concrete, short-term results. Publish or perish and all that. I believe the protection of faculty for the purposes of unconstrained discovery is noble, but I think the tenure system as it stands is often if not always corrupted by financial goals of the institution.
I know a professor who has spent several years honing and refining the syllabus for a particular class. The results are dramatic. I'm sure he'd like to be tenured, and thus free of troublesome constraints, in order to more fully develop the course. Unfortunately the university devalues his contribution. He's struggled in developing the course with exactly the same problems of indistinct goals and unobservable benefit that researchers have, but he hasn't been awarded similar benefits.
And, as a last point, staying current in my mind is less about performing research than being active in the community of interest. Reviewing papers, attending conferences, creating courses, etc. are all methods to prevent dinosaur-osity without actually "doing research."
Tres-
Exactly my point. Our society is sold on the idea that research is more fundamental than the other aspects of teaching, learning and education. I don't know why.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Our society is sold on the idea that research is more fundamental than the other aspects of teaching, learning and education. I don't know why.
Not so.
My cousin just finished his college admissions process (he ended up going to McAllister). He only applied to a single University, as a fall-back. All the rest were small liberal arts colleges. This sort of attitude is pretty common.
And at these small colleges, research is not a significant part of what gets you promoted.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the reality check, Destineer. Here I am, perched on my high hobby horse, and you totally deflate me (to mix some metaphors). Perhaps the things I'm describing are more pervasive in science and engineering.
Although (and this is not a well-formed thought, so watch out), the point could be made that liberal arts professors compensations compare poorly with those of their science and engineering collegues. It could be ascribed (as I do the (IMO) flawed tenure system) to an inappropriate institutional fixation on technical research.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly the pay ceiling is lower at LACs than it is at research universities. You're not going to find a professor at a liberal arts college who makes as much as Cornel West or Brian Greene. I'm not sure how the average figures compare.
What do you think makes the fixation on research inappropriate at large universities, given that their number-one goal is to promote new research? If you, as a student, want to attend a school whose number-one priority is undergraduate teaching, you can do what my cousin did and apply to small four-year places.
Now, in my opinion, the quality of teaching at most big-name universities is very good on average, but extremely mixed. Perhaps there should be more requirements on the minimum amount of teaching competence required for professors; definitely there should be more training. But one problem with holding people to high standards is the difficulty inherent in applying any standards. Especially given the well-documented correlation between tough grading and negative evaluations from your students.
Moreover, what would you do with someone who you knew would make brilliant contributions to quantum gravity or biomedicine, but was just hopeless as a teacher?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
