Delegate Landes’ academic freedom bill that would impose transparency on higher education is a step in the right direction. However, Landes’ bill does not solve all of the problems mentioned in Part 2 or Part 4.
A new program by the Center for Union Facts suggests firing America’s worst teachers by buying out their contracts. While humorous, this program hints at the biggest hurdle facing academic freedom advocates. How do we overcome the huge number of institutionalized liberals?
A saying goes “personnel is policy”. We must influence collegiate personnel by treating higher education like any other institution that benefits from huge sums of public funds. Checks and balances must be used with an emphasis on oversight of personnel.
I will suggest four specific solutions. My sources for these suggestions are Landes’ 2007 academic freedom bill, Dr. Jeremiah McCarthy, Stephen Balch’s essay ‘Where We’ve Come and Where We Should Go: The Route to Academic Pluralism”, and Anne D. Neal’s essay “Reforming the Politically Correct University: The Role of Alumni and Trustees”. Both papers can be found on AEI’s website under Reforming the Politically Correct University.
The American Association of University Professors found in a 2006 study that 45.7% of the American public believes “political bias is either a very serious problem or the biggest problem facing higher education” [Neal]. After highly public incidents like Ward Churchill, the public is with us on this issue. We just have to find a solution. I propose we focus our attention on encouraging activism among legislators, alumni, and board of visitors. I will talk about the role of each area of activism.
1) Legislators: Del. Landes’ bill is based off the principle of government oversight. This basic function of the legislative branch of government must be used to correct higher education from its excesses. I support Landes’ bill.
2) Alumni: alumni give 30% of the total private funding higher education receives [Neal]. This is a huge chunk of money and none of it should be directed to general funds. The money alumni give should be sent to specific areas for specific purposes. Alumni also need to join the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA). ACTA is a group founded in 1995 to promote academic freedom. They will help provide you with ways to influence your alma mater.
3) Board of Visitors (BOV): the BOV is an extremely influential body at each university and examples are plentiful of the positive impact they have caused. The University of Missouri’s BOV instituted two great policies. First, they mandated all Missouri syllabi contain a statement that grading is solely based on academic performance. Second, to ensure this is truly the case they set up a website where students could register complaints if they believe this policy was broken. Grievances are reviewed by special ombudsmen [Neal]. The other function of BOV is to impact the personnel question by forcing oversight of the hiring and tenure process. This duty cannot be solely left up to administrators and academics who may seek to establish a monoculture [Balch].
4) Ombudsmen: As mentioned above in 3, the ombudsmen’s purpose is to establish a clear path for academic freedom complaints to flow. This office would handle complaints from both students and professors who feel wrongly treated. This solution will cost a sizable amount of money (probably $80,000 per university), but the academic freedom problem is so pervasive that a clear method of resolving problems must be created. To reduce costs I suggest the office of the ombudsmen be given other responsibilities and a segment of the funds required to run the office be carved from each schools diversity office budget whose main responsibility should be to protect academic freedom.
Part 6 will conclude this expose on academic freedom. It will include a summary of all posts as well as external critiques.