Political Correctness at Georgia Tech?

When I was a student at the Institute, it was a very conservative campus, sure there were leftist Professors, like the guy I had who wore a tye-dye shirt every single day and spoke of his love of the liberation earned in the 60’s, but abuses of student’s political freedoms were non-existent. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case as explained in several articles by Mike Adams (no not that Mike Adams, but a Professor at UNC Wilmington), here, here and here. Adams yesterday asked people to contact Governor Perdue about all of this, and today, Neal Boortz has discussed this as well.

During the 2004 Legislative session, Senate Resolution 661 passed the Senate but was killed in the House, calling for an Academic Bill of Rights to protect intellectual diversity. Perhaps it’s time to revive that proposal.


  1. ddreyer says:


    I didn’t pick you as a big government type.

    If the case law says what Mr. Adams purports that it does, then Georgia Tech is violating the law. The courts should address this. What we don’t need is another law or politicos grandstanding.

    Though the referenced group may be in support of certain positions, a lot of groups would qualify as political if that is the test. The NAACP at Tech undoubtedly prefers certain policy positions, as does the American Medical Student Association, the Circle K Club (Kiwanis) or the Mars Society (promoting Mars exploration). The primary purpose of the GLBT group seems to be to improve the emotional well being of its members. And this group is obviously different in nature than the College Republicans or Young Democrats.

    So the question becomes how far does this group go towards advocating for a political position? Does it cross a line, thus rendering it a political group? Obviously a court would need to make this determination. Neither the Governor nor the Legislature is authorized to make such a determination. And only a court has the powers to directly address this situation. Though the Governor could apply pressure to the Board of Regents or the Legislature could affect funding, there is a specific factual issue that needs to be addressed here. A court is the only means to accomplish this.

    Simply because you disagree with someone’s sexual orientation does not make this issue political. Your sentiments also belie how far off you are from college students today. Tech is still predominantly conservative. However, most college students today do not see being gay as a political issue or even an issue. Most students see it not as a choice but as a genetic makeup.

    Regardless of that question though, I don’t see how the resolution you referenced would affect this situation. However, the last thing we need is a bill seeking political “balance.

  2. larry smith says:

    Buzz, I think you’re probably right on the eggheaded legal point.

    But (and this isn’t a criticism of you), I’m tired of hearing conservatives whine about how they’re being “oppressed” at universities. Yes, universities are dominated by liberals, but that’s mainly because conservatives would rather make money than teach.

    Whining about repression that is exaggerated at best, imaginary at worse, is something the left excels at (to its detriment). Let’s not follow their lead.

  3. Eddie T says:

    GA Tech refuses to allow any political group these funds–neither the College Democrats nor the College Republicans receive these funds. So what’s the point?

    In order for his conclusion to logically follow, one must grant the premise that advocacy for gay marriage is a partisan issue. It’s not, and therefore the logical opposition for the Pride Alliance is not the College Republicans.

    It’s kind of like if I argued that because the Cato Institute advocates conservative, even “partisan” policies, that it should be regulated under FEC laws. That would be a terrible argument for reasons I’m sure most of you already understand.

  4. jimflowers says:

    SR 661 was not killed in the House. It was a simple Senate Resolution (which does not require review by the House) that “urged” the Board of Regents to follow principles of the “Academic Bill of Rights” created by David Horowitz, a former Fellow Traveller, now radical organizer for the Right.

    Support for Mr. Horowitz’s initiative cooled somewhat following a Senate hearing where Mr. Horowitz was asked why such principles should not be applied to K12 schools.

    “I think they should,” he replied. “While I think Higher Ed Administrators are communisits, K12 administrators are much worse, they are Stalinists!”

    Hardly a position current leadership wishes to publicly endorse.

Comments are closed.