ACTA's Must-Reads
« A legislative approach | Main | Those who have to, teach »
A word on facts
Earlier this week, the American Federation of Teachers made news with a report purporting to debunk publications such as ACTA's Intellectual Diversity: Time for Action. As we have pointed out in public numerous times, this report badly mangled the facts. For one thing, many of its critiques of Intellectual Diversity were not about Intellectual Diversity at all--they were about our 2004 student poll, "Politics in the Classroom," conducted by the University of Connecticut Center for Survey Research and Analysis--parts of which are included as an appendix to 2005's Intellectual Diversity. In its rush to attack ACTA, the AFT seemingly could not even be bothered to read our reports long enough to get them straight.
However, it seems the AFT did indeed read our recent press release on HB 1643, state legislation in pursuit of higher education accountability in Virginia. Yesterday, the folks at "Free Exchange on Campus," a consortium of which the AFT is part, posted a blog entry attempting (unsuccessfully) to debunk our press release. Let's quickly peruse some of its factually challenged assertions.
First, the blog post alleges as follows:
Most egregiously, they [ACTA] suggest[s] that the Virginia bill is similar to recommendations passed by the Pennsylvania Select Committee on Academic Freedom late last year...
It is indeed similar, as can be quickly verified. The Virginia bill (and the Missouri bill announced the next day) would require public universities to file reports explaining what they have done to further intellectual diversity. It goes on to suggest--but not require--several areas of possible action.
Where's the similarity? Well, consult page 14 of the Pennsylvania committee's report, to which we link in our press release. It plainly reads, after spelling out numerous areas of possible study for the state's public campuses, "All public institutions of higher education shall make a report of actions taken regarding the recommendations of this Select Committee to the Chairman and Minority Chairman of the Subcommittee on Higher Education of the House Education Committee no later than November 1, 2008." Any way you look at it, the Pennsylvania committee requires a report.
Next, Free Exchange has this to say:
[T]he ACTA press release stated that "Penn State professor Michael Berube, author of What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts? told the media, 'I have no quarrel with the [Pennsylvania] committee's recommendations [and therefore the Virginia bill].'"
In fact, our release never insinuated anything about Professor Berube and Virginia. We simply said that he "supported the action in Pennsylvania," which he did. Then, Free Exchange reprints an e-mail from Berube.
It is indisputable that Berube told Inside Higher Ed that he had "no quarrel with the [Pennsylvania] committee's recommendations." Those recommendations included a report to the legislature. Further, if Berube reads Neal's testimony in Pennsylvania (also linked in the press release on which he was so eager to comment), he will see that in it she endorsed no bill, though he alleged otherwise in his e-mail. The most specific thing she advocated was a reporting requirement, but there was no bill of that kind before the legislature.
Free Exchange further claims that we "attempt[ed] to portray Free Exchange as supporters of the type of legislative mischief the Virginia bill represents." Again, we simply noted that Free Exchange supported the action in Pennsylvania--linking to a detailed blog post explaining how much better the committee's final report was than a previous draft--and noting that the very same report, which Free Exchange presumably reviewed thoroughly, includes a reporting requirement.
What we said was simple: The principles behind the legislation in Missouri and Virginia are similar to what happened in Pennsylvania, and both Free Exchange and Michael Berube said they supported the Pennsylvania result. Pennsylvania is requiring one report in 2008; Missouri and Virginia are looking at annual reports. By any fair reading, that's similar. Now Free Exchange and Berube are crying foul. But is that because of what ACTA said--or because they let their glee over some of the verbiage in the Pennsylvania report obscure the very real reporting requirement?
Justice Louis Brandeis is famous for his statement that "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." Hopefully this post will shed some much-needed sunlight on this debate--and the reports in Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Virginia will do the same for those state's publicly funded universities.
Posted by cmitchell at January 24, 2007 05:06 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/276