PHILADELPHIA (Jan. 9) – A Lancaster County lawmaker cited unofficial allegations of political bias in the classroom against at least 30 Temple University professors during a legislative hearing into student academic freedom Monday.

But the university president said officials had searched records and failed to find "any instances" of problems.

After the hearing, Rep. Gibson Armstrong, R-Lancaster, explained that he has 40 pages of e-mails detailing the complaints. But neither he nor anyone testifying before the House of Representatives’ Select Committee on Student Academic Freedom Monday discussed specific allegations. The hearings were held pursuant to House Resolution 177, which forbade any direct claims against faculty without first giving the accused advance notice to respond.

Still, Logan Fisher, a Temple senior and vice chairman of the College Republicans, said a liberal bias is alive and thriving in Temple's classrooms.

Fisher’s primary complaint was that professors are often one-sided in presenting their political views in class.

“I’m not saying you can’t talk about this or you can’t talk about that. By all means talk about it but talk about both sides,” said Fisher, a business law major.

Temple President David Adamany and free speech advocate Robert O’Neil didn't see eye to eye with Fisher on his assessment of liberal bias in academia.

They seemed to echo the comments of Rep. Dan Frankel, R-Allegheny, who characterized the hearings on student academic freedom as a “solution in search of a problem.”

Adamany told the committee that “we have reviewed our records and we do not find any instances in which students have complained about inappropriate intrusions of political advocacy by teachers in their courses. Nor have we found instances of complaints by students that they were improperly graded because of the views they set forth in their courses.”

O’Neil, who runs the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, said that “recent reports of ideological bias in the classroom are greatly exaggerated.

"Having taught at universities like [the University of California] that might be identified as liberal and others like [the University of Virginia] that are viewed as conservative, I would insist that variations among professors and their politics are far fewer than the media might lead you to believe.”

After the hearing, Armstrong said that he began looking into student academic freedom after receiving a call from a constituent.

“The security of free speech on college campuses is vitally important to the continuation of a free society,” Armstrong said after the hearing.

“We know there is a national issue with a lack of diversity of thought on college campuses,” he added, leafing through a binder of news and academic articles attesting to liberal biases among university professors. In some departments, he said, the ratio can be 10:1 of liberal to conservative professors.

O’Neil, in his testimony, cautioned against such conclusions based on party affiliation.

“How a person votes does not necessarily correlate in any way to how a person teaches or what that person writes,” he said.

When asked by Armstrong if he was ever quizzed on his party affiliation in interviews for faculty positions, O’Neil said he was not, and if he had been asked, he would not have answered. “I don’t think it’s anybody’s business what my politics are,” he said.

Rep. Dan Surra, D-Elk, who made a point of saying that he thought these hearings were a “colossal waste of time and taxpayer money,” told O’Neil, “You’re right to say you should not answer that question (about party affiliation); you should not have to answer that question.”

Armstrong was the most vigorous questioner –- regardless of the testifier’s message.

He pressed Adamany about unofficial allegations from Temple students, including claims that professors came to class wearing anti-Bush buttons and spoke derogatively of military personnel.

Armstrong also pressed Fisher about why students have sat on their complaints about professors rather than follow the university’s grievance process.

“It’s time that they speak their minds or quit complaining,” Armstrong said.

He also asked Adamany how the university would protect students too intimidated to speak out against a professor.

On that point, Adamany said, “It’s like whistleblower laws we have in the commonwealth and the nation.” Temple – like any institution – has an obligation to protect the student whistleblower, he said.

Responding to Armstrong’s questions about why students haven't filed formal complaints about problem professors with the university, Fisher said many fear retribution or ridicule from the professor.

“I thought professors were supposed to encourage a diversity of viewpoints in the classroom,” Armstrong said in response.

“So did I,” Fisher replied.

Jeff Solow, a professor of violoncello and chamber music at Temple, also read a statement on behalf of Faculty Senate President Jane Evans, who was traveling this week. He said that Temple is a diverse institution, and –- echoing Adamany -– he outlined the grievance procedures for students with a complaint about a professor.

Solow said there was no need for state legislation “for something that’s being done effectively on the local level.”

Monday’s public hearing at Temple was the start of a second round of hearings before the Select Committee on Student Academic Freedom. Two days of hearings were held at the University of Pittsburgh in November.

Testimony will continue Tuesday morning at Temple's North Philadelphia campus, culminating with David Horowitz, president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture. Horowitz is a conservative activist who has argued that universities are too dominated by liberal faculties.

Committee Chairman Thomas Stevenson, R-Allegheny, said that at least two more hearings will be held in March and May in the Midstate. House Resolution 177 requires that the committee report its findings to the full House no later than Nov. 30.