ACTA's Must-Reads
« AAUP Watch | Main | Quote of the day »
Failed disposition
Earlier this summer, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) voluntarily expunged the language of social justice from its grading guidelines. The decision was made in response to ongoing, serious criticism by ACTA and other organizations about the legal and ethical ramifications of assessing prospective teachers' "dispositions." As ACTA and others noted, dispositions-based assessment amounts to a political litmus test for teachers; as cases across the country have revealed, it has been used to sanction and even expel conservative students from ed schools.
NCATE's move was an important one, but, as ACTA president Anne Neal and others noted at the time, it was also largely symbolic. NCATE may have altered its language--but that does nothing to alter policies and practices already on the books at ed schools across the country.
If that sounds like a hair-splitting sort of criticism, consider the case of San Jose State ed school student Stephen Head, who not only appears to have failed a course because he refused to conform his views to those of his professor, but who has also failed to convince an extraordinarily misguided court that there is anything wrong with political litmus tests in academe. FIRE's Samantha Harris parses as follows:
On Monday, a federal court in California issued what I find to be a disturbing opinion addressing the freedom of conscience of an education student at San Jose State University (SJSU). Plaintiff Stephen M. Head is an education student at SJSU who self-identifies as "libertarian or conservative" and as a Christian. He filed a pro se lawsuit (that is, representing himself without an attorney) against the university alleging, among other things, that his professor had violated his free speech rights by telling him that he was "unfit to teach" because of comments he made about immigration policy and by forbidding him from citing critics of multiculturalism in any of his classwork. (In writing the opinion, the court took all of plaintiff's factual allegations as true and construed them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Therefore, for the purposes of criticizing the court's reasoning, I am also assuming that plaintiff's factual allegations are true.) Although plaintiff's lawsuit did not include a grade dispute, plaintiff did receive an "F" in said class, a grade he believes was due to his refusal to stop espousing unpopular views.
The court held that the professor's statement that plaintiff was "unfit to teach" did not infringe on his rights and, rather, was protected by the professor's free speech rights. What the court utterly failed to address is the fact that the professor's speech is evidence that the plaintiff was being evaluated on the basis of his political and ideological beliefs, in violation of his constitutionally protected (SJSU is a public university) right to freedom of conscience. The court also found no problem with the professor's "ban on the use of sources critical of multiculturalism"--a clear violation of plaintiff's right to academic freedom. SJSU's own policy on Academic Freedom and Professional Responsibility states that "as teachers, faculty members...allow students to take reasoned exception to or to reserve judgment about the data or views offered in a course of study." Similarly, SJSU's Statement on Student Rights and Responsibilities provides that "students are free to take reasoned exception to the data or views offered in courses of study" and that "the professor shall take no action to penalize students because of their opinions."
As the U.S. Supreme Court has so eloquently stated, "[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). This right of private conscience was just dealt a serious blow by a court seemingly unconcerned by the serious allegation that a public university is requiring ideological orthodoxy among its education students.
NCATE may have revised its wording--but as this case suggests, the impact of that wording is still intensely and damagingly felt by ed school students who fall afoul of institutional orthodoxy. The court's ruling is astonishingly cavalier about San Jose State's apparent imposition of a loyalty oath on aspiring teachers; it can and should be challenged. Meanwhile, SJSU could stand to take a long, hard look at the classroom environment on its campus. Is the problem there confined to one class? One teacher? One professional school? What exactly happened between Mr. Head and his professor, and what does it reveal--if anything--about the intellectual and political climate of the university? The court must handle the case as an isolated incident, but the university need not and should not assume that it is. If Head's allegations are true--and, as Samantha Harris notes, the court accepted them as true--they are egregious enough to raise questions about what sort of institutional environment fosters, tolerates, and ultimately accepts teachers who behave as his allegedly did.
Posted by acta online on August 21, 2006 at August 21, 2006 08:00 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/206
Comments
Yet one more (of thousands) of examples of how the K-16 Public Education Monopoly (PEM) should be defunded.
When you have an overwhelming political bias of more than 30:1 toward one of two major political parties -- you have an unfixable problem.
Standard Oil was broken up by trust-busters. Defense contractors are routinely investigated by anti-trust prosecutors. IBM was investigated for 15 years. Microsoft has been investigated, non-stop, for 15 years.
And the PEM thinks itself above reproach? Please -- no one is that lame and stupid.
Break up the PEM now. Force them to compete, by a date certain. Allow parents to select ANY private alternative that is accredited.
If the PEM is that good and great -- they will survive and thrive.
If not -- why should the PEM be subsidized? Why should failure be subsidized?
Posted by: L.L. at August 22, 2006 10:28 PM