OPINION: Forced 'neutrality'
It's hard to imagine something more counter to American values than enforced "viewpoint neutrality" at public universities. It's a policy of heavy-handed control, cloaked in fairness. What's the neutral viewpoint on taxes, abortion, federal bailouts, same sex marriage or pothole repair? Viewpoint neutrality isn't real.
Yet viewpoint neutrality is a new buzz phrase among college administrators, who would like to enforce a leftist ideology in the name of something, well, more neutral sounding than "leftist ideology."
A lecture by the author, Ivy League scholar and historian Thomas E. Woods became the target of viewpoint neutrality in Boulder last week. He will speak today at a sold-out luncheon in Colorado Springs, sponsored by the Limited Government Forum and the Woodford Foundation, and tonight at the University of Colorado-Boulder. Woods, a New York Times bestselling author and faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, will tell CU-Boulder students "how the current economic collapse was predicted and ignored, why Washington and the Federal Reserve are to blame, why the bailouts will ultimately make things worse and how we can put our economy on a path to recovery."
That's precisely how members of CU's new Young Americans for Liberty chapter wanted to promote the event. They bought an ad in CU's Buff Bulletin, which gets e-mailed to all students.
Before the bulletin went out, however, CU officials censored it and remove references to "Washington," the "Federal Reserve" and "bailouts."
"They said the university was very concerned about causing controversy - what with the Ward Churchill issue going on - and that they censored our ad because it promoted a political viewpoint," said senior Erin Recca in Boulder's Daily Camera.
CU officials backed down after a censorship controversy ensued, and re-distributed the original ad.
At CU's Colorado Springs campus, administrators have explained a viewpoint neutrality policy in response to controversy over a coming-out party for gay, lesbian and transgender students. After the student government president agreed to fund the party, but refused to endorse it, a campus wide e-mail from two administrators said this:
"All students in elected positions with the Student Government Association are entitled and encouraged to express their own values and beliefs, but in fulfilling their roles as elected officials they are required to follow the Student Government Constitution, the Laws of the Regents and the laws of the United States; as such they are obligated to follow the principle of viewpoint neutrality."
An elected official cannot make decisions with a neutral viewpoint. A yes or no vote isn't neutral. To sign, veto, or leave a bill unsigned isn't neutral.
The First Amendment creates a nearly unregulated free market of viewpoints, so that all will compete. Viewpoint neutrality policies only stifle ideas. Neutrality plays no role in freedom, including academic freedom and honest intellectual pursuits.
Do not fall for the ruse of viewpoint neutrality. In academe, it means "viewpoint far left only." At CU-Boulder, that includes don't criticize government for economic collapse. At CU-Colorado Springs, it means elected officials should express written approval for coming-out parties. There's nothing fair, constructive or neutral about it.
