The intellectual foundations of the modern research university were enshrined in a famous document called the “Declaration of the Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure” which was issued in 1915 by the American Association of University Professors. In the words of an authoritative account by two law professors, “The draftsmen of the 1915 Declaration sought to establish principles of academic freedom capable of ensuring that colleges and universities would remain accountable to professional standards…”[16] In other words, the cornerstones of both academic freedom and the modern research university were one and the same: the commitment to professional standards, based on scientific method, which are above party and faction.
The system created was self-policing, with faculty in charge of enforcing the standards. The two law professors warn that academic freedom “will collapse if faculty lose faith in the professional norms necessary to define and generate knowledge,” and can only be sustained if academic peers “interpret disciplinary standards in a way that maintains the … legitimacy of these standards.”[17] The academic freedom protections in the Declaration were therefore limited to professors “who carry on their work in the temper of the scientific method,” and thus to professors who practice theoretical skepticism and encourage respect for empirical evidence. The Declaration denied academic standing (and academic freedom) to those who use it “for intemperate and uncritical partisanship.”[18]
The impetus for our reform campaign was the erosion of these standards and the proliferation of academic faculties with political agendas, a result made possible by the failure of universities to enforce the professional norms outlined in the Declaration. These faculties were concentrated in the newly created inter-disciplinary fields, which were based on the social critiques of the political left. In place of the traditional disciplines — history, economics, philosophy — whose standards had evolved in the course of more than a century of scholarship, the new fields were inspired by ideologies such as feminism whose intellectual scope was all-encompassing and whose methodology were also newly invented. An immediate consequence was an epidemic of amateurism in academic classrooms.
Courses on “global feminism” – to take one example – now focused on the workings (and evils) of the international capitalist economic system but were taught by professors whose academic credentials were not in economics or even sociology or political science but in Comparative Literature, Education and Women’s Studies.[19] The credentials for teaching such courses were not an academic expertise but a familiarity with leftwing ideologies. Nor was this academic amateurism in the service of ideology confined to new fields such as Women’s Studies.
For example, the course “Marxism and Society” at Duke University is offered (and overseen) not by the department of economics or sociology but by the Department of Literature and – jointly – by the Education Program which trains teachers for K-12 schools.[20] The course is taught by Michael Hardt, co-author of the book, Empire. It is a text popular among academic radicals and has been described by other Marxists as “a Communist Manifesto for the 21st Century.”[21] (Hardt’s co-author, also a Marxist, is Antonio Negri, a convicted Italian terrorist.) According to the official Duke catalogue description written by Hardt, “The course considers the basic concepts of historical materialism, as they have developed in historical contexts. Topics include sexual and social inequality, alienation, class formation, imperialism, and revolution.”[22] Hardt is a professor of comparative literature and has no peer-reviewed academic credential that would qualify him as an expert in history, sociology, economics, political science, or human sexuality.[23]
The campaign I undertook in 2003 was an attempt to address these abuses by restoring the academic principles of the modern research university to liberal arts faculties. Its basic premise was that professors were obligated to behave professionally in the classroom, and that students had a right to expect them to do so. These were simple propositions that I spelled out in the “Academic Bill of Rights” which I based squarely on the 1915 Declaration. Where Buckley wanted to preserve the religious character of Yale, my concern was to defend and restore professional standards that had been abandoned. In that sense it, too, was a conservative reform.
What follows is a narrative of the campaign, the obstacles we encountered along the way, the successes we achieved, and the prospects for progressing further with our efforts. It is in some measure a personal story, since the campaign arose out of my concerns and I have been its spokesman and the chief target of those who oppose it. But it is also a narrative that reveals a disturbing situation in America’s liberal arts colleges and provides a guide for those interested in addressing them. It is a narrative, in other words, about the fate of American higher education.
The possibility that this history might be of service to other reform efforts is the most important reason for publishing it. I am convinced that our campaign would have been able to achieve far more if liberals and conservatives interested in the health of our universities (and our democracy) had rallied to our cause. Of course, I was aware that the political climate would make the recruitment of liberal allies difficult, even though our campaign was based on well-established liberal principles. For liberalism had undergone a sea change since radicals had mounted a systematic assault on the university culture in the 1960s, which sought to make its curricula “relevant” and to politicize its educational programs. In the decades after, many self-identified “liberals” ceased to be committed to institutional process, or fairness. Many came to regard standards themselves as oppressive. So it was not difficult to understand why recruiting liberal support for the academic freedom campaign should have proved to be problematic.
What I did not expect was the lack of support from conservatives and libertarians, particularly since they had the most to gain from the restoration of academic principles. It was conservative and libertarian viewpoints and texts that were excluded from the newly politicized academic curriculum and it was conservative and libertarian professors who had become a vanishing presence on university faculties as a direct result of the newly politicized attitudes.[24]
Opponents of our campaign were quick to portray me as a “pawn” of larger forces and our effort to restore liberal principles of fairness and pluralism as “a well-funded project of the far Right.”[25] This accusation served their political interests by tarring us with the excesses of the McCarthy past. But in the real world, the campaign we waged never became part of any conservative agenda. While Republican elected officials supported our efforts to pass legislative resolutions in more than a dozen states, they retreated quickly after the initial engagements, and only one such resolution – in Colorado – passed both houses of the legislature. Only one Republican Party (Maine) actually incorporated the Academic Bill of Rights into its platform and only one Republican candidate (also in Maine) ran a campaign on our issue.
More inexplicable was the failure of conservative policy organizations – The Heritage Foundation, The Hoover Institution, the American Enterprise Institute – to embrace or promote our cause. When the American Enterprise Institute held a conference on “academic freedom” well into our campaign, and later published as a book, I was pointedly not included.[26] Formerly a speaker at annual meetings of the National Scholars Association, the invitations stopped once our campaign was launched in 2003, despite the personal support of two of its leaders, Stephen Balch and Peter Wood. Even the California Association of Scholars, a branch of the NAS operating in a state where my offices are located, declined to invite me to its convention.
In the seven years of our campaign not a single report on our efforts appeared in National Review or the Weekly Standard the three most widely read intellectual journals of the right, despite direct appeals to their editors. Imprimus, a publication of Hillsdale College with a million-and-a half conservative subscribers interested in higher education, ignored us. Only one of the four books I wrote on universities, documenting the abuses addressed by our campaign, was reviewed by Commentary or National Review, and none were reviewed by the Claremont Conservative Review of Books, the Weekly Standard or the Wall Street Journal.[27] The Journal did, on the other hand, publish an editorial attacking the Academic Bill of Rights on the libertarian grounds that we appealed to legislatures for endorsements, which the writer regarded as a bad idea. The libertarian journal, Reason, printed several similar attacks on our campaign, but no report on the abuses we had uncovered or the progress we had made.
By contrast the Chronicle of Higher Education, a liberal publication unsympathetic to our cause, published a lengthy and reasonably balanced cover story on our efforts, as did USA Today. Both assigned reporters to follow me on campuses and report what they saw. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post published substantial and fair-minded articles as well, although the Times’ Education supplement studiously ignored our efforts. In October 2005, an issue of the Weekly Standard did focus on higher education reform with a 10,000-word cover feature titled: “The Left University: How It Was Born, How It Grew, How to Overcome It.” The Standard even used our campaign logo featuring the three hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil monkeys dressed in cap and gown for its cover design. But the story failed to mention our campaign or the Academic Bill of Rights, while the Standard’s editors did not even bother to request permission to use our image.[28]
The calculated distance which the conservative establishment took towards our efforts reflected the same disposition that lay behind Buckley’s failure to organize a campaign for reforming the university system, despite his prescient critique of its curriculum at Yale. While precise in their diagnosis of what is wrong with the university curriculum, conservatives have remained reluctant to pursue a course of action to correct it. Conservatives are uncomfortable with organized movements generally and institutional reform efforts in particular. They are especially uneasy with conflicts that might bring them into collision with the intellectual establishment, or that would invite unscrupulous ad hominem attacks from the opposition. Ours involved all three.
There were significant exceptions to this abstinence. I did receive important support for my campus appearances from Young America’s Foundation and the Leadership Institute, while Human Events was a conservative publication that gave attention to our efforts. The talk radio network and Fox News Channel did feature our cases and played an important role in raising the visibility of scandals such as that involving Professor Ward Churchill, which greatly helped our cause. Sean Hannity, co-anchor of the Hannity & Colmes show also devoted an unprecedented five segments to my book The Professors, helping to put our concerns before the general public and induce our opponents to take us more seriously. But these media outlets were also viewed from a distance by conservative intellectuals, and were regarded with ill-concealed contempt by the university audience we were attempting to reach.
The reader of this book will see that the forces ranged against university reform are formidable, and that they will regularly resort to gross misrepresentations of the facts and personal smears of their opponents to prevent a reasonable consideration of the issues. Chapter 9, describing the academic freedom hearings in Pennsylvania, is particularly instructive in documenting the determination of teacher unions and the Democratic Party to block an inquiry into whether academic freedom protections for students actually existed at any of the 17 public universities in the state and then to obscure the committee’s findings that at 15 of those schools they did not. Chapter 10 describes the faculty resistance to one student’s efforts to use these protections by filing a formal grievance at Penn State University when his instructor presented only one side of a highly controversial issue.
While the facts presented in this narrative may seem discouraging, the campaign’s successes suggest that if conservatives had embraced the Academic Bill of Rights and made curricular reform an integral part of their agendas, we would have been able to change the academic freedom provisions for students not at two or ten universities but throughout the higher education system. I am convinced more than ever of the feasibility of the measures we have proposed, as I am of the imperative of restoring integrity to our schools. This book is an effort to persuade Americans generally and conservatives in particular that the reforms described here can be achieved — to explain the difficulties involved and to show how they can be overcome.
Notes:
[1] The other member of my staff, Brad Shipp, accepted an administrative post at large state university some three years ago. In the last year I have hired a replacement, Craig Snider. My campus coordinator, Jeffrey Wienir has devoted his efforts mainly to issues not directly related to academic freedom.
[2] The organized opposition to our campaign, operating under the umbrella “Free Exchange Coalition” is described here: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7484
[3] Stephen H. Aby, ed. The Academic Bill of Rights Debate, Praeger 2007, p.1.
[4] http://milproj.ummu.umich.edu/publications/transformation/index.html
[5] John Sexton, president of New York University, November 9, 2004. http://www.nyu.edu/about/sexton-graduate-professional.html
[6] These include, among others, African American Studies, Peace Studies, American Studies, Cultural Studies, Post-Colonial Studies and Gay and Lesbian Studies. For a detailed critique of the Women’s Studies curriculum by two of its founders who later had second thoughts, see Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women’s Studies, 2003
[7] Preamble to the Constitution of the National Women’s Studies Association. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-25351356_ITM
[8] Zelnick testimony, January 10, 2006 http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/1326/StephenZelnickLoganFisherPaTestimony.htm
[9] Ibid.
[10] I have documented these changes in a book written with Jacob Laksin in which we analyzed more than 150 contemporary courses at 12 major universities that are designed to inculcate such orthodoxies. One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America’s Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our Democracy, NY 2009.
[11] Horowitz and Laksin, op. cit., pp. 1-2
[12] Horowitz and Laksin., p. 141
[13] Gerald Graff, “Presidential Address 2008: Courseocentrism,” PMLA, May 2009, Vol. 124, No. 3 p. 739 Graff is critical of this development.
[14] http://www.isi.org/about/our_history/our_history.html
[15] The Leadership Institute now sponsors campus groups but does not direct or attempt to organize them. Young America’s Foundation has one campus chapter at George Washington University.
[16] Robert C. Post and Matthew W. Finkin, For the Common Good, Principles of American Academic Freedom, New Haven 2009, p. 8 Post is Dean of the Yale Law School and Finkin is the Edward W. Cleary Chair in Law at the University of Illinois,
[17] Post and Finkin, op. cit. p. 60
[18] http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/1915.htm. Cf. also, Stanley Fish, Save the World on your own Time, 2008, which is an insightful discourse on this subject.
[19] Horowitz and Laksin, op., cit. pp. 98-100; courses in “empire” taught by equally unqualified professors also abound, op. cit., pp. 223-4
[20] http://educationprogram.duke.edu/undergraduate/courses?semester=spring&year=2007. The Department of Literature has an entire “certificate” program with the same title “Perspectives on Marxism and Society,” headed by a professor of film studies. http://literature.aas.duke.edu/undergrad/MarxismandSociety.php
[21] http://www.rethinkingmarxism.org/cms/node/884
[22] http://www.soc.duke.edu/courses/synopses.html
[23] https://fds.duke.edu/db/aas/Literature/hardt
[24] For an example of how the prejudices of the left have resulted in a blacklist of “politically incorrect” candidates for faculty positions, cf. Cary Nelson, No University Is An Island, NYU Press, 2010, Chapter 4, “Barefoot In New Zealand,” pp. 119 et. seq. In this account Nelson describes how a candidate for a position in the English department at the University of Illinois was not hired because they had written a letter to a New Zealand newspaper about a local ordinance requiring the wearing of shoes on city streets which leftists in the department deemed “racist” and “imperialist.” Their presumption was that the targets of the ordinance were Maoris and “people of color” when in fact the offenders were local hippies, who were white.
[25] Nelson, op. cit., p. 191
[26] Robert Maranto, Richard E. Redding and Frederick M. Hesst, editors, The Politically Correct University: Problems, Scope, and Reforms, Washington, 2009
[27] The books were Uncivil Wars, The Professors, Indoctrination U and One-Party Classroom.
[28] The Weekly Standard, October 3, 2005.
>Imprimus, a publication of Hillsdale College with a million-
>and-a half conservative subscribers interested in higher
>education, ignored us.
I have been a subscriber to Imprimus for 20 years, and have always had the greatest respect for their committment to the kind of values that David Horowitz (and myself!) agree with. So I'm disappointed to hear of Imprimus and D.H. apparently not getting along.
The Heritage Foundation, The Hoover Institution, the American Enterprise, The Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal have also completely ignored Mr. Horowitz's efforts.
Why?
Because these (along with Imprimus) are serious organizations employing working scholars and other credentialled professionals. Mr. Horowitz's "campaign" is gimmicky, hokey, and unserious. To the extent that a piece of the "liberal" academic establishment did address his concerns, Mr. Horowitz should be gratified. Mr. Horowitz's style still hearkens back to his Ramparts days of sensationalistic stunts and propagandistic jabs. Only now "The Man" has been replaced by "liberals."
Mr. Horowitz writes brilliantly insightful memoirs–to me, this is his calling, his forte. When he turns to nuts and bolts political analysis and activism, he just another pundit looking for his two minutes on camera–a class A player wondering why he's never been drafted to the majors.
If you go into a hostile environment and say reasonable things, you expose to the surprised public just how nasty the environment is, and you shake up the administrators of the college. You may even change the minds of a few students. So for that reason alone, DH is doing the right thing.
But even in this article, you see that the academic establishment has entertained Horowitz and his ideas, while the conservative establishment has not. So which one has been hostile?
As I've said before, DH is a smart guy who gets some things right. As someone who despises identity politics, I sympathize with criticism of some of these "out there" courses. But as someone who also believes in the free exchange of ideas, I strongly feel our universities are "laboratories" where all ideas should be aired and examined.
To keep this brief, I think DH makes assumptions that are extremely out-of-touch with today's academic environment–which is a very, very different environment than the one you grew up with–just as the world is very different since the end of the Cold War, the ascendancy of the internet, the norm of two working parents, etc. When you start with a simplistic, faulty assumption, you'll get skewed results.
You've nailed it!
When it comes to politics, Horowitz is an incorrigible fanatic and demagogue. However, since his days at Ramparts, he has astutely discovered that fanaticism of the right pays a hell of a lot better than fanaticism of the left.
David's ideas for academic reform have been consistent through the years and eminently reasonable. Perhaps you could detail which of his proposed reforms are "gimmicky, hokey, and unserious". If you are unable to do so – and I don't believe you can, then we can all recognize your comment for the baseless nonsense that it is.
It's quite true that some of Mr. Horowitz's criticisms are "eminently reasonable." Those which are reasonable…also happen to already be a part of most schools' academic codes.
Mr. Horowitz is a very intelligent man. That is not the issue. What is not reasonable, and in fact quite unserious, is Mr. Horowitz's simplistic conception of Left and Right along a continuum of ideas man has been arguing for centuries, if not millenia. Sure, it is a conception that is quite entrenched in popular culture, thanks to a frivolous and shallow political environment we have been creating since the 60s. But it is not one that reflects the larger world of ideas. The Founding Fathers, themselves, fought bitterly over these ideas–yet only a fool would align our Founders under today's silly conception of "Left" and "Right."
Are you actually suggesting that in the humanities dept's of our universities, ideological pluralism is the norm of what is being taught?
Islamofascism Awareness Week. Discredited accounts of students claiming bias based on lies about exams. Championing a fraud professor who falsely claimed to be a medal-winning veteran.
His proposed reforms? It's hard to detail them because they are never specifically articulated – only addressed through vagaries like "Academic Freedom."
Like most of DH's critics you're long on insinuation and generality, short on specifics. I agree his style is a bit incendiary and polemical, but his points are always nonetheless well made, typically insightful and ring of truth. And that is why his critics almost invariably refuse to actually address them., electing ad homenin style response, as with yourself here.
You may want to look up ad hominem in a dictionary before you misuse it again. You note I think he is an excellent memoirist; that is his gift. Political activism has never been.
Actually I think the record speaks for itself: Mr. Horowitz was at least given a shake from the academic establishment. What does it say about him that his stunts have not drawn the attention of any conservative heavy-hitters?
Re: "…the feminist movement exists because women are oppressed."
Where is the evidence supporting this claim?
troll on elsewhere.
I admire and support this.
We all owe David a great debt of gratitude for his efforts. It's one thing to critique the system, it's quite another to engage in the hard work to reform it. God knows his progress has been incremental given the fanatical resistance of an entrenched interest group – tenured Left-wing faculty – so zealously defending its otherwise uncontested power base.
I have a prediction: Someday long after David has moved on to the next world, his ideas will be more potent than ever…and I suspect there will even be courses at given universities dedicated to studying his prodigious body of work.
david horowitzs new book "reforming our universitys" is a must read. its very hard to put down great gift idea for a friend family member please e mail your friends about this great book and please consider doing a nice book review on http://www.bn.com and http://www.powellsbooks.com and http://www.amazon.com
David:
Consider the conservative groups that let you down consider themselves part of the ruling class – the other side of our liberal elite. Why not go to the public directly with your reasoned approach? I think your problem is marketing and not for the want of a great idea.
Why not see if Glenn Beck would allow you on his show to discuss your new book and invite Graf to participate? Assure Graf that this is not a set up. Or invite a very credible progressive historian such as Ed Countryman who also believes in viewpoint neutrality?
This would be huge and would be fun for you and Beck *along with Graf and a Countryman* to lecture progressives in academia who use their classrooms to assault viewpoints that they don't like.
Lay down some sort of metric you feel is fair and if it is not met (most likely it won't) then Beck could ask people to stop paying the salaries that are simply agents of propaganda. Glenn could ask his audience to quit giving money to private colleges that support viewpoint discrimination. This could also take the form of state initiatives where academic freedom could be written into STATE LAW. Why should the tax money of everyone from all points of view go to support the world view of the Ward Churchills?
You've got the talent, the vision and credibility from your long efforts in the trenches on this issue. But the time for trench warfare is over. Sell Glenn Beck (and perhaps Sarah Palin as well) on your idea and you can turn your vision into reality.
Thinking vs doing. That is why a conservative group like the National Association of Scholars won't budge. It is not in their nature. I put them win a TAH grant which gave them a decent chunk of $s and never got a thank you. This grant impacted the teaching of American history in K12 education. They had an example to follow from this win and I did all the marketing to find the districts and produced the winning grant. And they never sought a way to extend a winning idea and win more of them … and I dealt with Steve Balch. So just turn the page and work with people who want to create change. The first move is always to give the other side the chance to cooperate and I would extend that offer one more time with Glenn Beck as your partner. And after that let Glenn have fun with them if they don't do the right thing (which I doubt they will). Judges are scared to death of Bill O'Reilly calling them out when they let child molesters off with a slap on the wrist. Make the same thing happen for academic propaganda merchants. You can do it!
second line "Commission" not Sommision and "oral" not opal. Sorry…
Wasnt it the Chronicle who ran the story that showed that 60% of Hillsdale's faculty voted for Obama? Is it any wonder that they are afraid of being seen as "too" conservative when every couple of years they must go up against the liberal accreditation body and justify their existance? It isnt just the schools that have become far too liberal, it is the governmental organizations that control them that have driven this bus over the cliff and i wonder if there is any way to save what is left as soon the rest of the world will no longer want to send their best and brightest here to learn because they only get indoctrinated. China currently has more students in high-end engineering programs in China than we have in total enrollment. We had better fix things before they get too late…I worry that we already are.
So China is outperforming us? Could it be because they have been indoctrinated by Leftists all these years?
This post perfectly captures just the sort of cognitive dissonance which illustrates why DH's campaign will never go anywhere.
Sitting here like Buggs Bunny chewing a carrot examining
"what's up Doc" puts a light for me to the malaise of thought
in Conservative circles concerning leftist indoctrination in
education. It is my belief that what is described by David is
defeatism from Conservative quarters and not disinterest.
The problem being so wide and intrenched that few had
the courage to take it on and be part of the solution.
Someday the more enlightened University will have
a David Horowitz Chair of Educational Freedom. Knowing
Professorial victims of leftist discrimination and seeing how
they have been pressured to remain silent (you will not gain
tenure) with the threat of starvation and ignominy, this wall
of wrong continues but must be crashed and the human mind
freed to get past the trench of ignorant imprisonment structured
to dum down our society, Horowitz is gaining and this is a
good thing for American Education………..William
David Horowitz is a stalwart fighter against injustice, especially when it concerns the one sided, liberal , Marxists, radicals teaching in our schools.This, my friends, is the turning point for a counter revolution whose time has come against the propaganda that is being spewed in our classrooms. It is clear that the push is on in our classrooms and under this administration to indoctrinate our chidren into a Marxist/socialist mind set. Our children are their prize! Like Bill Ayers has always contended, the takeover begins with our chiodren and in our classrooms. I would not doubt that when he announced his retirement, that he is going to set out in a radical way to get this movement for indoctrination into our schools as a top priority.
Public education based on results and outrageous costs ($10,000 plus per student in elementary schools and $30,000 at the college level) and it is a collossal failure. The only way to make any major improvement in our educational system is through privatization to the point at which a substantial fraction – menaing the majority of all educational services are rendered to individuals by private enterprises. Nothing else will destroy or even greatly weaken the power of the current dismal educational establishment — a necessary pre-condition for radical improvement in our educational system. And nothing else will provide the public funded schools with the competition that will force them to improve in order to hold their clientele.
Those costs are nothing compared to private education. What are your metrics concerning this "failure."
Having been personally indoctrinated into the "correct and only" way of reasoning at one of the nation's top 5 schools I'm still astonished that my brain came through the ordeal able to
consider two sides of most issues.
Today, with the fast life-style that everyone leads, credit cards have a huge demand throughout the market. Persons out of every discipline are using credit card and people who aren’t using the credit card have arranged to apply for 1. Thanks for spreading your ideas on credit cards.
What a great article, I found this to be quite an enjoyable read.
Oklahoma City chiropractor
You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but Calculette Simulation Pret Immobilier find this topic to be really something which I think I would never understand.
Good writing plus good ideas equals great blog. Keep writing this way. Really enjoyed it.
all inclusive resorts in Hawaii
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam dictum nulla ac erat auctor vel lobortis justo pretium. Nam ligula magna, malesuada non gravida quis, luctus et nisi. Integer non neque arcu, sed porta elit. Maecenas sollicitudin vehicula sapien vel condimentum. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. los vazquez sounds
I am very happy to write comment on this blog really you had provided very informative post in this blog. Really it had made me know something today. Thanks for the stuff which made me realized some thing.
Learning which insurance plan cover to choose might be difficult. It is essential that you just look for protection plan which resources the level of protection you will need, and at a cost you can deal with. Turn into well-informed on what you require from the vehicle insurance plan plan in advance of purchasing 1. Study more to identify ways to acquire the best vehicle insurance plan for your needs and funds.
http://bestinsurancecompanies.com/
Tampa Bay Brace and Limb is the premier leader in Tampa Bay for industry leading orthotic and prosthetic devices. Tampa Bay Brace and Limb serves thousands throughout the Tampa Bay region, Florida, and the nation.
Tampa Bay Brace and Limb has the unique opportunity to help all of those regarding their financial circumstances, health related problems, and working with networks of doctors, physical therapists, and hospitals to make sure their patients gain confidence and freedom.
Tampa Bay Brace and Limb is the premier leader in Tampa Bay for industry leading orthotic and prosthetic devices. Tampa Bay Brace and Limb serves thousands throughout the Tampa Bay region, Florida, and the nation.
Tampa Bay Brace and Limb has the unique opportunity to help all of those regarding their financial circumstances, health related problems, and working with networks of doctors, physical therapists, and hospitals to make sure their patients gain confidence and freedom.