ACTA's Must-Reads
« Not in Hamilton's footsteps | Main | The core scores »
Bias is as bias does
A new study from the AFT attempts to discredit studies arguing that there is a pervasive political bias among America's college and universities professors--and is accused of being biased in its own right. InsideHigherEd.com summarizes the study, which devotes significant space to ACTA's recent "How Many Ward Churchills?" report. That report, which surveyed online course descriptions and syllabi at the country's top colleges, universities, and state systems, is flawed, the report claims, because course descriptions don't tell us what actually happens in classrooms, and because the sample size was too small to make useful generalizations.
The IHE article also outlines some of the more salient criticisms of the new AFT study, including some pointed words from ACTA president Anne Neal:
Anne Neal, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (which issued two of the reports reviewed), criticized the AFT for commissioning the study. Via e-mail, she said: "Faced with mountains of evidence from ACTA and others documenting a troubling lack of professionalism in the academy, AFT chooses, instead, to shoot the messenger. In doing so, far from undermining ACTA, it discredits itself. AFT's study is severely flawed. It is filled with inaccurate and tendentious interpretations--for instance, framing the debate in terms of politics rather than professional standards outlined by ACTA; applying irrelevant 'scientific' standards to textual analysis; and offering such shoddy research that the sections on ACTA totally confuse and conflate two different reports, rendering the critique invalid, even laughable."She added: "In the face of troubling evidence of a politicized classroom, has AFT conducted any studies of its own to see if there is problem? Taken concrete steps to explore the atmosphere in the classroom? The answer, of course, is no. AFT's report is not science--it's propaganda."
Neal's response to this study is reminiscent of her comments on last summer's AAUP study on the American public's view of the academy, which revealed a similar eagerness to discount rather to engage the criticisms of groups such as ACTA.
As Neal noted then, the academy does not do itself any favors when it discounts evidence of a problem instead of taking that problem seriously. It comes across in such moments as irresponsible and arrogant--not as credible, earnest, and reliable. The AFT's money would have been better spent trying to fairly and honestly assess what is happening in classrooms. Publishing studies that encourage an academic circling of the wagons does nothing to foster constructive debate, to honor the imperative of accountability, or to improve our collective understanding of higher education.
Posted by acta online on January 22, 2007 at January 22, 2007 08:48 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/272
Comments
A few things:
"As Neal noted then, the academy does not do itself any favors when it discounts evidence of a problem instead of taking that problem seriously."
The correct word choice would have been "...when it discounts evidence of a problem instead of taking that evidence seriously." ACTA, among others, are the ones assuming a problem exists. So what the AFT has done with their new study is they have taken the evidence seriously by subjecting 8 studies which claim evidence of liberal bias, liberal indoctrination, etc... to reasonable scientific standards. In fact John Lee, the man who conducted the survey based his criteria on "a 2006 statement by the White House Office of Management and Budget about objectivity in research" according to Inside Higher Ed.
By claiming the studies by ACTA and others can't have questions asked of them such as, "Do the conclusions follow logically from the evidence?" and "Has the author guarded against assumptions that could introduce systematic bias into the study?," Anne Neal further exemplifies the "researchiness" Free Exchange has been talking about.
Posted by: Free Exchange on Campus at January 22, 2007 11:20 AM
FUNNY
Being forced to pay AFT service fees, I am amused by allegedly "non-partisan" groups that use the U.S. Postal Service's "non-partisan" rate to send pro-Democrat material at election time.
IMHO, such groups are hardly in any moral or authoritative position to claim "objectivity."
If the AFT/NEA/AAUP are so certain of their great qualities -- let them use the billion-dollar pension funds of their members (I know, I'm paying the dues) to start up its own colleges.
Quit sponging off taxpayers -- show some courage, if any is available.
Posted by: C.T. Bigsby at January 22, 2007 01:59 PM