I think the situation is tricker than is depicted here. College teachers are employees of the institution that hired them, just as journalists are employees of a publisher. No one would suggest that journalists have free reign to report however they please, and that the publisher has no right to control. The fact is the publisher has absolute right to control.
Teachers have no inherent right to teach in any manner contrary to the polices of their employer, the educational institution. If a teacher doesn't like the restrictions, they can quit.
But that's not the end of it. The educational institutions generally receive all or part of their funding from government. That makes the government THEIR boss. But wait, there's more. The citizens are the boss of government. Ultimately, the citizens pay the taxes that pay the teacher. That means the citizens have, thru their government, an entirely legitimate right to censor both the institution and the teacher.
Any teacher who doesn't like that arrangement is free to work apart from any taxpayer funding. Institutions that don't want to be regulated can likewise decline government funding. Some have in fact done this.
It bothers the hell out of me that school librarians claim harassment and totalitarianism when taxpayers and parents insist on certain books being removed from the library. The librarian is an employee of these people. Ultimately, they decide, not the librarian. The librarian that doesn't like this is free to work at a library that is free of government funding.
The sick irony of all this is that taxpaying citizens and parents are made out to be the bogyman for having their own opinions and values, while over-indulged institutions and teachers claim superior rights that simply do not exist, either constitutionally or ethically.
Do you then believe, that the purpose of the state-owned university is to teach what the government believes to be the correct truth about all subjects? Is that what universities are for? If so, no rational person would go to a public university. But I do not believe it is the function of the university of Michigan, or Berkeley, to teach only government approved ideas. I can imagine that some States might find value in funding a university in which professors have the freedom to seek out the truth, and impart it to their students. in fact, I think most people think that’s what universities are supposed to be doing and I think that’s what most people think state-owned universities are designed for.
There are no state owned universities. They are taxpayer owned, and citizens are the final arbiter.
At no time have I suggested that the taxpayers are smarter than, or less smart than, anyone else. What I'm saying is that it is their choice, because it's their money. Nothing is more arrogant than to force people to give you money so that you can use it to force compliance from them.
No one is suggesting or has suggested that people using their own money can't teach (or learn) anything they want. That has never been the issue. Governments represent all of us, albeit poorly. It's ironic as all get-out that people and governments are criticized for trying make sure that all sides get equally represented at taxpayer funded universities. The irony is that the teachers and the universities, the very people who claim to be open minded, are the ones pushing this censorship.
Let's do a thought experiment: If everyone was satisfied with today's education, would this even be an issue? No. So, why is it an issue? Discuss among yourselves...
Good points. The enforcement of Title 9 uses the rationale you've outlined. Namely, all institutions that recieve federal funding are beholden to federal rules.
I think the situation is tricker than is depicted here. College teachers are employees of the institution that hired them, just as journalists are employees of a publisher. No one would suggest that journalists have free reign to report however they please, and that the publisher has no right to control. The fact is the publisher has absolute right to control.
Teachers have no inherent right to teach in any manner contrary to the polices of their employer, the educational institution. If a teacher doesn't like the restrictions, they can quit.
But that's not the end of it. The educational institutions generally receive all or part of their funding from government. That makes the government THEIR boss. But wait, there's more. The citizens are the boss of government. Ultimately, the citizens pay the taxes that pay the teacher. That means the citizens have, thru their government, an entirely legitimate right to censor both the institution and the teacher.
Any teacher who doesn't like that arrangement is free to work apart from any taxpayer funding. Institutions that don't want to be regulated can likewise decline government funding. Some have in fact done this.
It bothers the hell out of me that school librarians claim harassment and totalitarianism when taxpayers and parents insist on certain books being removed from the library. The librarian is an employee of these people. Ultimately, they decide, not the librarian. The librarian that doesn't like this is free to work at a library that is free of government funding.
The sick irony of all this is that taxpaying citizens and parents are made out to be the bogyman for having their own opinions and values, while over-indulged institutions and teachers claim superior rights that simply do not exist, either constitutionally or ethically.
Do you then believe, that the purpose of the state-owned university is to teach what the government believes to be the correct truth about all subjects? Is that what universities are for? If so, no rational person would go to a public university. But I do not believe it is the function of the university of Michigan, or Berkeley, to teach only government approved ideas. I can imagine that some States might find value in funding a university in which professors have the freedom to seek out the truth, and impart it to their students. in fact, I think most people think that’s what universities are supposed to be doing and I think that’s what most people think state-owned universities are designed for.
There are no state owned universities. They are taxpayer owned, and citizens are the final arbiter.
At no time have I suggested that the taxpayers are smarter than, or less smart than, anyone else. What I'm saying is that it is their choice, because it's their money. Nothing is more arrogant than to force people to give you money so that you can use it to force compliance from them.
No one is suggesting or has suggested that people using their own money can't teach (or learn) anything they want. That has never been the issue. Governments represent all of us, albeit poorly. It's ironic as all get-out that people and governments are criticized for trying make sure that all sides get equally represented at taxpayer funded universities. The irony is that the teachers and the universities, the very people who claim to be open minded, are the ones pushing this censorship.
Let's do a thought experiment: If everyone was satisfied with today's education, would this even be an issue? No. So, why is it an issue? Discuss among yourselves...
Good points. The enforcement of Title 9 uses the rationale you've outlined. Namely, all institutions that recieve federal funding are beholden to federal rules.