This NY Times article reports on author David Horowitz‘s efforts is spearheading a campaign to end what he calls discrimination against conservative faculty and students in America’s universities. Mr. Horowitz has written an “academic bill of rights” that asks universities, among other things, to include both conservative and liberal viewpoints in their selection of campus speakers and syllabuses for courses and to choose faculty members “with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives.”
This strikes me as an incredibly bad idea. First, can you imagine the difficulty that universities would have in defining what are “conservative” and “liberal” viewpoints? For example, my various viewpoints are regularly categorized as either conservative or liberal to the point that it is virtually impossible for me to determine with any degree of reasonable precision what constitutes a conservative or liberal viewpoint.
Similarly, Mr. Horowitz’s latter recommendation sounds good in theory (“fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives”), but attempting to enforce such a guideline fails miserably in reality. Any speaker or teacher with good judgment who desires to persuade will necessarily incude different perspectives to his or her position. On the other hand, a speaker or teacher who does not have such good judgment may not. Should a university attempt to control the free flow of ideas within its community simply because the advocate of a certain position does not possess good judgment? Sometimes, even people who possess poor judgment have very good ideas.
Mr. Horowitz would be much better served in his efforts to begin an endowment program at various universities that would attract professors who would teach and perform research along the lines that he desires to promote. That would be putting his money where his mouth currently is. His “academic bill of rights” smacks of attempting to legislate good judgment, which is usually an abysmal failure.