You've got to admire the brazenness of the Discovery Institute - their newest astroturfing venture seeks to turn the idea of education - and academic freedom - on its head:

IDEA Clubs are student-initiated clubs that foster academic freedom as students learn about scientific evidence that supports intelligent design and also learn about modern evolutionary theory. IDEA Clubs are a growing network of student-led clubs on university and high school campuses around the United States with thirty new chapters formed to date.  

So let me see if I've got this straight.  Students who are seeking to learn about modern evolutionary theory at their schools, instead of enrolling in a biology course taught by an expert who has spent years gaining experience in their field and is caught up on the actual controversies and advances in the study of evolution, can start up a club and learn about the type of evolutionary theory they think should be taught.  I think I'm missing where the "learning" part of this whole endeavor is.

Let's be clear - this has nothing to do with science or academic freedom.  It's another political ploy used by the Discovery Institute in order to slip their transparently religious and decidedly non-scientific ideas into mainstream education.  Students have every right, of course, to explore these issues in their own clubs, but no one should be fooled into thinking that they have any sort of value for actual science education. 

It's a common enough pattern - an isolated incident where a campus conservative is victimized (real or imagined) suddenly gets blown up as an indictment against the whole freakin' system of higher education.  Making a mountain out of a molehill this time is Gary Larson (no, not the creator of the Far Side, although his writing does make you wonder) at the American Thinker.

Larson's sense of outrage and grievance is initially justified.  According the the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, an Augsburg College freshman was attacked on election night.  She was apparently targeted for wearing a button showing her support for the Republican presidential ticket.  Let's not make any mistake about it - attacking a student for her political views - or any other reason - is deplorable.  From here, however, Larson goes off the rails:

That it happened on a college campus is hardly surprising. Not today. Campuses ooze with crazed partisan intolerance, places mostly where left-wing academia hold forth, along with politically correct staff, inculcating students with staunch, impenetrable biases, often leading to violent confrontation.  

Say whaaaa?  Let's count the problems with that paragraph.  First off, "places mostly where left-wing academia hold forth?"  I'm not even sure what that even means.

Second, Larson trots out the Horowitz approved talking point that college faculty and staff are brainwashing students, despite the mounting evidence to the contrary.  To be sure, I wouldn't doubt that the victim got into some heated political discussions with her fellow students, especially in an election year.  But Larson offers no proof of the victim's professors attempting to "inculcate" her or her peers "with staunch, impenetrable biases."

And it "often" leads to violent confrontation?  What other incidents have we missed where campus conservatives have been the victims of rabid leftists?  Of all the stories about campus conservatives being physically attacked for their political views, the Augsburg story stands out for not being faked.

Indeed, the Star-Tribune article mentions that it's not even clear that the victim's attackers were even students.  Stubborn facts, however, won't let Mr. Larson exploit a regrettable incident to score political points, though.  No sir, one student attacked for her political views on a college campus by a group of assailants who don't seem to be students is further evidence of a massive wave of violent attacks against conservative students that isn't happening.

Way back in the summer of 2006, the SCSU Scholar reviewed research conducted by April Kelly-Woessner and her husband Matthew Woessner on the effects of a faculty member's perceived ideology on his or her teaching evaluations.  The Woessner's conclusion, you may recall, was that faculty members' evaluations suffered as they deviated in either direction from the median student's ideology (although this correlation was found to be rather weak).  In our review of the study we raised some methodological questions that cast doubt on their conclusions, and the folks at the SCSU Scholar seemed skeptical as well at the time, even if they might agree with some of the conclusions.

Fast forward two years to the present, and the Woessner's are in the news again, this time with a forthcoming paper that asserts that professors are not very likely to influence the political and ideological views of their students.  This follows research from last year which suggests that something other than ideology plays a role in whether conservative students advance on to graduate school.  Their 2007, to my eye, uses a much more defensible methodology, especially when it comes to their sampling.  Both the forthcoming paper and last year's article are in line with a growing body of evidence that suggests that claims of "liberal bias" and "indoctrination" in higher education are somewhat overblown.

So how does the SCSU Scholar greet the latest Woessner paper?

The debate features Matthew Woessner and April Kelly-Woessner, whose research I discussed a couple of years ago. In short, they are part of the defense of liberal bias by arguing the students don't change much and they like liberal professors more anyway.  

Nevermind that the Woessner's have been featured guests of the American Enterprise Institute for panels on the "politically correct university" or that their work has been approvingly featured at David Horowitz's FrontPageMag.  Following the evidence and bucking the "leftist faculty are eating our children's brains" narrative gets you cast into the ranks of the brain eaters.

I know that one-half of the Woessner team identifies as a conservative, so let me be the first to welcome him to the ranks of the liberal conspiracy.

Despite tons of evidence to the contrary, gathered by actual, you know, researchers, Andy McCarthy pins the outcome of yesterday's massive youth turnout on, you guessed it, tenured radicals.

Whatever gets you through the day, Andy. 

After standing in line for a few hours, what better way to unwind than to stretch your (metaphoric) legs with a jaunt around the internets.  If you haven't voted yet, get to a polling place!  I promise you, this post will be here when you get back.

• This past Sunday, the New York Times took a look at the emerging research being published about "indoctrination" on campus.  It's nice to see some major media sunlight being shined on the bogus claims of collegiate brainwashing. 
• The Modern Language Association meeting this December just got a little spicier with a panel featuring our friend David Horowitz.
• North of the border, a professor at the University of Ottawa is being attacked in an e-mail that is circulating about her private life.  Fortunately, the University, from the administration down through the student groups, are coming out in support of said professor.  Be sure to check out the insightful comments as well.
• A professor at Temple College in Texas has been told to remove the phrase "Gott ist tot" from his office door.  German speakers will recognize that as Nietzche's famous quote, "God is dead."  The Temple College administration claims that it is an unacceptable endorsement of a religious view.  Others at the school point to a variety of religious sentiments displayed on the door's of other professors.