Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: soc.college,talk.rumors
Subject: Re: Accuracy in Academia
Message-ID: <568@gargoyle.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Sep-86 11:28:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.568
Posted: Fri Sep 26 11:28:01 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 02:43:39 EDT
Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Organization: U. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 45
Xref: linus soc.college:40 talk.rumors:65

>We did not cover Da Vinci, the Hapsburgs, New World Explo-
>ration, Rise of Spain, the Protestant Reformation, or anything else.

Maybe I'm dense but what does this discussion "Re: Accuracy in
Academia" have to do with AIA?  The stated purpose of AIA is to
correct errors of fact promulgated by professors and to publically
identify the offending professors.  So far, no one has claimed that
any mis- or disinformation was taught in the course on early modern
European history.  Even if the professor and TA spent 100% of class
time discussing Nicaragua, that does not imply that they taught any
errors of fact.

Let's distinguish between fact and opinion.  "Karl Marx discovered
America in 1492" is a factual error.  "Marxist class analysis is the
best theoretical framework for understanding modern European history"
is a matter of opinion.  This distinction is somewhat fuzzy.  Is it
fact, or extremely well-founded opinion, that humans are descended
from ape-like ancestors?  That's a philosophical question.  But in
any case most professors will explain their own opinions on the
subject matter, explain the basis for their opinions, and explain the
alternative points of view.  That's good teaching.  I have never
heard of a course anywhere in which the instructor taught what he
knew to be false.

This underlines the essential bogosity and viciousness of AIA.  The
AIA people *say* they are merely correcting errors of fact.  But what
they *intend* is the intimidation of professors who express opinions
with which they strongly disagree.  If a professor teaches or
publishes anything questionable, he or she will be challenged by his
colleagues and graduate students, and fast -- that is the nature of
academic life.  There is no need whatsoever for an outside
organization to monitor the views expressed by professors.  But, in a
democratic society, there is a *great* need for professors to be able
to express their views in class or in public without feeling
intimidated either by public opinion or by government pressure.
Accuracy in Academia would not be out of place in Nazi Germany, and
brings to mind the Hitler Youth.

See the issue of *The Nation* dated about Sept. 15 for an interesting
article about Accuracy in Media, Reed Irvine's equally paranoid and
loony organization, whose real purpose is also intimidation in order
to discourage the expression of views with which they strongly
disagree.

Richard Carnes