The Indiana Senate has passed a higher education bill that would significantly increase partisan political control over the state's public universities and undermine academic freedom for faculty.
Sen. Spencer Deery (R-West Lafayette) called Senate Bill 202 a “reform” that would correct a “degraded view” of higher education. A long list of opponents, including students, faculty, and university administrators, strongly oppose the bill, accusing it of political overreach and threats to faculty tenure. As one faculty columnist wrote, Senate Bill 202 is a “Trojan horse for the crackdown on academic freedom.”
The bill is currently being considered in the Indiana House of Representatives, where it passed the Senate on a party-line vote of 39-9, with all Republicans voting yes. In its current form, it includes several concerning provisions modeled in part on bills proposed by conservative lawmakers in other states.
Here are two of the most controversial parts of the bill.
Strengthening political control of the board
Mr. Deary's bill would change the composition and appointment process of Indiana's public universities and colleges' boards in several ways. The most significant change is that alumni members of the board of directors, instead of being elected by a vote of the institution's alumni group, will be elected by the majority leaders of the House and Senate, with “advice” from the minority leaders. ” to be appointed.
For example, at Indiana University, the Board of Trustees currently has six members appointed by the governor and three members elected by alumni. Mr. Deary's bill would replace two of the elected alumni positions with one appointed by the president pro tempore of the state Senate and one appointed by the speaker of the House. Similar additions will be made at Ball State University, Indiana State University, Purdue University, University of Southern Indiana and Vincennes University, but in different numbers.
Giving this type of appointment power to the majority party in the state Legislature is almost certain to create a political litmus test for the appointee.
Tenure that requires “intellectual diversity”
Deary's bill would also have a chilling effect on state agency tenure and promotion policies. This would require the board not to grant tenure or promotion to any faculty member that the board determines:
- “It is unlikely to foster a culture of free inquiry, free expression, and intellectual diversity” or
- “It is unlikely that students will be exposed to academic works from the various political or ideological frameworks that may exist.”
The Board also prohibits faculty members who “while performing their teaching or teaching duties may impose on students political or ideological views or opinions that are unrelated to the faculty member's field of study or assigned course of instruction.” There is a possibility that measures will be taken against this.
The board will be required to conduct a post-tenure review every five years to determine whether a tenured faculty member:
- He helped the institution foster a culture of free inquiry, free expression, and intellectual diversity within the institution.
- Introduces students to scholarly works from a variety of political or ideological frameworks.
- Avoid giving students input or opinions on matters unrelated to the instructor's academic field or assigned course of instruction.
- Successful performance of academic duties and obligations.
- Meet other criteria established by the Board of Directors.
What could be the problem? Probably nothing if:
- You're an economics professor who teaches a class on the virtues of capitalism, but you also provide ample reading material about the benefits of socialism and communism.
- Your European history class provides a “balanced” view of the Nazis.
- Advanced seminars on virology also include material on unreliable claims about vaccines.
University boards will be given a wide range of discretion in making these decisions. Decisions may be based on judgments of what is “likely” to occur. If that's not enough latitude, personnel actions could also rely on “other criteria established by the board” to evaluate faculty.
University leaders across the state appear to be united in their opposition. The AAUP chapters of Indiana University Bloomington and Purdue University West Lafayette released a joint statement that reads in part:
SB 202 mandates a system of surveillance and political oversight that perversely stifles the free flow of ideas. The bill would require hiring, tenure, and promotion to be subject to a review that judges teachers based on political criteria, and post-tenure employment to be subject to additional periodic reviews.
In a statement to Indiana Public Media, Indiana University President Pam Whitten said:
While we are still analyzing the broader potential impacts of SB 202, it risks academic freedom, weakens the intellectual rigor essential to developing critical thinking skills, and undermines competitiveness. I am deeply concerned about the language regarding faculty tenure. World-class faculty are at the core of what makes IU an extraordinary research institution.
We all share the common goal of maximizing the university's ability to make scientific advances, attract talented students and faculty, drive economic development, and create better outcomes for all Hoosiers. I'm sharing it. My concern is that SB 202 risks unintended consequences that not only threaten the standing of Indiana University, but the economic and cultural vitality of our state.
Mr. Witten and the AAUP are right. Senate Bill 202 has serious flaws. Now is the time for Indiana business leaders, editorial boards, and local officials to join us in opposing this bill.
follow me twitter.
