Can Teachers and Professors Hide Personal Bias? AZ State Senator's Bill Would Require It

Is it possible for teachers to be completely objective while teaching history, politics, and other potentially controversial issues in the classroom? Not according to Arizona state Senate Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor, R-Gilbert, AZ, who has introduced a state bill that would require public school teachers to be impartial and not present their personal political or social views to students. Teachers would, of course, retain their First Amendment rights to share their views privately outside of recognized teaching settings.

Predictably, the bill has generated passionate controversy among teachers, school administrators, parents, and even students, as reported in the Arizona Republic. The liberal opposition to the bill argues that it curbs free speech and will discourage teachers from teaching anything about controversial historical issues or current events out of fear of reprisal under the bill’s provisions. They further claim that students will be harmed by a sheltering intellectual climate and that “the classroom is precisely where these kinds of important controversial debates should be taking place,” as stated by the Executive Director of the ACLU in Arizona. Conservative supporters of the bill express concern that children and teens are very impressionable, view their teachers as authorities, and should not be subjected to the personal political or social beliefs of teachers.

Having experienced a tremendous amount of liberal bias and pressure to conform or receive poor grades years ago in graduate school, I gravitate toward supporting a bill of this nature, but I likewise am certain that it will have virtually no efficacy because teachers and professors are only one third of the problem that requires correction: the other two thirds are public school/university administrators and the selected curriculum being taught as authoritative within these schools. Legally requiring teachers or professors to teach impartially out of an approved school district curriculum implies a naïve faith that the curriculum itself is politically or socially objective. As I have described in a previous post, being forced to digest textbooks used in today’s schools is to be force fed a steady diet of history liberally laced with the collective opinions of academia, which is undeniably and overwhelmingly politically liberal. Author David Horowitz’s newest book, Indoctrination U:The Left's War Against Academic Freedom, illustrates the intellectually stifling effect that biased education continues to have on America’s students. If you have children in college or will soon be in that position, read Horowitz's book and discuss with your student what he/she can expect and how to recognize bias in texts and lectures.

In most local school districts throughout the nation, teachers could present only the approved texts and still influence students to adopt liberal views, as there is less fair and balanced presentation in textbooks than one would find on broadcast news or in print newspapers. The professors who write textbooks are notoriously biased to the left and, unlike journalists who feign impartiality, members of academia are proud of their stances and make no claims to objectivity. It is unrealistic to expect school teachers to be held to a teaching standard not similarly applied to college professors who produce texts taught to school children.

The Arizona Republic article included a quote from one college student who supports the proposed bill for the shelter from academic grade penalties often imposed by liberal professors on students known to hold conservative views:

"You might have your own opinions, but don't use a public university where people and taxpayers are paying you to teach," said Hyde, chairman of the Arizona College Republicans. "Don't use (the classroom) as your soapbox and think you're put there to teach me why you think the president is an idiot. That's not your job."

Liberal opponents of the bill argue that students need to be presented with differing viewpoints to facilitate their academic and intellectual growth. This claim, though it sounds rational, ignores the reality that students are not being challenged by a variety of interpretations. The problem is that there is only one item on the academic menu, and it is a stale slab of Euro-socialist anti-American propaganda not fit for consumption without something of opposite flavor available to remove the aftertaste. Some of the teachers quoted in the Republic article expressed concern that they will lose the ability to discuss controversial issues, but this is a red herring. The role of a teacher in discussions or debates of such topics is as a mediator, not as a validator of opinions or as an arbiter as to which viewpoint is right. Even in competitive debate courses, the judge is supposed to declare a winner based on the persuasiveness and construct of argument rather than whether the point of view argued is right or is in harmony with the judge’s personal beliefs.

The Arizona classroom impartiality bill is a noble attempt to correct a problem that is endemic to academia, but also impacts the media and the judiciary. All of these professions theoretically should be populated with objective people dedicated to teaching, reporting, or judging “just the facts,” but human nature is clearly more potent than even the most altruistic desire for objectivity in any of these fields. Perhaps an alternative solution might include required disclosures statements from teachers to their students prior to sharing any personal opinions in the classroom. A similar disclosure from the news media would certainly help the public recognize biased reporting.

Honesty in America would reach astounding levels if we could turn on the CBS Evening News and hear this anchor introduction: “Good Evening, I’m Katie Couric, and I have never voted for a Republican. I believe America brought 9/11 on itself and said so within minutes of the collapse of the second tower. I hate President Bush and believe he is a stupid cowboy. Thank you for choosing to let me influence you to be a liberal like me through my words, body language, and vocal inflections. Now, in today’s news. . .”

We require political candidates to reveal who donates money to their campaigns in order to determine what influences will shape the candidates views. Why not require teachers and the news media to likewise reveal their personal political affiliations so that students and readers can recognize that what they are being taught or are reading has passed through an opinion prism?