Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!think!mit-eddie!thakur From: thakur@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Manavendra K. Thakur) Newsgroups: soc.college Subject: Re: Accuracy In Academia (AIA) Message-ID: <3331@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> Date: Sat, 27-Sep-86 03:15:42 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.3331 Posted: Sat Sep 27 03:15:42 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 01:54:58 EDT References: <530@meccts.UUCP> Reply-To: thakur@mit-eddie.UUCP (Manavendra K. Thakur) Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA Lines: 153 I have been following this debate for some time with greate interest. I'd like to speak up and put in my two cents worth. In article <530@meccts.UUCP> mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) writes: > > Actually I haven't been very impressed with the nature of this whole > debate. On one hand, I see the proponents of AIA who claim it will > stop "DISINFORMATION". Yet I haven't seen any messages really defining > academic disinformation. Nor have I read anything on the methodology > to use to make sure you don't squelch academic freedom. Nor have I seen > any messages showing that there are any situations which can't be solved > internally. > > On the other hand, there are the critics of AIA who seem to view > AIA is a group of Nazi thugs who want to eliminate all academic freedom > in the US. The contention seems to be that the power of the AIA is > so strong that harassment is perfectly acceptable. (Even to the > point of using dial-up modems to harass their toll free number.) > > None of the critics have bothered explaining why AIA is that powerful, > or what exactly AIA has done that they are so incensed about. I > seriously doubt that even the strongest AIA critics on here > would use such tactics against 99% of the thousands of organizations > in this country that they are disagree with. > Just a moment; the very point that no real charges of disinformation have surfaced and that no problems have been found that cannot be addressed internally point to some deeper and perturbing reasons for the existence of Accuracy in Academia. First, I'd like to point out that I've known about AIA since July 1985 when The Washington Post published an article on them. A bit of history and context will give ample reason why everyone should be concerned about the effects of AIA. First, AIA is an offshoot or spinoff of (or in any event closely based on) Accuracy in Media, an organization founded by Reed Irvine (or something like that) that publishes from time to time a newsletter about the alleged abuses and mistakes made by the media. Another similar group is Fairness in Media, a right-wing group in North Carolina that "monitors" the local press for abuses. They have ties to Jesse Helms, if I remember correctly. But back to Accuracy in Media: their examples of editorial misconduct have consistently been explained as editing errors or typos or what have you. The few instances where they found legitimate errors, the newspapers published corrections or retractions. The basic point is that this organization exists to remove the "liberal bias" that they find so prevalent in the news media. The news media works very hard to maintain its integrity and fairness (except for the gutter press like "The New York Post"). In 1980 and 1984, just about as many papers endorsed Reagan as endorsed Carter or Mondale. Without getting into AIM too much, the point I'm trying to make is that this organization has NOT done anything that the news media does not already do and has done for a long time. The similarities to AIA I think are fairly obvious. The answer to Mike's point as to why we should be concerned about AIA is that again, the group does not do anything that cannot already be addressed by existing procedures, be they internal or external to the university or college. For what reason, therefore, does the group exist? It is very instructive to note that both AIM and AIA want to eliminate their perceived "liberal bias." AIA can only do that by stifling intellectual debate and freedom on the campus. They are not a public interest group, no matter how they describe themselves. They are a political, partisan, conservative group that tries very hard to maintain an aura of respectability. I ask again: for what reason does this group exist? They serve no useful purpose other than harassing and intimidating professors and administrators. The experience of the political science professor at Arizona State University is instructive. He was accused of making all sorts of comments and statements "inappropriate" to the classroom. Apparently, he had a running feud with a conservative student newspaper on that campus, and that touched off the report by AIA. The professor denied making any inapprpriate statements, but asserted that it was fully his right to express his opinions in his classroom. Where did AIA play a useful role other than publicizing and thereby pressuring the professor to clam up? (Although in this case they arguably failed.) That AIA is very powerful is not a serious propostion. But the very fact that in this day and age people are trying to do this sort of things is enough to raise eyebrows. Do any of you remember the days professors had to take loyalty oaths and otherwise display their patriotism? I don't, but many professors and older people do. This is not to say that AIA wants to impose loyalty oaths. But the point is that the political climate that allows AIA to be successful also easily allows for the reestablishment of the loyalty oaths and other such noxious practices. That is why those worried about academic freedom are worried about AIA: if they become successful and powerful, the political fabric may be weakened to the point that it can no longer resist a return to procedures of the 1950s. You think I jest? Then pick up a copy of Guenter Lewy's "The Federal Loyalty-Security Program," which was written in 1983. That's 1983! The recommendations in that book, if implemented, would roll back almost all the civil liberties gained over the last four or five decades. That is the mentality or climate from which academics must guard themselves. The success of AIA could potentially lead to a return to old and discredited policies. We must work to make sure that these policies remain discredited and old. The fact that AIA undertakes to report such "abuses" pose a grave threat to academic freedom and intellectual integrity. They pose a threat because they wish to suppress and stifle information and debate over viewpoints they disagree with. Anytime a group wishes to impose its views on others, or prevent alternative viewpoints to be addressed, a very serious threat is posed. The controversey over AIA has moved the professors and administrators look at what steps they have taken to protect academic freedom at their capmus. I spoke to a former provost here at MIT, and he said that he very seriously doubted that AIA would or could have much effect here (at MIT). He did say that he was worried that they could be most hurtful in state colleges and universities that are government run or funded, because they are most susceptible to political pressures from outside the campus. > The key point seems to be that no one has bothered to find out (or > at least explain to others) anything about the organization to which > they have aligned themselves with or against. This is what I think > is a little strange. > I hope the above comments put to rest your notion that no one has bothered to find out about AIA. > In the hopes of helping both sides I went out and got a > copy of the July 1986 issue of the AIA newsletter called > "Campus Report" I think it's very noteworthy that in all of the alleged incidents, the group AIA was endorsing and concentrating on the conservative viewpoints of the various disputes. That alone is enough evidence that they are just another advocacy group trying to limit viewpoints contrary to their own. The ACLU, to the other hand, is [in the incident at the Texas university that Mike mentions] helping a *conservative* newspaper regain distribution rights on the UT campus. I wont be impressed by AIA until they take up the cause of a liberal newspaper being censored or censured. The fundamental values of a university require open discourse, passionate but reasoned debate, and intellectual vigor. AIA pays lip service to these, but in reality wants to exploit them to suit their own political agenda. That is why they pose a serious threat to academic freedom, and that is why we should be concerned about them. > So folks, love it, hate it or ignore it, but knee-jerk reactions are > no longer allowed. > -- > Michael V. Stein > Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services > > UUCP ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs I did my best. I too dislike knee-jerk reactions. Please feel free to flame at me by e-mail or here if you wish. {allegra,decvax!genrad,seismo}!mit-eddie!thakur thakur@eddie.mit.edu thakur@athena.mit.edu