The Professors

The following links below are to 1) the draft report of the select committee on academic freedom and to 2) the final report. The original report drafted under the supervision of Representative Gibson Armstrong, sponsor of the authorizing legislation (HR 177) for the Pennsylvania Select Committee on Academic Freedom in Higher Education of the Pennsylvania House. The Committee held four sets of hearings between September 2005 and June 2006 at locations throughout the state. It differs from the final report in several crucial respects. The final report was the product of an eleventh hour coup by the Democratic minority on the committee and two Republicans. In the final report, the entire “Summary of Testimony” – in other words the actual report of what transpired – was deleted. This made possible the insertion of a new “finding” to the effect that abuses of students’ academic freedom in Pennsylvania were “rare.” This was duly reported by the press as the central finding of the Committee. But the deleted “Summary of Testimony” (preserved in the draft) explained exactly why claims of such abuses were rare: Prior to the Pennsylvania hearings, students had no rights that would allow them to complain about such abuses and there was no grievance machinery available to them to air complaints about violations of their academic freedom. The recommendations in the final Committee report were also watered down. Every reference to the need to create “student-specific” rights, for example, was removed. This was an attempt to protect university administrators from embarrassment. But it did not prevent them from recognizing that a serious gap in university regulations did exist, which Temple and Penn State proceeded to rectify. The new student-specific academic freedom policies adopted by Temple and Penn State are contained in the Appendix to this report, and are included in the Appendix to the official report as well.

AT ISSUE: Intelligent discussion, debate would have greater effect than food
Ball State Daily News

David Horowitz is no stranger to flying pies.

Wednesday night, the controversial speaker was also subject to another type of pie - the delivery pizza pie variety.

Regardless of humor, the plethora of pies were not appropriate or effective methods of protesting Horowitz's presence on campus.

It's a common occurrence for people to protest against Horowitz wherever he speaks. In terms of maturity and legality, some methods are simply more appropriate than others.

A fake phone order for 15 cheese pizzas was called in to the Wheeling Avenue Pizza Hut under Horowitz's name. When the food arrived, event organizers were confronted with $230 worth of food and confused Pizza Hut employees were left without due payment.

The protestors who think Horowitz's ideals are absurd should know that acts like pie-throwing and ordering $230 of food under false pretenses are no better.

These childish acts are the equivalent of throwing spitballs at your middle school science teacher. It might seem fun, but it's far from productive.

The pizza prank also cost an unaffiliated business labor and supplies, taking focus away from legitimate business elsewhere.

This is not to say that all of Wednesday night's protestors handled things inappropriately. Other objectors took more mature and legal roads to get their point across, including handing out flyers and attending Horowitz's lecture to ask questions.

Even if Horowitz does not have the most popular opinions, legal means of expression are going to have the most effective results. Foolish games involving third parties and felony assault charges are far from effective dialogue.

Horowitz needs a rock-solid challenge, and an fluffy airborne dessert is not the solution. Opponents must enter and dominate an intelligent debate with a logical argument.Only then will Horowitz's critics savor the sweet taste of victory.