Pharyngula

Damn it, no. I am entirely sick of this idea that students should never be exposed to anything they might object to. That's the point of education, to expose you to things you would not have otherwise sought out. I want Horowitz to explain how doing an assignment can somehow injure a student. The only way this could ever be an issue is if the student were to have to do something more active than research and writing; for example, there was a case awhile back in which students not only had to write a letter to their congressperson advocating a particular cause, they were also supposed to mail it. Mailing it crossed the line into activism of something they might not agree with, but the actual writing of the paper was an exercise in taking a viewpoint and researching its issues. I couldn't assign students to become prostitutes for a week and write about the experience, but I certainly could assign them to research and write about prostitution.

Exposure to ideas is not harm.
Even if you disagree with them.

Posted by: Carlie | February 6, 2008 8:18 PM

Great, another state sinking into the quagmire of
safeguarding a person's right to their unassailed demented
conscience over matters of religion and gender assertiveness. Good grief, is the whole country heading
for a massive breakdown due to all these unsettling
human foibles? Why don't we just shut down everything on
the planet and sit around and let the morons gods do all
the work and planning? "Hey, I'm not going to that; my god
will do it and whenever it freaking feels like it"
How about a monstrous planet-wide intelligent designed
tornado to sweep the whole crap right out in to deep space.

Posted by: holbach | February 6, 2008 8:31 PM

Develop a procedure in which a student may present his or her objection to a classroom assignment due to its opposition with the student's conscience.

Way too stupid. What does this BS mean anyway? If a history class discusses the Reformation wars, can a student skip it because they are a pacifist, don't believe in killing, and claim conscientious objector status?

Same with evolution. Students must know the subject. Whether they believe it or not is no business or concern of the university.

Same with a polysci class in terrorism. No one who takes the class would be expected to become a terrorist.

In classes, students are expected to know the subject. They are not required to believe the subject or believe in it. No school can require or force belief, only knowledge.

Posted by: raven | February 6, 2008 8:42 PM

For fucks sake! Facts are not debatable you dumbasses! Leave the colleges alone!

What is with this demand to stick their fingers in their ears and go Nuh-uh!

Damn this is getting retarded.

-A pissed off cat.

Posted by: Cat of many faces | February 6, 2008 8:46 PM

As Carlie so pithily points out, exposure to different ideas will not harm a person. Likewise, a great many people have also remarked that hey, if your world-view or faith cannot hold up to mere exposure to different ideas, or general discussion, then there's not much to it to begin with.

Dear student_b:

Sure, just quit university and get a job. *poof!* no more homework. You will be happier, and so will the staff and students who need the space vacated for someone who wants to be there.

Am I taking your comment too literally? Perhaps. But I have also spent years in college environments (in a variety of roles) and am tired of people whining about how being expected to actively learn things and do assignments is work and unnecessary hardship. Neither you nor anyone else has to be there.

On the flip side, I have spent years tutoring students, include those with various learning or other disabilities, and am heartily against the foolishness of some professors who mistake simply making things hard on students for challenging them, or who believe that "flunk-out classes" are a sign of academic excellence instead of an indicator of poor teaching. I get especially annoyed by those who use the idea of "being fair" to refer to equality and equity but refuse to accept the fact that fairness is also about accommodating different needs.

Posted by: andrea | February 6, 2008 8:55 PM

Why do these shitstains insist on going to school if they hate learning so much?

Posted by: Brownian, OM | February 6, 2008 8:58 PM

I wouldn't think the dumbing down process stops at High school.
The right fought back hard against the advances made in the sixties and seventies, and are winning.
Now they're fighting back against the even remotest possibility that people might actually come together with their cultures and still live.
That is unacceptable.
The power brokers need you to be dumb.
The power brokers need you to be scared and they need you to be divided, not debating, divided.

Posted by: peter garayt | February 6, 2008 9:38 PM

Horowitz isn't looking for academic freedom, he's searching for jobs. A degree from Christian U (if accredited) will place you on the forefront in an exciting career in fast food management. Bush appointees aside, these folks are pissed that their expensive degree is a sham and the money was tossed down a drain.

Horowitz is setting up wingnut welfare. You think Monica Goodling likes the free market value her JD has? Far better to be an academic, one that flits between government, academia, and business. Especially with the tenure. Can't be fired for being stoopid or lazy.

Once Reagan policies made Christian U's accredited, there was a surplus of graduates from these schools. They have to go somewhere. Before the bozos simplly cried in their beers at the local plant about how unfair the academics were. Well, no plant to work at and still the diploma mills churn out the students.

Posted by: Mold | February 6, 2008 9:47 PM

I would foresee this being used by students going through their college hippie phase. Gotta avoid all those icky dissections of the poor little piggies and whatnot.

Posted by: Trey Chadick | February 6, 2008 9:56 PM

I would put this in the Obama thread, except that it's so far down that I'm worried it's mostly dead. It's almost worth having its own thread.

Yes We Can music video(by numerous artists)

Posted by: J Daley | February 6, 2008 10:19 PM

Unintended consequences!

Get ready for even more anti-deer-hunting essays in Freshman Composition class! Take that, conservatives! (I'm not a hunter at all, but still. Zzzzz.)

Does this also mean that we get to shout "Asshole!" and throw rice and toilet paper at the screen during Ben Stein's interminable narration in Expelled? I mean, this whole back-to-the-Bi-bull movement is its own Time Warp. Dammit, Janet!

Posted by: Kristine | February 6, 2008 10:26 PM

Develop a procedure in which a student may present his or her objection to a classroom assignment due to its opposition with the student's conscience.

I'm having trouble even figuring out where this would apply.

Learning about evolution? No. One is required in some classes to understand the theory of evolution. Whether one believes it or not is not required.

Setting up graven images of other gods and worshiping them? What class was that?

Witchcraft? Is that in the family studies department?

The barbacueing a pig class? Presumably vegetarians, Moslems, and Jews wouldn't take this class which, in any case, doesn't exist except at cooking schools.

A class in fundie Death Cult beliefs? I could see objecting to this one. OTOH, these are certainly required at private Xian fundie schools but I have no intention of enrolling at Bob Jones, Oral Roberts, or Liberty.

A class in torturing suspects? Won't the CIA and the military object? In any case, my university didn't offer one.

This bill looks like a nonsolution looking for a problem to solve.

Posted by: raven | February 6, 2008 10:40 PM

Does this mean someone can object to a teacher setting an assignment on the holocaust on the basis that, if it never happened according to what they think, they shouldn't have to do it?

Posted by: Joseph O'Donnell | February 7, 2008 12:22 AM

I think you are missing the biggest idiocy of the legislation:

"1 (c) Establish campus policies that ensure speakers are not
2 prevented from speaking due to hecklers or threats of violence;"

By the squid, this seems to run counter to what a student might consider, "acting in good conscience". Now, I'm not advocating violence, but heckling? I think if there was more heckling during any one of W. Bush's State of the Union Addresses a lot of things might never have happened.

Before that the legislation says there must be a diversity of speakers and panels. I recall not so long ago that some liberals were talking about equal time on radio and television, and the righties were up in arms about the whole thing. And Horowitz was on FOX NEWS NETWORK (fairly unbalanced) to criticize the whole idea. Well call me an elitist but that sounds like hypocrisy.

We may be a free country and all but I've never heard that we have to obey the whims of an individuals conscience in an educational setting. That would require a professor has knowledge about every aspect of a subject in case a student objects on the basis of conscience. What might this objection entail? Who knows? But you better know how to answer it. The onus isn't on the student to show something as ephemeral as "conscience", but the professor to answer it. In short, classroom chaos.

Posted by: B8ovin | February 7, 2008 1:11 AM

The hypocrisy of the Right, who long decried political correctness but are now promoting campus speech laws, is truly staggering.

Posted by: Tulse | February 7, 2008 1:42 AM

The beautiful state of Washington,

Grotesquely marred and disfigured by the Discovery Institute. Their reality distortion field has corrupted any pleasant associations I might have had.

Posted by: jw | February 7, 2008 2:33 AM

Ok. I am a WA citizen, and I just emailed my rep, expressing my concern.

Posted by: Zachary Kroger | February 7, 2008 4:24 AM

Develop a procedure in which a student may present his or her objection to a classroom assignment due to its opposition with the student's conscience

1) Student tells professor s/he shouldn't have to show learned knowledge of X because such content conflicts with student's narrow sectarian religious interpretations.

2) Professor says tough shit, that's the content of the class.

3) Student walks to admin office, withdraws from class, is more careful to discover course content before enrolling next time/transfers to university that spoon-feeds dogma instead of teaching facts.

Posted by: ben | February 7, 2008 5:05 AM

Indeed: Horowitz, and Dennis Prager, and Ben Stein, and I'm sure there are others. Hofjude ("Court Jew") is an ugly term, but sometimes ugly shoes fit.

I don't think they're necessarily selling out if that's what you're implying. Keep in mind that much of the woo attributed to Christianity is also in the Jewish religion. Everything in the first five books of the Bible (creation, the Exodus, some genocides, and draconian laws) constitutes one of the holy books of Judaism, the Torah. Therefore, I don't think it's too counter-intuitive that Jewish fundies in mostly Christian nations might form alliances with the more powerful Bible-thumpers against common enemies such as Muslims, liberals, and atheists.

Posted by: Brandon P. | February 7, 2008 5:41 AM

Develop a procedure in which a student may present his or her objection to a classroom assignment due to its opposition with the student's conscience.

Posted by: SeanH | February 7, 2008 7:00 AM

Fernando Magyar. That was an argument from authority as far as I can see. And I am not talking about religion, but now that you mention it when it comes to scientific issues such as evolution people on the left are generally absolutely correct.

When it comes to social issue such as race and sex (P.Z. used the strawman of a mysoginist in a feminist class himself) then people on the left are generally absolutely wrong, just my opinion, but when I criticise feminists I use logic, not my dating record.

What I am arguing here is that sensible centrist people must ignore the fundies on both sides no one of them has the absolute truth on everything, I.E. not left fundies are not right on everything and the right fundies wrong on everything or vice-versa. This is also known as the principle of the golden mean or the bhuddist principle of the middle way. The middle is the path to truth, not the extremes on either side.

Posted by: ArgusEyes | February 7, 2008 7:18 AM

Geoff@#16:

Not to fear. Wikipedia sez the your beloved David Horowitz of FightBack! fame was born two years earlier than this knuckledragging David Horowitz. I was thinking the same thing. How long was that show on? Like, maybe, 4 months? In 1985?

Also, has anyone thought how this legislation would be a boon to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I could get out of any science labs, because I would just say the results only represent the wishes of the FSM, not an illustration of any physical laws.

Also (again) why is the state legislature passing laws on the administration of their universities? It seems like grossly innaproppriate micromanaging of a system that has its own proper bueracracy. I'd think it would be possible to object to this on those grounds alone, before you even engage the issue.

Posted by: inkadu | February 7, 2008 7:32 AM

As far as universities go. Because they are entrenched with your particular brand of fundamentalism then you see nothing wrong. Why, that's just normality.. Rubbish.

Ever wondered why intellectuals (aka learned people) tend not to espouse racist and sexist views like yourself? Think about it and you'll probably find a good answer. Here's a hint: "liberal conspiracy" does not count as a good answer.

Posted by: Brandon P. | February 7, 2008 7:39 AM

ArgusEyes, Crikey I'm already late for work but let me try to clarify. My point was that a Professor of Biology at a US University is in a position to be able to recognize what Horowitz's ilk are attempting to accomplish, which is to pass legislation that will undermine the raison de etre of the academic process itself. And regardless of his political leanings he should speak out loudly about such an attack. I won't disagree that there are people on both sides of the political divide that are fundamentally (no pun intended) blind to reality. However I don't think that is the case here.

Posted by: Fernando Magyar | February 7, 2008 7:41 AM

ArgusEyes PZ was clear in his feminist example. So ArgusEyes explain yourself and use specifics.

Having the strength of your convictions because there is every sane, sensible, and, more importantly, reality based factual reason to hold them is not fundamentalism, nor is holding a personal opinion because you weighed and balanced things as objectively as you can to came to a conclusion for yourself. Fundamentalism as thought of on this blog I believe relates to the holding and promoting nonsense regardless of the utter lack of evidence for holding and promoting the nonsense. Fundamentalism is especially odious to those of us that would like to enhance understanding, knowledge, and usefulness of actions toward useful purposes. Intellectually honest people acting honestly and thoughtfully can come to different conclusions especially when the conclusions are really just meant to be further hypotheses. And such honest people can come to different conclusions for themselves simply because value systems can be different. I may like a flashy car; you may not. Jane might get an abortion; Mary may not (even though Mary may be much more voraciously pro-choice politically speaking than Jane).

Again, what we react to negatively is the application of fundamentalism (holding and promoting the nonsense). So again please be specific and tell use where and when PZ has held and promoted nonsense.

I do agree by the way that there are fundamentalists (fundamentalism) right and left, etc. Yup comes in all flavors. Do not quite catch that wave re: PZ though. Assist me; as the older woman said "where's the beef?"

And PS -- the earth is flat - the earth is round.. therefore the correct answer is it is hamburger shaped .. I mean using your middle is the path to truth argument. It has merit in negotiations, you know the old win-win scenario, but facts dictate (or should dictate) where conclusions fall in science and other disciplines of a rigorous nature -- and yes it is often very one-sided.

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | February 7, 2008 7:47 AM

I wonder how this bill would effect such Washington institutions as:
The Catholic University of America
or
Faith Evangelical Seminary (a Lutheran training college)
Would they have to allow the teaching of Islam, atheism, pro-life issues etc?

Posted by: Dom | February 7, 2008 7:57 AM

I agree that granting students the authority to challenge classwork based on philophical, religious, political or other personally held positions is a real problem. Teaching evolution with some students in the class being biblical literalists is a great case in point. That being said, I also have a real problem with postmodernism as applied to history, anthropology, many other disciplines in the humanities, and of course, science; indeed, almost any discipline outside of literary criticism. The Sokal affair, and Gross and Levitz's "Higher Superstition" point out just how bankrupt are the ideas, and how disingenuous the applications, of this academic movement (and I'm thinking of the GI tract here). There has to be some way for people throw the BS flag when warranted.

Posted by: Immunologist | February 7, 2008 8:17 AM

As usually happens when I debate left wingers some pretty horrible insults have been chucked my way in fact I used to be insulted by these things until they became part of a de-facto response to people (oh, I'm a racist again am I - yawn). I don't like to spend too much time on this but when one is attacked they must defend. I am English, and atheist (the worst kind - the ones who say God definitely doesn't exist which is not a centrist opinion is it?), I support abortion, was raise catholic, have a science degree, love science, defend evolution and scepticism to death. I'm not trying to egg up my credentials but to chuck stuff out there without knowing me is lame.

On insufferable evilness -> There are the standard ones. Racist and sexist. Well, I didn't say anything about race so I would like to know where that one came from, Brandon P said that so explain yourself you liar.

Feminism -> Brandon P again, says I oppose feminism. Liar. I said "but when I criticise feminists I use logic" verbatim. I didn't say I oppose feminism, I oppose SOME feminist ideas. And this is what I'm getting at, it's all or nothing to the fundamentalist you have to accept it all and can never admit that you're wrong. Seriously dude, you're a douche. Stop hurling hideous insults at people on the internet.

On Strawmen -> The idea that a centrist must literally sit in the middle of ALL views is a strawman argument, a strawman is a twisted parody of the arguers original argument. This strawman is perpetuated by people citing scientific examples, e.g. I must exactly between flat earthers and round earthers is absurd. Science comments on what is true. There is only one truth. Politics is far from science.

It doesn't mean that I can't hold a particular view with passion. It merely means that I know that I am not right on everything and I accept that whilst feminists may be right about many things that they are also wrong about many things. They do, after all, represent only a certain viewpoint. The fundamentalist will deny that other views may be valid, will not accept any criticism of feminism and attack those who disagree with vile accusations and bile. Case-in-point. Brandon P.

Posted by: ArgusEyes | February 7, 2008 8:58 AM

There are the standard ones. Racist and sexist. Well, I didn't say anything about race so I would like to know where that one came from, Brandon P said that so explain yourself you liar.

This is what you said earlier:

When it comes to social issue such as race and sex (P.Z. used the strawman of a mysoginist in a feminist class himself) then people on the left are generally absolutely wrong, just my opinion, but when I criticise feminists I use logic, not my dating record.

We liberals are the ones who fight against racism, in case you haven't noticed. Anyone who thinks that is "absolutely wrong" is racist.

Posted by: Brandon P. | February 7, 2008 9:15 AM

I second Justin's (#5) recommendation to listen to the debate. Steinberger does a great job exposing Horowitz for what he is.

Posted by: MH | February 7, 2008 9:23 AM

I admit, I am one of those professors who Horowitz has gone after - one who has opined on topics not relevant to the course subject. However, I am not (yet) on his list. I have been meaning to send him a letter ratting myself out to him, because I belong there.

A couple of years ago, when I was teaching an Organic chemistry class, I said something about "this is what you could do while reading the comics in the school newspaper." That is fine. But THEN, I went over the line, as I lamented, "And speaking of that, why did they take out 'Rubes'? That was the best comic they had!"

(Rubes is a paler version of Far Side by Leigh Rubins - it's not bad, far better than the other crap in our paper)

It had nothing to do with Organic Chemistry, but oh yeah, I went there.

Come and get me, Horowitz! I am providing my opinion on topics unrelated to the subject in class! It's WRONG, I tell you, WRONG...

(btw, how is what I did any less wrong than if I commented on politics?)

Posted by: Pablo | February 7, 2008 9:38 AM

Arguseyes...you again. I met you on ERV. Misogynist Troll.

Posted by: Barklikeadog | February 7, 2008 10:19 AM

Face it, you just want professors to be the only ones permitted to share their subjective, poorly formulated opinions, or even falsified "lessons".
(I'm teasing, mostly.)

Trey from comment#17, if you don't have some kind of pang of conscience about whether there is utility in killing any fellow mammal, or at least *see why others might*, you seriously need to go take yourself some ethics classes. Or at least visit a pet store.

I think there is a valid role for students to question individual assignments (for a variety of reasons). I think it can enrich the learning process rather than "subverting it". I think most good professors welcome that kind of input (if offered respectuflly) anyway. But I agree a law like this could result in highly ridiculous outcomes.

Posted by: Becca | February 7, 2008 10:22 AM

Shorter Nobody:

"unless you let people like me with no clue wax nonsense related or unrelated to the subject matter you are not playing fair because we are so out-matched when it comes to facts and reason and intellectual honesty"

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | February 7, 2008 10:30 AM

Re: #38

You P.Z. are a fundamentalist of the left ...

Unsubstantiated claim. Provide supporting evidence.

Posted by: CortxVortx | February 7, 2008 10:39 AM

I teach allied health professions at a Community College. This term, I have an older student who has proclaimed in class, among other things, that:

MRSA in UK hospitals is the result of socialized medicine.

Antibiotics do not exert selection pressure on bacteria; that is evolution, which is one of several theories, only a theory, and is rejected by many scientists.

Viability begins at conception, and early termination of pregnancy is not an acceptable option when dealing with hypereclampsia. Physicians and staff that participate in this should be jailed.

I put forward the basic structure of a socialized medicine system, as posited by conservatives, when he agreed, I illustrated for the class that the VA medical system fit all of the characteristics. Point to teacher.

I led the class in a discussion of proper use of terminology, very important as they develop into health care professionals. What is a theory? What is a hypothesis? What is proof? Is evolution an unproven hypothesis, or a robust theory? Point to teacher.

I haven't yet addressed his third statement. Next fall, in the neonatal advanced course, perhaps.

The "conservative" student's response to all this was to criticize the tenure process, the lack of control that the college can exert over tenured faculty, and the power of the "Teachers Union mafia" over education. Horowitz be damned; now I have his talking points to deal with, too.

Pass a law like the one proposed in Washington, and we have the potential to turn out a therapist who doesn't acknowledge the science that underlies his profession. I'll have to entertain his "'cause God did it" explanations for physiologic development of the fetus, and not give test questions about viability of a neonate, because, after all, life begins at conception. I'll have to entertain his comments regarding health care systems and structures, and watch as he benefits from the very system he denigrates. All so that I don't offend a student's conscience.

What in the name of Elvis ever happened to college as a place to challenge your preconceptions, and maybe gain an understanding of self, your role and place in a larger society, and if you're lucky, get a glimpse at understanding a small part of a very large world?

If I didn't love reaching out to and teaching those who question me from a factual perspective, and relish the arguments...

Posted by: CC teacher | February 7, 2008 10:56 AM

I love how you talk about "fundies" as if they are a feature of the right. Fundie is a cute term for a fundamentalist and you can get fundamentalists of all stripes. You P.Z. are a fundamentalist of the left, and I don't know how you can act like there are rightwing nutjobs and then there are sensible people like you.

As far as universities go. Because they are entrenched with your particular brand of fundamentalism then you see nothing wrong. Why, that's just normality.. Rubbish.

Posted by: ArgusEyes | February 7, 2008 6:10 AM

Oh, boy! An idiot was sent to entertain us all! Woohoo!

Posted by: Moses | February 7, 2008 11:08 AM

I'm a Washington resident, and I was unaware of this idiocy (there's so much nowadays, it's hard to sort through it all). Thanks. I'll let my representatives know.

Posted by: Sid Schwab | February 7, 2008 11:14 AM