Took this exerpt from Michael Berube's (there should be accents aigus above both those 'e's btw) blog.

* * *

There are two more kinds of confusion behind the attacks on academic
freedom, as well, and I’ll just touch on them briefly for now.

The first is that most critics of universities don’t seem to distinguish between unconscious liberal bias and conscious, articulate liberal convictions.  They take the language of “bias” from critiques of the so-called liberal media, where it is applied to outlets like the New York Times
and CBS News that, in the view of movement conservatives, lend a
leftish slant to the news both deliberately and unwittingly.  But the
language of “bias” is not very well suited to the work of, say, a
researcher who has spent decades investigating American drug policy or
conflicts in the Middle East and who has come to conclusions that
amount to more or less “liberal” critiques of current policies.  Such
conclusions are not “bias”; rather, they are legitimate, well-founded beliefs,
and of course they should be presented—ideally, along with legitimate
competing beliefs—in college classrooms.  Now, notice that I said legitimate
competing beliefs.  We have no obligation to debate whether the
Holocaust happened.  And that’s not a hypothetical matter.  Late last
fall, the philosopher with whom I co-founded the Penn State chapter of
the AAUP, Claire Katz, informed me of a graduate teaching assistant in
philosophy who had just had a very strange encounter with a student. 
The course, which dealt with bioethics, had recently dealt with the
vile history of experiments on unwitting and/or unwilling human
subjects, from the Holocaust to Tuskegee, and the student wanted to
know whether the “other side” would be presented as well.  I hope
you’re asking yourselves, what other side?—because, of course,
to all reasonable and responsible researchers in the field, there is no
“other side”; there is no pro-human experimentation position that needs
to be introduced into classroom discussion to counteract possible
liberal “bias.” We are not in the business of inviting pro-Nazi
spokesmen for Joseph Mengele to our classrooms.  More recently, I was
asked by a member of the Penn State College Republicans whether I
taught “both sides” in my graduate seminar on disability studies.  In
response, I mentioned the debate over what’s called the ethics of selective abortion of fetuses with disabilities,
and briefly sketched out four or five positions on the question.  My
point, of course, was that just as it is a mistake to think that there
are two sides to every question, it is also a mistake—and a pernicious
one, encouraged by Horowitz, Balch, and company—to think that there are
only two sides to every question.  But this is the language with
which some of our students now enter the classroom; it is the language
of cable news and mass-media simulacra of “debate.” There is one side,
and then there is the other side.  That constitutes balance, and
anything else is bias. 

Tags: academia, balance, berube, horowitz, journalism, liberal bias, mass-media, opinion, politics, pwn