Florida legislators pass bill allowing undergrads to sue profs for teaching evolution

[sfsdfd]

-ohbfrank-
Capitol bill aims to control ‘leftist’ profs
THE LAW COULD LET STUDENTS SUE FOR UNTOLERATED BELIEFS.

TALLAHASSEE — Republicans on the House Choice and Innovation Committee voted along party lines Tuesday to pass a bill that aims to stamp out “leftist totalitarianism” by “dictator professors” in the classrooms of Florida’s universities.

The Academic Freedom Bill of Rights, sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, passed 8-to-2 despite strenuous objections from the only two Democrats on the committee.

The bill has two more committees to pass before it can be considered by the full House.

While promoting the bill Tuesday, Baxley said a university education should be more than “one biased view by the professor, who as a dictator controls the classroom,” as part of “a misuse of their platform to indoctrinate the next generation with their own views.”

The bill sets a statewide standard that students cannot be punished for professing beliefs with which their professors disagree. Professors would also be advised to teach alternative “serious academic theories” that may disagree with their personal views.

<b>According to a legislative staff analysis of the bill, the law would give students who think their beliefs are not being respected legal standing to sue professors and universities.</b>

Students who believe their professor is singling them out for “public ridicule” – for instance, when professors use the Socratic method to force students to explain their theories in class – would also be given the right to sue.

“Some professors say, ‘Evolution is a fact. I don’t want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don’t like it, there’s the door,’” Baxley said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue.

Rep. Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach, warned of lawsuits from students enrolled in Holocaust history courses who believe the Holocaust never happened.

Similar suits could be filed by students who don’t believe astronauts landed on the moon, who believe teaching birth control is a sin or even by Shands medical students who refuse to perform blood transfusions and believe prayer is the only way to heal the body, Gelber added.

“This is a horrible step,” he said. “Universities will have to hire lawyers so our curricula can be decided by judges in courtrooms. Professors might have to pay court costs — even if they win — from their own pockets. This is not an innocent piece of legislation.”

The staff analysis also warned the bill may shift responsibility for determining whether a student’s freedom has been infringed from the faculty to the courts.

But Baxley brushed off Gelber’s concerns. “Freedom is a dangerous thing, and you might be exposed to things you don’t want to hear,” he said. “Being a businessman, I found out you can be sued for anything. Besides, if students are being persecuted and ridiculed for their beliefs, I think they should be given standing to sue.”

During the committee hearing, Baxley cast opposition to his bill as “leftists” struggling against “mainstream society.”

“The critics ridicule me for daring to stand up for students and faculty,” he said, adding that he was called a McCarthyist.

Baxley later said he had a list of students who were discriminated against by professors, but refused to reveal names because he felt they would be persecuted.

Rep. Eleanor Sobel, D-Hollywood, argued universities and the state Board of Governors already have policies in place to protect academic freedom. Moreover, a state law outlining how professors are supposed to teach would encroach on the board’s authority to manage state schools.

“The big hand of state government is going into the universities telling them how to teach,” she said. “This bill is the antithesis of academic freedom.”

But Baxley compared the state’s universities to children, saying the legislature should not give them money without providing “guidance” to their behavior.

“Professors are accountable for what they say or do,” he said. “They’re accountable to the rest of us in society … All of a sudden the faculty think they can do what they want and shut us out. <b>Why is it so unheard of to say the professor shouldn’t be a dictator and control that room as their totalitarian niche?</b>”

In an interview before the meeting, Baxley said “arrogant, elitist academics are swarming” to oppose the bill, and media reports misrepresented his intentions.

“I expect to be out there on my own pretty far,” he said. “I don’t expect to be part of a team.”
<a href="http://www.alligator.org/pt2/050323freedom.php">link</a>

- David Stein

[Ranger]

Just absurd.

[mikehunt]

bad law

[JasonF]

I think recent events have demonstrated that it is time to nuke Tallahassee. I really don't see what choice we have at this point.

[kvrdave]

I think it is silly to be able to sue, but I am not convinced that it is really what this would amount to. I think it is also obvious that a student should not be punished for their own beliefs provided they can show that they have learned what is taught.

I also think that professors who are worth two squirts of warm piss should always make sure that they present arguments against, and present alternative ideas, since there are hardly any ideas which do not have these.

Probably just frustration with the fact that most of academia is very biased to the left, and I can understand the frustration. However, I would repeat that being able to sue as a result is silly, and probably misleading based on the story.

[MrX]

You're going to have people suing just becausee they got a poor grade in the class.

What's really stupid is no one is forcing these people to take biology unless they are a bio major. If you need a science class their are other options available.

[hahn]

The bill itself is stupid. It's a professor's class, he/she chooses what they want to teach or talk about. One student believes something different, and the professor MUST respect that belief, regardless of merit?? Total bullshit. I also find it idiotic that they liken professors to being "dictators". Should we call Army captains, Boy Scout troop leaders, and ministers "dictators" as well?

That the bill got passed 8-2 is just insane. When did the religious right become so pervasive in our government and so fucking brazen? I just hope the U.S. public wakes up in time for the next round of voting.

[DVD Polizei]

I think recent events have demonstrated that it is time to nuke Tallahassee. I really don't see what choice we have at this point.

I say we orbit the planet, then nuke it from outer space. Just be sure.

[DVD Polizei]

The bill itself is stupid. It's a professor's class, he/she chooses what they want to teach or talk about. One student believes something different, and the professor MUST respect that belief, regardless of merit?? Total bullshit.

That the bill got passed 8-2 is just insane. When did the religious right become so pervasive in our government and so fucking brazen? I just hope the U.S. public wakes up in time for the next round of voting.

The bill sets a statewide standard that students cannot be punished for professing beliefs with which their professors disagree. Professors would also be advised to teach alternative “serious academic theories” that may disagree with their personal views.

All in all, it's not as bad as it sounds. Yeah, the Religious Right is insane, but so is the idea they are taking control of this country, and everyone is going to have the KJV and The Catachism shoved up their ass.

Professors are smart. They've been around much longer than the Bush Family. They can use this law in their favor.

Oh, and this:

The bill has two more committees to pass before it can be considered by the full House.

So, let's just chill for a moment. All these Goddamn stories being reported by news agencies aren't even signed into law yet. Big frickin' difference. We've had idiot laws being considered before, and we will continue to do so. The only difference, is the news agencies are getting them in their infancy, before the laws even get to maturity.

[Michael Ballack]

Let's see, reason 5,386 not to live in Florida. My only hope is that somehow this bill will be declared unconstitutional. There is some common sense in florida, right?

[VinVega]

Well, the FL Senate struck down one of the Terri laws, they could continue to retain their senses and vote this one down too. Lets not get too crazy yet. It's not even in the full FL House.

Stupid ass bill though.

[Groucho]

Wow. If I could have sued every professor that I ever disagreed with, I would have been able to have paid for my college education several times over.

[Red Dog]

What a fucked up state.

[Dead]

I find it very interesting that so many people think professors should be allowed to harass students based on thier beliefs.

Seriously, should any teacher, in any discipline, be allowed to harass students for their beliefs? If one day religious individuals take over academia, will you support their "academic freedom" to belittle students who don't adhere to their beliefs?

[Ranger]

If I wear a GOP t-shirt and get shit from liberal co-workers, can I sue?

[sfsdfd]

I find it very interesting that so many people think professors should be allowed to harass students based on thier beliefs.
There are two distinct issues here.
<UL><LI>Professors selecting a student's views and criticizing them. That's obnoxious, but it's been part of the curriculum of higher education for a while (in law school, it's a traditional hazing ritual.) I don't see the harm in it - if you can't withstand some critical review of your positions (even unreasonable criticism), then you don't belong in higher education.

<LI>Professors teaching some theories to the exclusion of others. This is totally independent of the student's beliefs; merely by standing at a podium and giving a monologue, a college professor can be sued. Tampering with this for any reason is outrageous. Can you think of any other instances where someone has a private cause of action against you for your public expression? Libel, slander, trade secret infringement, violation of a court order sealing a public record... all really bad, and really harmful. Now we're including "inappropriately denying the possibility of intelligent design." It's absurd.</UL>By the way, the legislators' purposes plainly belie their intent - which is the second goal. Note the legislative comments:
While promoting the bill Tuesday, Baxley said a university education should be more than “one biased view by the professor, who as a dictator controls the classroom,” as part of “a misuse of their platform to indoctrinate the next generation with their own views.”

“Some professors say, ‘Evolution is a fact. I don’t want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don’t like it, there’s the door,’” Baxley said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue.
Bottom line: Florida Republican congressmen don't like liberal college professors having the ability to push their dogma onto a captive audience. We all know that right exclusively belongs to the federal government.

- David Stein

[JasonF]

If this bill passes, can someone go to Florida, enroll in business school, and sue every professor who doesn't give equal time to Das Kapital? Can someone go to med school and sue the professors who don't want to hear about his theory that patients can be cured by applying leeches to draw out the blood with bad humors in it? Can someone sue the History teacher who devotes class time to the Holocaust, even though the student believes the Holocaust to be a lie made up to gain sympathy for the Jews? Can someone sue his math professor because we all know differential equations are a waste of time, and he should be spending class time on something more interesting, like the probability of drawing a jack on the river to complete a 10-A straight when the turn and the flop are showing A-3-10-A and I've got K-Q suited.

[JasonF]

Bottom line: Florida Republican congressmen don't like liberal college professors having the ability to push their dogma onto a captive audience. We all know that right exclusively belongs to the federal government.

Captive audience? It's been some time since I was in college, but as I recall, I chose what schools I wanted to apply to; once I was accepted, I chose which one I wanted to go to; once I was there, I chose which classes I wanted to enroll in; and once I enrolled in class, I could choose whether or not to show up for a given lecture.

[sfsdfd]

Captive audience? It's been some time since I was in college, but as I recall, I chose what schools I wanted to apply to; once I was accepted, I chose which one I wanted to go to; once I was there, I chose which classes I wanted to enroll in; and once I enrolled in class, I could choose whether or not to show up for a given lecture.
I was being snarky.

But in fairness:

1) "Choosing to show up": Many classes have required attendance. (This is sometimes true in undergrad, but more often in grad schools.) If you miss class, you lose points. In many cases, 10% of your grade comes from class attendance. There are even instances where missing a single class without a documented excuse will cause you to fail. By no coincidence, a disproportionately large share of these classes feature obnoxious and intolerant professors.

2) Choosing which classes to take: Every degree has a required core of classes. Occasionally, one of those classes will only be taught by a single professor (occasionally once a year); you can't earn a degree without taking that class.

3) Choosing which college to attend: This is pretty attenuated. I've yet to hear of anyone choosing (or not choosing) a college based on the reasonableness of the faculty.

- David Stein

[Toad]

I think recent events have demonstrated that it is time to nuke Tallahassee. I really don't see what choice we have at this point.

Please give me warning before this operation so I can leave.

The irony of all of you talking about "Florida legislators" and "Florida professors" is that I go to law school in Tallahassee, and have never even heard of any of this crap. Of course teachers, particularly law professors, emphasize their views...that's the nature of the beast. As long as they don't force you to agree with them, I find nothing wrong with it. I've gotten good grades in classes where my views and my professor's violently clash.

[Toad]

P.S. In Florida, if you don't show up the first day of class, you're dropped.

Beyond that, you must attend 85% of the classes before you CAN be failed.

[Toad]

What a fucked up state.
Ouch - I don't agree with that. We have lots going for us, like....sharks and alligators.

Also, I hope you all noticed this is NOT a law yet.

I'm sure all of our lovely states have some fucked up laws.

[JasonF]

I was being snarky.

But in fairness:

1) "Choosing to show up": Many classes have required attendance. (This is sometimes true in undergrad, but more often in grad schools.) If you miss class, you lose points. In many cases, 10% of your grade comes from class attendance. There are even instances where missing a single class without a documented excuse will cause you to fail. By no coincidence, a disproportionately large share of these classes feature obnoxious and intolerant professors.

2) Choosing which classes to take: Every degree has a required core of classes. Occasionally, one of those classes will only be taught by a single professor (occasionally once a year); you can't earn a degree without taking that class.

3) Choosing which college to attend: This is pretty attenuated. I've yet to hear of anyone choosing (or not choosing) a college based on the reasonableness of the faculty.

- David Stein

In reverse order:

3) What better reason to choose where to go to school than the quality of the professors?

2) Not every degree has requirements; I was part of an honors program that had no requirements, and I could have gotten a degree in General Studies or somesuch with no requirements other than that I complete 120 credits of classwork. As it happened, I completed all the pre-requisites for an Economics degree with a minor in Political Science, so that's what I got, but I could have coasted through with no requirements.

I recognize that the sort of program I was in is the exception; however, most requirements are broad enough so that if you don't like Professor Snarglebottom, you can take Professor Hootentoot. You're typically required to take 15 credits of math/science, for example, not Linear Algebra. And if you want to major in history, and Professor Bugaboo is the only one teaching Intro to European History, and he makes his criticism of Charles Darwin's theories the centerpiece of the class, then I humbly suggest that you should have picked a different school, picked a different major, or complained to the department head. If none of those work, then too bad -- you have to put up with someone whose theories you disagree with.

1) I was being facetious about skipping class (although I did skip quite a few classes as an undergrad).

[sfsdfd]

3) What better reason to choose where to go to school than the quality of the professors?
Since when has "quality" <i>ever</i> meant "teaching skill?" In academia, professorial "quality" is universally defined as recognition in the field for one's research. It's practically a truism that world-renowned professors tend to be horrid teachers.
2) Not every degree has requirements;
:shrug: I don't doubt that <i>some</i> exist, but <i>most</i> have some core requirements. (And if you're going to undergrad just to get <i>a</i> degree, well, you should probably save your time and money. You should be less concerned about professorial "tyranny" than trying to find a job with a generic bachelor's degree.)
And if you want to major in history, and Professor Bugaboo is the only one teaching Intro to European History, and he makes his criticism of Charles Darwin's theories the centerpiece of the class, then I humbly suggest that you should have picked a different school, picked a different major, or complained to the department head.
What if Professor Bugaboo joined the faculty after you started the program?

What if your class schedule otherwise conflict with all of your alternatives, so that avoiding Prof. Bugaboo will require you to delay graduation for a year?

Or what if you just hadn't heard of him until you were a year or two in their degree? It's not like the university publishes a list of obnoxious faculty that you might consider avoiding.

- David Stein

[Toad]

I think everyone knows that quality of professors is an important point for choosing a college at the graduate level. At undergraduate level I'm less inclined to argue that.

[sfsdfd]

I think everyone knows that quality of professors is an important point for choosing a college at the graduate level.
Again, "quality" = "research reputation." You don't join (and stay on) the faculty of Harvard Medical School by being a really good teacher, but by curing a disease or winning a Nobel prize for medical research. And with very strong statistical correlation, those professors regard teaching as an unfortunate necessity that detracts from their research, which is their passion and their life's work.

- David Stein

[Toad]

So what's your argument?

[sfsdfd]

So what's your argument?
My point is that when students complain about an obnoxious professor, it's unrealistic to tell them that they could have avoided him by attending a different school. That was one of <b>JasonF</b>'s comments on the previous page.

And all of this is moot because we agree that students <i>should</i> be forced to sit through the stupid lectures. Not only is this part of the academic experience, it builds tolerance skills that will be useful in future pursuits.

- David Stein

[bhk]

Message to college students everywhere:
Shut up, put your head down and plow through the material. If you don't like the professor's views, read the first sentance again, esp. the first 2 words. Don't let some idiot professor ruin your career because you don't happent to agree with his or her political(or religious) views.

[JasonF]

Since when has "quality" <i>ever</i> meant "teaching skill?" In academia, professorial "quality" is universally defined as recognition in the field for one's research. It's practically a truism that world-renowned professors tend to be horrid teachers.

When I was looking at colleges, I went to the schools I was considering and talked to the undergrads. I got their impressions about what they liked about the school and what they didn't, and you can be sure that their experiences with professors was a big part of those conversations. And that was before the internet -- today, my lazy ass wouldn't even have to get up off the couch and I could find out that Professor Ripsnortle in the FSU Psychology Department is a jerk and I shouldn't go to FSU if I wanted to major in psychology.

bhk -- my message isn't so much "shut up if you disagree with the Professor," it's "shut up if you don't like what the Professor is teaching. He writes the syllabus; you don't." A good Professor will always address reasonable criticsms of his views in a fair manner, but I'm not sure that a bill giving a right to sue bad professors is feasible.

P.S. "Tort reform? What tort reform?"

[Dead]

There are two distinct issues here.
<UL><LI>Professors selecting a student's views and criticizing them. That's obnoxious, but it's been part of the curriculum of higher education for a while (in law school, it's a traditional hazing ritual.) I don't see the harm in it - if you can't withstand some critical review of your positions (even unreasonable criticism), then you don't belong in higher education.

<LI>Professors teaching some theories to the exclusion of others. This is totally independent of the student's beliefs; merely by standing at a podium and giving a monologue, a college professor can be sued. Tampering with this for any reason is outrageous. Can you think of any other instances where someone has a private cause of action against you for your public expression? Libel, slander, trade secret infringement, violation of a court order sealing a public record... all really bad, and really harmful. Now we're including "inappropriately denying the possibility of intelligent design." It's absurd.</UL>By the way, the legislators' purposes plainly belie their intent - which is the second goal. Note the legislative comments:

Bottom line: Florida Republican congressmen don't like liberal college professors having the ability to push their dogma onto a captive audience. We all know that right exclusively belongs to the federal government.

- David Stein


IMO, it doesn't appear to be saying that the student can sue simply because something they disagree with is taught, but because along with that teaching the instructor singles out a student's belief for ridicule. Thinking along the lines of what you said, isn't hazing already illegal?

Do you think that an instructor should be able to throw a student out of a class because they disagree on a subject? That seems like an abuse of power to me. If a religious instructor is ridiculing a student who holds no religious belief (or said "there's the door" to them), would you still agree that the student should have no recourse?

[sfsdfd]

IMO, it doesn't appear to be saying that the student can sue simply because something they disagree with is taught, but because along with that teaching the instructor singles out a student's belief for ridicule.
I think you're giving this a different context. In the example Baxley presented as one "when a student should sue," the professor hasn't asked the student what he thinks and then criticized him. Rather, he said he <i>doesn't</i> want to know what the students think - he doesn't want to discuss it <i>at all.</i> He just wants to teach evolution. He's done exactly the opposite of singling out a student; it's a blanket, impersonal statement.

Also in this exampe, the professor has not asked students to leave if they have different beliefs. The quote is: "I don’t want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don't like it, there's the door." Put another way: "If you can't deal with a class that solely teaches evolution, then this isn't the class for you."

How is this different from, "This class will involve a lot of math; if your math skills aren't sharp, consider taking an easier class?"
Thinking along the lines of what you said, isn't hazing already illegal?
Oh, come on. Now that's a stretch.
Do you think that an instructor should be able to throw a student out of a class because they disagree on a subject?
Of course not, but that's not what's happening here. There's a world of difference between "if you have different views..." and "if you can't deal with my views..."
If a religious instructor is ridiculing a student who holds no religious belief (or said "there's the door" to them), would you still agree that the student should have no recourse?
If the religion teacher said, "If you believe in atheism, then drop this class," that's an abuse.

If the religion teacher said, "If you can't cope with a discussion of religion that assumes the existence of God, then drop this class," that's completely appropriate.

In other words, it's the difference between "if I can't deal with you" and "if you can't deal with me."

- David Stein

[darkessenz]

If the religion teacher said, "If you can't cope with a discussion of religion that assumes the existence of God, then drop this class," that's completely appropriate.

This is a very relevant point because many religious studies courses DO assume the existence of a God or spiritual realm.

[hahn]

IMO, it doesn't appear to be saying that the student can sue simply because something they disagree with is taught, but because along with that teaching the instructor singles out a student's belief for ridicule. Thinking along the lines of what you said, isn't hazing already illegal?

Do you think that an instructor should be able to throw a student out of a class because they disagree on a subject? That seems like an abuse of power to me. If a religious instructor is ridiculing a student who holds no religious belief (or said "there's the door" to them), would you still agree that the student should have no recourse?

You're forming an opinion based on things that didn't happen. #1 The student was not hazed or ridiculed. #2 The student was not thrown out of class.

However, if it were to have happend, I would support #2. If I were the professor of a class, then I get to set the topic, the tempo, and the form of discussion or learning. NOT the student. That is the privilege that I would have earned in getting a job as professor. I don't mind or care if they have a different point of view. But they cannot force me to adjust my curriculum to suit their points of view. The students can choose the class. But the professor gets to choose the topic. That's the way it works. If that class won't fulfill a student's needs, then he/she is free to pick a different class that WILL teach their point of view. Or when they get to be professor, they can teach "Intelligent Design" anyway that they want.

Let's look at a hypothetical situation (because as far as I can tell, this bill isn't even based on any acutal case that's been brought up - just very vague anecdotes) from a different angle than the one you've presented. You've got a professor trying to teach scientifically researched facts that point towards evolution. Then you've got a student trying to get that professor to teach a different theory, one that has its roots in an entirely different topic. One that has no evidence. If there's no evidence, what's to discuss? And yet, the professor is supposed to talk aout something that he may have no experience in, and/or hold no belief in. Is THIS fair to the professor?

Then you have this Baxley character who claims to know about injustices in the classroom, then goes on to declare that "freedom is a dangerous thing" (isn't that a *little* scary???), then goes on to outright call professors, "dictators". Is it just me, or is this a *wee* bit contradictory? Just from reading this newstory, I get the notion that he's a raging media whore with delusions of grandeur. NO ONE is saying you can't believe in Intelligent Design and yet he's making it seem as if religious people are getting persecuted if it's not taught by people who don't believe in it. What a prick.

If every humiliated person gets to sue the humiliator, there's gonna be a lot of lawsuits coming out of the Otter Forum.

[hahn]

Let me make one more thing clear though. I do know that there are asshole professors out there. And some may take things too far or even let their emotions affect their grading. In those cases which can be proven then absolutely, I support the right of the student to try and sue if they really feel it's justified (I highly doubt very many will succeed).

HOWEVER, I am COMPLETELY against legislation (it blows my mind) that just generalizes scenarios and opens up faculty to lawsuits based on their curriculum. Let's look again at the key part that David bolded:
According to a legislative staff analysis of the bill, the law would give students who think their beliefs are not being respected legal standing to sue professors and universities.

If they merely THINK that their beliefs are not respected, then they can sue. And the law would be on their side! HOLY SHIT, how can *anyone* support this?!

[Breakfast with Girls]

Our legal system is fucked.

[kvrdave]

Our legal system is fucked.

And that is the point of this, imo.

But obviously you just want to trample the rights of those who make money on lawsuits that could result from this. -wink-

[Breakfast with Girls]

But obviously you just want to trample those who make money on lawsuits that could result from this. -wink-Fixed!

[SFranke]

Congressmen have always believed the facts of reality can be decided by a vote. This is just one demonstration, and you'll see it again when the next minimum wage law fails to eliminate poverty.

[sfsdfd]

Let's look again at the key part that David bolded... If they merely THINK that their beliefs are not respected, then they can sue. And the law would be on their side! HOLY SHIT, how can *anyone* support this?!
In fairness, even if the newspaper summation is an accurate summary of the law (good chance it's not), "thinking" they're being disrespected only gives them the right to file suit; surely they'll have to prove something more to win some kind of judgment. Of course, the possibility of getting dragged into court on this basis (routinely?), even if the plaintiffs have no chance of winning, would create a huge chilling effect on higher education.

- David Stein

[kvrdave]

In fairness, even if the newspaper summation is an accurate summary of the law (good chance it's not), "thinking" they're being disrespected only gives them the right to file suit; surely they'll have to prove something more to win some kind of judgment. Of course, the possibility of getting dragged into court on this basis (routinely?), even if the plaintiffs have no chance of winning, would create a huge chilling effect on higher education.

- David Stein


In fairness, isn't that a reach since the article says,
According to a legislative staff analysis of the bill, the law would give students who think their beliefs are not being respected legal standing to sue professors and universities.
don't we really need to know a little more about the staff that did the analysis, etc? Personally, I think it is overblown to make the conclusion that students could sue if their beliefs are not being respected. I tend to think this is more of the "The Christians are taking over the country" crap that has gone around since Bush stole the election and disenfrachised everyone who wasn't white, and managed to get the Saudis out of the states just after 9/11, etc.

My guess is that time will pass and this will be something no one remembers, whether or not it passes. If the students really wanted to sue now, they could...it would just take a lawyer to come up with grounds, and sillier cases are heard all the time.

[hahn]

In fairness, even if the newspaper summation is an accurate summary of the law (good chance it's not), "thinking" they're being disrespected only gives them the right to file suit; surely they'll have to prove something more to win some kind of judgment. Of course, the possibility of getting dragged into court on this basis (routinely?), even if the plaintiffs have no chance of winning, would create a huge chilling effect on higher education.

- David Stein

That's the point I was trying to make. Being in the medical field, I've seen too many lawsuits brought against hospitals and doctors. In the cases that are unjustified, usually they don't win. But just having the capability of bringing the lawsuit (with no upper limit no matter what the case) is SCARY as a physician. You just never know what kind of person the patient or the patient's family is. And the public doesn't seem to understand that that fear doesn't make for better doctors. It just causes greater coverups. It causes physicians to practice medicine in a way that fits the system, rather than fitting the individual. They start practicing CYA medicine ("Cover Your Ass") rather than sensible medicine. e.g. A physician who orders a battery of tests that are unneccesary, but he/she can't take that 1 in a million risk that they were wrong. Tests not only increase costs, but it also increases risks of something going wrong (biopsies causing bleeding, radiation causing increased risk of thyroid cancer, etc). Last but not least, it causes a number of doctors to start resenting their patients. All of them.

Likewise, for legislation like this to get passed, I believe has disastrous implications on our higher education system. Imagine if curriculum were influenced by legislation?? This is the danger of what might happen if this legislation actually passes. I'm not so cavalier as kvrdave, thinking that there's very little chance it could pass. It already got through the first round by a landslide. And in today's religious atmosphere, I don't take this lightly and I hope the people in Florida do not also. If it succeeds, it sets a very dangerous precedent.

Baxley wants I.D. taught? Then find a professor who believes in it and is willing to teach it, goddamit. (Pun intended.)

[hahn]

If the students really wanted to sue now, they could...it would just take a lawyer to come up with grounds, and sillier cases are heard all the time.

This is true. However, it is different when you have legislation that favors the student. The judge, if caught between a rock and hard place is more likely to rule by letter of the law. I will be interested in seeing the exact wording, but from the sound of Baxley, it is not going to be benign.

[Breakfast with Girls]

"Thinking" they're being disrespected only gives them the right to file suit; surely they'll have to prove something more to win some kind of judgment.Yeah, that wouldn't be so bad. They sue you, you lose hundreds of hours of work and pay however many tens of thousands of dollars to defend yourself, then if they don't win they merrily skip away and leave you with the bill. I can't imagine why so many give in to extortion (sorry, "settle") instead of fight it out in court.

[sfsdfd]

They sue you, you lose hundreds of hours of work and pay however many tens of thousands of dollars to defend yourself, then if they don't win they merrily skip away and leave you with the bill.
...which is the point I raised in the sentence immediately following the one you quoted.

- David Stein

[JasonF]

You know, it's not like there aren't sunshine laws that require all this stuff to be online. We don't have to guess what the bill says:

A bill to be entitled

An act relating to student and faculty academic freedom in postsecondary education; amending s. 1002.21, F.S.; providing student rights to academic freedom; creating s. 1004.09, F.S.; providing a postsecondary student and faculty academic bill of rights; specifying student, faculty, and instructor rights; requiring the dissemination of copies of the act to state universities and community colleges; providing an effective date.

WHEREAS, the principles enumerated in this act fully apply only to public postsecondary institutions, and nothing in this act shall be construed as interfering with the right of a private postsecondary institution to restrict academic freedom on the basis of creed or belief, and

WHEREAS, the central purposes of a postsecondary institution are the pursuit of truth, the discovery of new knowledge through scholarship and research, the study and reasoned criticism of intellectual and cultural traditions, the teaching and general development of students to help them become creative individuals and productive citizens of a pluralistic democracy, and the transmission of knowledge and learning to society at large, and

WHEREAS, free inquiry and free speech within the academic community are indispensable to the achievement of these central purposes which reflect the values of pluralism, diversity, opportunity, critical intelligence, openness, and fairness that are the cornerstones of American society, and

WHEREAS, the freedoms to teach and to learn depend upon the creation of appropriate conditions and opportunities on the campus as a whole as well as in the classrooms and lecture halls, and

WHEREAS, academic freedom is indispensable to American postsecondary education and, from its first formulation in the General Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure of the American Association of University Professors, the concept of academic freedom has been premised on the idea that human knowledge is the pursuit of truth and that there is no humanly accessible truth that is not in principle open to challenge, and

WHEREAS, academic freedom is most likely to thrive in an environment that protects and fosters independence of thought and speech and, in the words of the general report, it is vital to protect as "the first condition of progress, [a] complete and unlimited freedom to pursue inquiry and publish its results," and

WHEREAS, because free inquiry and its fruits are crucial to the democratic enterprise itself, academic freedom is a national value as well, and

WHEREAS, in Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York, a historic 1967 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned a New York State loyalty provision for teachers with the words, "Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, [a] transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned," and

WHEREAS, in Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957), the Supreme Court of the United States observed that the "essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities [was] almost self-evident," and

WHEREAS, academic freedom consists of protecting the intellectual independence of professors, researchers, and students in the pursuit of knowledge and the expression of ideas from interference by legislators or authorities within the institution itself, meaning that no political or ideological orthodoxy should be imposed on professors and researchers through the hiring, tenure, or termination process or through any other administrative means by the academic institution nor should legislators impose any such orthodoxy through the control of postsecondary institution budgets, and

WHEREAS, from the first statement on academic freedom, it has been recognized that intellectual independence means the protection of students as well as faculty from the imposition of any orthodoxy of a political or ideological nature, and

WHEREAS, the General Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure of the American Association of University Professors admonished faculty to avoid "taking unfair advantage of the student's immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher's own opinions before the student has had an opportunity fairly to examine other opinions upon the matters in question, and before he has sufficient knowledge and ripeness of judgment to be entitled to form any definitive opinion of his own," and

WHEREAS, in 1967, the American Association of University Professors' Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students reinforced and amplified this injunction by affirming the inseparability of "the freedom to teach and freedom to learn" and, in the words of the joint statement, "Students should be free to take reasoned exception to the data or views offered in any course of study and to reserve judgment about matters of opinion," and

WHEREAS, the academic criteria of the scholarly profession should include reasonable scholarly options within the areas of discipline, and

WHEREAS, the value of the life of the mind was articulated by Thomas Jefferson when he stated, "We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it," and

WHEREAS, the education of the next generation of leaders should contain rigorous and balanced exposure to significant theories and thoughtful viewpoints, and students should be given the knowledge and background that empowers them to think for themselves, NOW, THEREFORE,

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

Section 1. Subsection (7) is added to section 1002.21,
Florida Statutes, to read:
1002.21 Postsecondary student and parent rights.--

(7) STUDENT ACADEMIC FREEDOM.--As detailed in s. 1004.09, students have rights to a learning environment in which they have access to a broad range of serious scholarly opinion, to be graded without discrimination on the basis of their political or religious beliefs, and to a viewpoint-neutral distribution of student fee funds.

Section 2. Section 1004.09, Florida Statutes, is created to read:
1004.09 Postsecondary student and faculty academic bill of rights.--

(1) Students have a right to expect a learning environment in which they will have access to a broad range of serious scholarly opinion pertaining to the subjects they study. In the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, the fostering of a plurality of serious scholarly methodologies and perspectives should be a significant institutional purpose.

(2) Students have a right to expect that they will be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects they study and that they will not be discriminated against on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

(3) Students have a right to expect that their academic freedom and the quality of their education will not be infringed upon by instructors who persistently introduce controversial matter into the classroom or coursework that has no relation to the subject of study and serves no legitimate pedagogical purpose.

(4) Students have a right to expect that freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of conscience of students and student organizations will not be infringed upon by postsecondary administrators, student government organizations, or institutional policies, rules, or procedures.

(5) Students have a right to expect that their academic institutions will distribute student fee funds on a viewpoint-neutral basis and will maintain a posture of neutrality with respect to substantive political and religious disagreements, differences, and opinions.

(6) Faculty and instructors have a right to academic freedom in the classroom in discussing their subjects, but they should make their students aware of serious scholarly viewpoints other than their own and should encourage intellectual honesty, civil debate, and critical analysis of ideas in the pursuit of knowledge and truth.

(7) Faculty and instructors have a right to expect that they will be hired, fired, promoted, and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in their fields of expertise and will not be hired, fired, denied promotion, or denied tenure on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

(8) Faculty and instructors have a right to expect that they will not be excluded from tenure, search, or hiring committees on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

(9) Students, faculty, and instructors have a right to be fully informed of their rights and their institution's grievance procedures for violations of academic freedom by means of notices prominently displayed in course catalogs and student handbooks and on the institutional website.

Section 3. The Chancellor of Colleges and Universities shall provide a copy of the provisions of this act to the president of each state university. The Chancellor of Community Colleges and Workforce Education shall provide a copy of the provisions of this act to the president of each community college.

Section 4. This act shall take effect July 1, 2005.

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/loadDoc.aspx?FileName=_h0837__.doc&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0837&Session=2005

Here's the bill status and history page, on which you can find -- among other things -- the Choice & Innovation Committee's staff analysis:
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/bills_detail.aspx?Id=16495&iSessionSelectedIndex=0&sBillSubjectText=academic&sBillNumberText=&iSponsorSelectedIndex=11&iBillListSelectedIndex=0&sStatueAmendedText=&iBillTypeSelectedIndex=0&iReferredToSelectedIndex=0&iChamberSelectedIndex=0&iBillSearchListPageIndex=0

To my eyes, this looks like a lot of feel-good bullshit that doesn't actually create a cause of action, but what do I know?