I've been following the saga of the so-called "Academic Bill of Rights" since David Horowitz started pimping it without cease as a solution to our nation's Academic ills.

As of this writing, Horowitz's manifesto been proposed as a bill in Ohio's Senate (SB 24), which has caused no little uproar amongst students and faculty alike. And, as usual, the people who would support this legislation are using the at-times hysterical opposition to it as proof positive that they're doing the right thing...

But if only it were that simple! I find myself in a curious position on this: on one hand, I like the idea - however flawed the execution - but on the other I distrust the true motives of those who are bringing it to us.

So while I wish we'd had something like it in the nineties, when I was attending college and running an anti-censorship group, I can't support the proposed bill. As it's currently written, it's too vague in two very important places, and this vagueness almost guarantees its abuse. And if it doesn't, I have more than a vague suspicion that the architects of the bill will abuse it, anyway: in fact I'm quite certain this bill was created to stifle speech, rather than protect it.

But since I agree in full with at least 9/10ths of the proposed bill, I'll be happy to stand behind it - if and only if the troubling text is removed.

My problems lie with half of (B) and all of (C). Respectively:

"Faculty and instructors shall not use their courses or their positions for the purpose of political, ideological, religious, or antireligious indoctrination."

"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."

These are fine ideas, in theory, but the devil is in the details.

For example: what exactly is "indoctrination?" If an instructor is talking politics in a political science class, and goes out of his way to give his side of things, is that "indoctrination," advocacy, or just presenting the opinion that the instructor is most comfortable with - his own? And if he tries to turn students on to new ideas or concepts in that field, either in or outside of class, is that "indoctrination," or just being a mentor?

Likewise, where is the line to be drawn in determining whether matter is "controversial" or not? And why is this needed, anyway? If instructors are "persistently" bringing matter that has "no relation to their subject of study," and "serves no legitimate pedagogical purpose" into class, the real problem is why they're wasting class time. This matter should be handled by the instructor's department, not the ideology police.

Those substantive quibbles aside, I'd normally applaud the idea of a bill like this. But let's not kid ourselves: this modest proposal hasn't been handed over to grant true academic freedom, but rather to try and squelch support of the "hate-America Left" off at the collegiate level. Any noise David Horowitz might make about supporting free speech and academic freedom is just that - noise.

(If you make a habit of reading Frontpage Magazine you'll soon see what I mean.)

Further proof of the ill intentions behind this bill come from the primary sponsor, Sen. Mumper. He's gone on record as saying that the bill is needed to stand against the influence of "Democrats, liberals, or socialists or card-carrying Communists" who, according to him, comprise 80% of academia.

Yeah, there's some real freedom there, huh?

I feel that the answer is never less speech, but more. There should be a golden mean whereby instructors and students are free to speak their minds, whether on campus or in the classroom. And in an ideal academic setting, this would occur without either side being unjustly penalized for being unpopular, or "out of step."

The bill, in its current form, cannot guarantee this state of being. In fact, it actually works against this golden mean. And that's why I say it should be rewritten

As for "radicals" in the classroom, I also agree that it's never pleasant to hear a professor say something you strongly disagree with. I had my share of that at Ohio University, too, from time to time. And so long as we're taught by live, flesh and blood people, and not machines, you're going to get that.

But these experiences teach students an invaluable skill: how to debate issues with people in charge of something, like a classroom, in such a way that they still respect you after you tell them they're wrong. If a student leaves college without mastering this skill, that graduate will be ill-prepared for what awaits.

In that sense, the "tenured radicals" of academia that people like Horowitz like to go on about are actually doing their students a perverse favor: my advice to students is to advantage of it while they can.