Slashdot Mirror

This story makes me think of David Horowitz and his skewed take on academic freedom. I encourage everyone to read or listen to him debate prof. Peter Steinberger of Reed College in which Steinberger explains precisely why approaches like this go directly against the principles of academic freedom: http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/2210/ReedCollegeSteinbergerDebate082806.htm

Audio version here: http://www.reed.edu/reed_magazine/winter06/columns/noc/steinberger.html

Anyone who believes there is some kind of nefarious systemic bias in academia towards liberals needs to read or listen to this debate transcript between David Horowitz and Peter Steinberger at Reed College: http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/2210/ReedCollegeSteinbergerDebate082806.htm

You need to be very careful when you approach events like these. For example, David Horowitz was invited to Reed College to participate in a "discussion" (read: debate) his "Academic Bill of Rights". See: http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive/ 2006/August2006/ReedCollegeSteinbergerDebate082806 .htm. (Yes, TL;DR, I know. But the Ask Slashdotter might want to check it out)

Accusations of bad faith were flying all around. The consensus after the fact was that there was a miscommunication with David Horowitz. The event was billed as a debate, but he thought he could wing it and showed up essentially unprepared. Steinberger was very prepared.

The point being, accusations of bad faith were launched at an event where both speakers should have been prepared to debate. It would only be worse to try to seriously debate someone who isn't prepared.

1) The chip will offer many obvious benefits at some (possibly great) cost to privacy. Implantable mobile phones are one possibility. Dispense with bluetooth headsets and just have the whole thing embedded subdermally. The fact that GPS is enabled by default would be a minor price to pay.

2) You can avoid carrying an ID chip. But you won't be able to obtain a job in any government agency or with any company that does business with the government. It would be a simple checkbox added to any application filed by a company as part of a contract application. Add in the occasional GAO audit to make sure such companies are accurately reporting the chipping of their employees and you'll have a huge incentive for companies to make sure their employees are chipped.

The second scenario is how I see Horowitz' Students' Academic Freedom (http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/) and other ideological government policies being implemented.

I can attest to the ideological, left-wing bias of academia from my experiences as both and undergrad and law school. Not only are there no openly conservative professsors on the faculty of my current law school, but on the contrary, 90% of the professors are vocieferous liberals/communists and teach all of the materials from this point of view. Now, it's okay if that is what you belive in, but it is unethical for a professor to stand in front of a class and teach as if there are no other sides to these issues. There is no open discourse. There is no open marketplace of ideas where these issues can be discussed. There is only censorship and the oppression of ideas in the name of politicall correctness.

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive/ 2005/August/NYTimesLawisaDonkey082905.htm

1) Rush Limbaugh, ESPN;
2) Trent Lott, US Senate/US mainstream media;
3) Dr. Laura Schlessinger, gay-right groups;
4) Conservative faulty & speakers, every college campus;
5) Bernard Goldberg, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller.
6) Ann Coulter, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller.
7) Sean Hannity, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller.
8) Al Franken, oh wait, nevermind.

I look forward to seeing how the /. mods view censorhip here.

Another good link on this subject is Students for Academic Freedom