Who decides what we learn? Do students have certain rights in academia that should be guaranteed to them? What is the role the intelligent design theory should play in the classrooms?

These were the questions addressed by speakers in an open forum on academic freedom held last Wednesday in the Science Library.

The central topic of the discussion was the Acedemic Bill of Rights, a document created by conservative activist David Horowitz last year to address the open exchange of ideas in the college setting. The bill is aimed at preventing professors from imposing their own ideologies on students in the classroom.

Horowitz is the founder of a group called Students for Academic Freedom that argues that liberal views dominate the college scene and aims to promote “free inquiry and free speech within the acedemic community,” according to the bill.

The discussion featured three speakers, including two professors and a student from the School of Education and Human Development.

The first speaker, Peter Knuepfer, an associate professor of geology and BU’s representative for the SUNY legislature, introduced and detailed the emergence of the Academic Bill of Rights.

Knuepfer countered Horowitz’s argument, saying that the free exchange of ideas which characterizes college campuses would be threatened by the Bill of Rights.

He found particular problems with an article which proposes that course curriculums be regulated by a higher authority and not be left to the discretion of professors, essentially setting a standard for what should be taught in the classroom.

Using intelligent design as an example, Kneufner explained the benefits of teaching different and contradictory ideas.

“If I present you with a position you are not familiar with, then I am challenging you to consider it,” he said.

He vocally backed the right of a professor to introduce all kinds of ideas and theories in the classroom, despite opposition.

“Our society and our University ought to be ready to take positions, not remain neutral as to not offend anyone,” Knuepfer said.

Imran Battla, a senior in SEHD, said he doesn’t support the Academic Bill of Rights, but said he understood where Horowitz and his supporters are coming from.

He asked whether students should be inundated with the opinions of their professors, asking: “are all political viewpoints equal?”

The Acedemic Bill of Rights states that all viewpoints should be presented to students in an unbiased way, and that faculty should not “use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination.”

But Battla went on to assert that students already operate under a system of rights, essentially making the movement toward the Bill of Rights moot.

According to USA Today, the American Association of University Professors, which represents 45,000 faculty on 500 campuses, rejects the document, saying that there are existing protections for students that are, “already in place and work well.”

Fa Ti Fan, a history professor in Harpur College, addressed whether the intelligent design theory, a hot issue that presents a conservative/liberal split, had a place in academia.

“We are taxpayers; therefore we have the right to decide what is taught in public school,” he said.

Knuepfer retorted that scientific matters ought to be decided by scientists, not by the general populus.

During the open question segment of the forum, a student questioned why the intelligent design theory shouldn’t get as much recognition in a science class as evolutionist theory.

Knuepfer responded that theories had proven facts to back them up, so intelligent design isn’t a theory at all.

Bills proposing the implimentation of the Acedemic Bill of Rights are moving forward in Colorado, Missouri and Georgia. The Association for Student Judicial Affairs, a group of administrators from more than 900 campuses, is tallying votes on the issue and considering creating a task force to advise schools on free speech and diversity of ideas in the classroom.