State "Higher Ed Reform" Roundup: Ohio

All eggs are in one basket in Ohio

Republican state legislatures across the country are debating significant reforms in state university systems. Some of the reform proposals are fairly modest, but others would substantially transform how higher education work in public universities. In several instances, those bills are now moving toward some resolution, and so a series of posts checking in on where things stand seems in order. I discussed North Dakota and Texas in earlier posts. Texas is still very much in play, but North Dakota appears to be done for now.

Next up is Ohio. The chairman of the Senate Workforce and Higher Education Committee in Ohio is pushing a single reform bill, Senate Bill 83. It enjoys the support of the National Association of Scholars and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. SB 83 currently sits in Senate committee. The "Ohio Higher Education Enhancement Act" bundles a variety of proposals into a single legislative package. It is more sweeping than the proposals in some other states, but also generally less intrusive into the scholarly work on state university campuses.

Unusually for the current wave of Republican state higher ed proposals, SB 83 does have some components aimed at private universities. The bill would prohibit any state funds being distributed to private universities unless they also complied with a number of new restrictions being proposed for state universities, including the elimination of DEI training, the elimination of "political or ideological litmus tests in hiring or promotion," and commitment to free speech policies. The limit on state funding would not apply to student financial aid.

The bill would require the development of a training program for incoming members of the boards of trustees of state institutions. This seems like a good addition, though I am surprised that in the long list of things to be included in the program there is nothing on academic freedom or freedom of speech. Trustees need to be educated on the distinctive intellectual climate of the universities that they oversee.

The bill requires that course syllabi be formatted in a particular way and made available and searchable on a website. This requirement would also extend to private universities accepting state funds. This is clearly designed to provide greater transparency regarding course content to outside activists. The benefit to students is likely to be modest, though the bill does require some content that most instructors would probably not naturally include in their syllabi (biographical information about the instructor? description of the subject matter of each lecture?). On the whole, such transparency requirements will probably just encourage the harassment of faculty, but professors should be willing to share their course syllabi and justify what they choose to teach in their courses. That should especially be true at state universities.

The bill requires that each state institution incorporate into their mission statements a series of what might be characterized as free inquiry affirmations. It also requires that state universities commit to an institutional neutrality principle in regard to social and political controversies, prohibit divestment and boycotts, secure free speech, and adopt measures of intellectual diversity (that last one is interesting but the details are left to the campus).  That section of the bill also includes the following:

Affirm and guarantee that faculty and staff shall allow and encourage students to reach their own conclusions about all controversial matters and shall not seek to inculcate any social, political, or religious point of view

In principle this seems unobjectionable, but the implementation and enforcement could be quite problematic. Hard to know what it might mean to allow student "to reach their own conclusions" and for a professor "not to seek to inculcate any social" or political point of view. If I teach a class in normative political theory oriented around a set of arguments that liberal democracy is preferable to autocracy, have I sought to inculcate a view? Would I be saved from such an accusation if I included in the readings critics of liberal democracy, or does it matter what I say in class or how I write the tests? Am I failing to "encourage students to reach their own conclusions" if I teach a class on free speech organized around a favorable view of the American constitutional practice? If I am teaching a biology class and show why all the evidence indicates that the mRNA vaccines are safe and effective or demonstrate the significance of natural selection, have I failed to allow and encourage students to reach their own conclusions?

The bill prohibits the use of diversity statements and the like (huzzah!). It also requires that universities "seek out intellectual diversity in invited speakers," as well as imposes transparency requirements on invited speakers. Seems like an admirable goal, but again the implementation is likely to cause all kinds of problems. Does this include, for example, speakers in departmental workshops? If 95% of the speakers invited to share their research in the political science department are reliable Democratic voters but their talks are about their ordinary scholarship in political science, does the university need to score that on some intellectual diversity metric and if so, how?

Requires that undergraduates take a class in American government or history that includes coverage of a specific set of materials (Gettysburg Address, Constitution, Letter from a Birmingham Jail, etc.). Hey, I've got a text that would be super for such a class!

It includes a workload requirement for faculty, with some yet to be specified accounting for teaching, research, and administrative work. Universities much include in student course evaluations a question about whether the instructor teaches a course free of bias. What could go wrong with asking that?

Adopts a post-tenure review system that builds on annual performance evaluations. Professors can lose tenure and be terminated for persistent poor performance as assessed by the department chair. The final say on any post-tenure review process would rest in a committee of the board of trustees.

It imposes a series of restrictions on relationship between state universities and Chinese institutions.

It eliminates affirmative action and prohibits training that includes a standard list of divisive concepts.

It prohibits strikes by public employees, including state university employees.

SB 83 is quite the grab bag. It is more modest than the proposals being considered in some other states. No elimination of tenure. No restriction on teaching "critical race theory." Critics have been quick to jump to the claim that the bill "censors" professors and is a "gag order," but that rhetoric seems overwrought. Some of the proposals would undoubtedly create implementation problems that would interfere with academic freedom, but there is room for some relatively modest revisions to the current bill that would alleviate those concerns.

Comments

[apedad]

I get the blah, blah, blah about diversity and wokeness, etc., but this part puzzled me a bit, “It prohibits strikes by public employees, including state university employees.”

Is that legal/constitutional for the state to do?

Something, something, “. . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

(Yes 1A is incorporated.)

[John F. Carr]

You don't want to work, you can quit. You don't work, you can be fired. That's the law absent special legislation. Public safety employees are often forbidden to strike. Remember Reagan and the air traffic controllers? Massachusetts prohibits strikes by K-12 teachers. Some teachers went on strike anyway and part of their demand was for management to overlook the illegality of the stroke.

When you're not on the clock you can hold a sign saying "the chancellor is a fink." That's not a strike.

[apedad]

Good to know.

This talks about the legality of public strikes.

https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=4426&context=clr

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You don’t want to work, you can quit. You don’t work, you can be fired. That’s the law absent special legislation.

Remember that point, because it will someday return as the standard that governs employees who seek snowflake treatment rooted in superstition. It may take a few years. It may take a decade. It may take a few decades. But that is America's predictable destination.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In K-12, the practice of wearing black armbands is perfectly legal and somewhat common when the union is upset with the Superintendent. Just a plain black armband on your left arm, everyone knows what it means and (usually) what you are upset about.

[OtisAH]

Yes. No strike provisions are a part of public sector employment contracts, although I thought it was nationwide. Guess it’s state by state.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It's nationwide in that it applies to all federal employees. States set the laws for their own employees, of course.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The principle was established more than a century ago by then MA Governor Calvin Cooledge and the Boston Police Strike (and the response of the VERMONT National Guard…)

Silent Cal said: “There is no right to strike against the public interest” and both FDR and George Meaney opposed public sector unions in general as they saw it wrong to be organized against the public. Against private management, absolutely, but not against the people as a whole.

I believe that every public sector union contract in Massachusetts is required to have a "no strike" clause in it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

For some time now conservatives have been running away from the acquisition of knowledge. This is the latest manifestation.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It's today's standard divide in American politics and culture (reason, science, modernity, inclusiveness, progress, education, professionalism, credentials on one side; ignorance, superstition, bigotry, backwardness, dogma, insularity, and downscale populism on the other). In this particular context, it's our strongest research and teaching institutions vs. backwater, low-quality religious schooling and homeschooling.

Time will continue to sift this. People are entitled to bet on crappy schools, ignorance, dogma, and superstition -- and against our strongest schools and science -- but those people are losers.

[Ben_]

Affirmative action is not knowledge. Diversity statements are not knowledge. Hiding your course syllabus is not knowledge. Indoctrination is not knowledge.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"If I teach a class in normative political theory oriented around a set of arguments that liberal democracy is preferable to autocracy, have I sought to inculcate a view."

What I can more see happening is a class on 20th Century European history or politics, some kid defending the Nazis.

Now the argument that Hitler did some good things is defensible, the fact that he won a plurality in what was a basically fair election is actually true as is the fact that he was largely welcomed into Austria. Hitler created the Volkswagen (people's car) and developed the concept of what is now our Interstate Highway system. And if I had a student raise this, I'd agree -- but then ask "at what cost" and point out the price that Germany paid -- and I'm secure enough in my knowledge that I really wouldn't care if a student said something like this, as long as he/she/it could actually defend it.

Now if a student tried to justify the Holocaust and the killing of the Jews, I'd probably ask how he/she/it would feel if Israel would do the same thing. Bigots aren't very bright, and I'd probably have to explain that while they'd never do it (and actually have Palestinian members of their parliament), Israel theoretically could try to kill all the Palestinians if it wished.

I really don't think an anti-semetic bigot would be able to respond to that. And while I have no problem telling a student that "I think you are wrong", I'd give full credit for a defensible argument, knowing that it simply isn't possible to defend something like the Holocaust. (It was tried in Nuremburg and didn't work...)

Now does that constitute "seek[ing] to inculcate [a] social, political, or religious point of view"? I don't know -- and I think that the 1925(?) AAUP statement on student free thought is better.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : “Now the argument that Hitler did some good things is defensible”

What an rancid stew of a post. Two points :

1. Hitler became chancellor in January of 1933. Within one month he had abolished most civil liberties, including the right to speak, assemble, protest, and due process. Within two months, he had eliminated any role of the legislature in German laws or politics. On 01April came the Nazi-imposed boycott of all Jewish businesses. Six days later came a law banning Jews from all government jobs. So let’s keep Hitler’s “good” in some perspective, shall we? In just four months he destroyed German society and launched it on an irrevocable course to total shame and ruin.

2. Yeah, Israel has Palestinian members of their parliament, but you might want to do a little research on how Palestinians are treated by the Israeli government – both the ones who have citizenship & the ones denied all citizen’s rights, apartheid-style. They don’t receive equal treatment politically. They don’t receive equal treatment under the law. They don’t get equal treatment in the courts. They don’t get equal protection from the police. They don’t have equal economic rights of ownership and property.

I hate debating the Israeli-Palestinian thing because people tend to see each side as 100% villain/victim depending on their disposition, whereas I think both are blind stupid fools. But anyone who thinks Palestinians are treated equally and fairly by the Israeli government is deeply ignorant about the most basic facts.

[Dr. Ed 2]

1: How do you not mention the Nuremburg Racial Purity Laws?

2: Did you miss the “at what cost” part of what I wrote? Don’t you think that I would have included most of the stuff you listed (and a bit more, like the aforementioned Nuremburg laws….

3: Isn’t it true that Hitler actually did all of the things I listed? Does conceding that somehow justify his horrors? (Does factual accuracy even matter to you?)

4: You don’t honestly think that German antisemitism started with Hitler, do you? It dates back at least to Martin Luther and the Reformation.

5: While I didn’t explicitly state it, I used the example of Hitler because he is generally considered to be evil incarnate.

And what, EXACTLY, is wrong with taking the approach I suggested?

[grb]

1. I focused on the immediate damage Hitler did to Germany. The Nuremburg Racial Purity Laws came later, in 1935. My point is this: There was never any period when Hitler’s rule wasn’t an abomination to the German state. The corrosive destruction of his rule started immediately upon taking office and spread across the entire country.

2 & 3. Yes, you could have factored my examples against your “good” …. but you didn’t. And that’s damn strange, given the massive imbalance involved. Measure the sum damage Hitler did from his earliest days in office against all his so-called “good” and the scales don’t fall anywhere close to even. I might similarly say Hitler liked the wild birds of the forest and tried to protect them from cats – but then there’s also that whole Holocaust Thing.

4. Sure, antisemitism was present in Germany beforehand. But many German Jews stayed in the country precisely because they’d lived through German antisemitism and thought they could continue doing so. Hitler was different, wasn’t he?

5. Granted. But it’s the kind of talk that drives me bonkers. A much lesser example is Putin. Well before the Ukrainian War I thought him an absolute disaster for the Russian people and their hopes to live a normal life in a normal country. But there were (and are) people who cherry-pick “merit” in tiny parts of his corrosive rule, ignoring the overall damage it’s done. I would say to them, “that’s like saying Hitler did some good….”

(I’d get accused of violating Godwin’s law)

[Dr. Ed 2]

For the record, I'm not defending Hitler. I'm not even raising the issue of how the treaty ending WW-I inevitably led to someone like him arising a generation later.

Instead, I'm asking if a student's right of academic freedom permits a student to do this, relative to a class. Does a student have the right to present a perspective I find reprehensible if the student can defend it with legitimate scholarship?

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : For the record, I’m not defending Hitler.

Conceded. I mighta gone overboard...

[Gandydancer]

"What an rancid stew of a post."

You are a nitwit.

The statement "...the argument that Hitler did some good things is defensible” does not remotely imply that Hitler did more goof things than bad things. One might think that you could not possibly be confused about Ed's position on that, but with nitwits it's impossible to underestimate their ability to have a clue.

[Gandydancer]

“If I teach a class in normative political theory oriented around a set of arguments that liberal democracy is preferable to autocracy, have I sought to inculcate a view.”

You quote this, but don’t answer the question.

The answer is “yes”.

So if the law says “faculty and staff… shall not seek to inculcate any social, political, or religious point of view” that’s a problem, because we know it won’t be enforced against such a course.

Btw, no one in Germany, including those who deposited funds to buy one, ever got a non-post-war Volkswagon, so giving Hitler credit for a good deed on that account is.... questionable.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As to “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, even though I’ve got three degrees from what is probably the most politically correct college in the country, I just realized that I’ve never read it.

That's also part of the problem -- the DIE curriculum is also quite hollow and lacks academic rigor.

[Sarcastr0]

Not having read that is on you.

And I like that now you're an expert on DEI curricula. Always retroactively improving, that's our Ed!

[Gandydancer]

But your expertise is such that you are qualified to deny that DEI curriculum is "hollow" and lacks academic rigor?

Then why are everyone we see associated with DEI such banal but evil losers?

[OtisAH]

Although DEI wasn’t even a concept when Ed was in school, his failure to read Letters from a Birmingham Jail is a clear indictment of DEI.

I’ll take a moment and give credit where due: That Ed figured out how to create a Reason account is quite astonishing and impressive.

[Dr. Ed 2]

See: https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0813384281/reasonmagazinea-20/ -- and that was 1993, as was the infamous "Water Buffalo" incident. Doe v. Univ of Michigan was 1989, Silva v. Univ of New Hampshire was 1992 (decided 1994).

The name has changed but the curriculum has not -- this stuff dates back decades....

[Sarcastr0]

The name has changed but the curriculum has not

LOL you need to get your story straight. Either college is fine and will continue to turn out conservatives and liberals alike as it has for at least 3 decades.

Or something new and bad is going on, and you're full of it when you claim there was DEI when you went to school.

I mean, you're citing supreme court cases about speech on campus as though they were 1) the norm, and 2, related at all to whether there were 'DEI courses' that didn't teach Letter from a Birmingham Jail, but providing evidence that's extremely irrelevant is kind of your jam so we can focus on the inconsistency not the lack of support.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or while the ship has been taking on water for some time, she is now starting to actually sink.

[Lee Moore]

All a waste of time and easily evaded. The left did not take control of universities by issuing orders from the state government about how universities should be run and what they should teach, they took control of appointments. (Same way Stalin crushed Trotsky and his other rivals.) Only after they had achieved overwhelming numerical superiority did they issue internal regulations to squeeze out the old conservative (and moderate liberal) guard.

The solution is not to try to get lefty admin and faculty to stop doing lefty things, the solution is to clean the stables. Remove control of appointments from the lefties.

Simply appoint Boards of Trustees with heavy, and ferocious, right wing majorities; and give those Boards complete control of all appointments, promotion and firing (admin and faculty.) Personnel is policy. Commies do politics, not academic enquiry. Until the commies are flushed out*, there will be no return to traditional academic enquiry.

* there is, of course, no harm in having a sprinkling of academically qualified commies, in a similar proportion to that of conservatives now. It’s just that they need to be a small powerless minority, with no control over anything except what happens in their classroom.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There are plenty of conservative-controlled campuses.

They tend to be low-quality schools with shambling faculties, downscale students, nondescript alumni, low endowments, poor reputations, and bad rankings.

The conservative schools also tend to impose plenty of viewpoint-driven censorship;

to enforce dogma and suppress science to flatter superstition;

to engage in ardent discrimination in everything from hiring and firing to admissions and discipline;

to enforce old-timey speech and conduct codes;

to collect loyalty oaths;

to teach nonsense;

and to circulate statements of faith.

Why would mainstream, liberal-libertarian Americans --who operate our strongest research and teaching institutions -- be in the market for pointers on education from conservatives, who wreck every campus they get their hands on?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Boards of Trustees with heavy, and ferocious, right wing majorities"

Yes, no more car dealers and dentists who are GOP contributors.

For private schools, tax their endowments, looking at you Oberlin with your $1 billion endowment.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

For private schools, tax their endowments,

Instead, I think better Americans will just continue to prefer our strongest (and therefore liberal-libertarian mainstream) schools and continue to kick the bigoted shit out of right-wingers like Bob from Ohio in the culture war.

Maybe we'll riff on Bob's ideas, though, and (1) stop recognizing accreditation of nonsense-soaked schools and (2) stop letting churches be such freeloaders.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Lee, I completely agree with you -- my only fear is creating something just as bad as what we have now, and I don't want to indoctrinate students in my beliefs, either.

Personnel *is* policy -- not realizing that was Donald Trump's biggest mistake as President. The left has exploited this for 50 years and it is a problem -- but how do we avoid merely replacing their fascists with ours?

[Lee Moore]

We will show mercy to the prisoners once they have surrendered been disarmed. Right now, there are other priorities. Like winning the battle.

B52s first, chaplains later.

[Gandydancer]

"...how do we avoid merely replacing their fascists with ours?"

I don't have any "fascists" that I consider "mine".

But between all-DEI and all-right-wing-"fascists" there is a path, many points along which are superior to the present. That the other end of the path might be just as bad as the present is no reason not to set off on it. Brakes are a thing too.

[Gandydancer]

"If 95% of the speakers invited to share their research in the political science department are reliable Democratic voters but their talks are about their ordinary scholarship in political science, does the university need to score that on some intellectual diversity metric and if so, how?"

The voters in a red State ought not put up with whatever causes such an imbalance to reliably occur, assuming it does.

[mydisplayname]

"Trustees need to be educated on the distinctive intellectual climate the universities that they oversee." My, what hubris!!

At this point, most folk understand that a relatively insignificant group of public servants -- professors at educational institutions wholly or partially funded by taxpayers' dollars -- would prefer (a) to have lifetime employment and (b) be exempt from oversight of any sort. Both of those whims are understandable and the professors' labor unions should be applauded for having the wherewithal (unmitigated gall?) to pursue such whims while of course fully and meaningfully respecting the Janus Rights of all employees (see https://americansforfairtreatment.org/what-are-janus-rights).

However, taxpayer dollars are taxpayer dollars, not professors' dollars, and taxpayers retain full control over the spending thereof. Professors obviously need to be educated on the distinctive subservient role they play in the process: to date, professors as a group have not demonstrated an embrace of the requisite levels of stewardship and decorum. "Professor" (and the definition of that terms is amorphous, meaning only what the cabal of existing, self-anointed professors will it to mean at any instant) is not a term of nobility, does not convey lifetime rights of any sort, and does not exempt any servant from oversight at any level taxpayers choose to implement. "Academic freedom" is a labor union slogan, not a right of any sort.

"[T]he government does make make contracts with any Government employee. The administrative executive officers operate under a law. They have no discretion. [...] [Government employees] ought to have the privilege always of coming and laying their case before the administrative officer who is in charge of their department." [Roosevelt, Franklin. Transcript of Press Conference #380 (9 July 1937), pp. 3-4. Available online at http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/_resources/images/pc/pc0050.pdf (PDF pages 23-24)].

Every professor would be wise to accept a small, well-deserved spanking now to avoid a larger, perhaps far more biting, punishment later. The rebuke of the profession is real.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Half-educated bigots and superstitious misfits dislike modern American in general and its strongest research and teaching institutions in particular.

In shambling (uneducated, religious, parasitic, bigoted) communities, citizens may be able to arrange schools that flatter losers who prefer creationism to evolution, dogma to science, Lost Cause lessons to genuine history, white grievance studies to anything else, etc.

Legitimate, strong schools in successful, reasoning, modern, inclusive communities are unlikely to tolerate that stupidity and ignorance, however, no matter how much a bunch of disaffected right-wing misfits dislike it or whine about it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

“Some fear the Biden administration is losing control of our southern border; losing control of our decaying, crime-infested big cities; creating a recession; vilifying and needlessly destroying the fossil fuel industry while pushing suspect and subsidized “green” energy alternatives; leaving tens of billions of dollars in military equipment in Afghanistan while withdrawing our troops and abandoning an ally; stepping closer to a trip-wire in the Ukraine war, which could trigger a nuclear strike; turning on Israel over ideological issues as Turkey and others call on Arab and Muslim nations to unite and crush the Jewish State; weakening our military with one “woke” edict after another; focusing on “trans” issues at the expense of failing transportation infrastructure; cheerleading the social justice warrior takeover of our colleges and universities; and weakening the dollar (the currency much of the world depends upon).”

[grb]

mydisplayname : “The rebuke of the profession is real”

But is it? I see just another one of the Right’s culture-war play toys, taking its place in the hive-mind of their malleable & docile base. Go to the National Review’s website and scroll its opening page and you see ten links to anti-trans stories. Granted, some are duplicates but that’s hardly an accident. With fifty links overall, the conservative outlet that prides itself on intellectual rigor devotes 20% to peddling anti-trans hysteria.

And there’s nothing “real” about any of it. The same tiny percentage of trans people existing today also existed thirty years ago. The only thing “new” is the Right’s obsessive need for new entertainment in the form of a fresh “outrage”. Not that long ago it was CRT in the public schools, which was a complete fabrication. But that didn’t stop the sheep from howling in rage or wailing in grief. They go emotional on command and are happy to do so – they love the sensation so very much.

But they’re not normal people for all the noise they make. Recently there was polling on the term “woke”. The results weren’t surprising: With some minor misgivings, most people saw it as a positive, treating people with understanding and respect. It’s reassuring how normalcy reasserts itself once you step away from the fever-dream echo chamber….

[Gandydancer]

The basis for a severe rebuke of the professoriate is both real and sound.

Don't know why you spiraled off into pro-tranny nonsense. That's the least of the craziness.

[grb]

Gandydancer : Don’t know why you spiraled off into pro-tranny nonsense.

I explained why clearly. Today’s Right is one grossly hyped “controversy” after another, usually with little or no practical basis in fact. There is no CRT in the public schools, but that fraud had the Right’s obedient sheep in hysterical panic and rage for over a year. There is no emergency threat from the the same tiny number of transexuals who have always been around, but the Right’s mindless zombie base is told to “believe” there is and obeys with abject servility.

And there’s no “woke” crisis on American campuses, except in the minds of people who say & believe whatever they’re told by their handlers. This site probably vacuums-up the lion’s share of “woke controversies” in Academia-USA, running dozens of posts on their pet favorites like Stanford. The result is a trinkle of problems. Some are troubling but most are tiny, and its a trinkle anyway.

Some advice: Your side blew one of the easiest midterm election situations in living memory. They did so because the people who decide elections weren’t impressed by the Right’s comically hyped bullshit issues. It entertains the base to be sure. Like a crowd at a pro-wrestling match, they boo, hiss, and cheer themselves in a frenzy, not caring a single bit whether it’s real or not.

But normal people don’t care about made-up issues. You’ll keep losing elections until you learn that.

[Gandydancer]

M-W: "trinkle
intransitive verb
trin·​kle ˈtriŋkəl
-ed/-ing/-s
dialectal
: to flow down by drops : TRICKLE
Etymology
Middle English trinkelen, probably alteration of triklen to trickle"
Looks archaic to me, but M-W doesn't say so.
Free Dictionary: "Trin´kle
v. i. 1. To act secretly, or in an underhand way; to tamper.
cite:]Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by G. & C. Merriam Co."
And no mention of M-W's definition.

Hmmmm... stick to "trickle", I think.

[Gandydancer]

“There is no CRT in the public schools…”

Of course there is. The basis for your claim is a narrowed definition of “CRT” that excludes all the behavior of interest. If you don’t like calling that “CRT” come up with your own name for it, but don’t pretend it’s not a real phenomenon.

“There is no emergency threat from the the same tiny number of transexuals who have always been around…”

Simply false. NY Timestrash headline: “Report Reveals Sharp Rise in Transgender Young People in the U.S.”.

“…there’s no ‘woke’ crisis on American campuses… This site probably vacuums-up the lion’s share of ‘woke controversies’ in Academia-USA, running dozens of posts on their pet favorites like Stanford…”

Well then we ought to be able to make an exhaustive list that proves your claim. Maybe on a Wiki? But I’m not inclined to do all the work and it’s YOUR claim. So make one and Ill guarantee to add at least as many examples you’ve left out as your total list (and we can then continue the process) because there are NO END of examples.

Keep your “advice”. The legacy GOP is not “my side”. Getting them out of the way to be actually able to take advantage of the catastrophic Democrat failure that is underway is task#1, and the most difficult one. The election of Trump showed a hunger to do that, but he was SUCH a failure at being what was wanted that he was ALMOST useless (but not quite).

[Robert]

"... professors should be willing to share their course syllabi and justify what they choose to teach in their courses." Well, yeah, I suppose they should, but if it is mandatory to comply with state law some issues arise. Suppose a professor decides, in the middle of the course, to teach something that wasn't on the syllabus, would that be a violation of state law? That kind of inflexibility would encourage robotic teaching as a defensive behavior. But if such flexibility were allowed the law would be a dead letter. The whole idea is a nonstarter for me.

[Lee Moore]

In the middle of the course, or in the middle of a lecture ?

If the Prof veers off midsteam in the middle of a lecture, onto something that isn't at least tangentially related to the syllabus, then presumably he or she has a good reason for this unexpected veer. No doubt that is a reasonable defense that can be supported by a reasonable explanation.

If it's a mid course veer rather than a mid lecture veer, then there's no reason wy the Prof can't post the course change in advance.

In any event, the simple solution is the Jordan Peterson solution. Video the lectures and post the course material. If you turn out to be teaching an actual academic subject then fine. If you turn out to be teaching commie propaganda, then adios.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I'd say "commie propaganda" is sufficiently vague to allow the state to fire anyone teaching something the state finds objectionable. Same with "Actual academic subject."

[Lee Moore]

As I mention elsewhere, I don't think this needs to be put into statutory wording.

It will be a matter for the Board of Trustees' judgement.

The Board will consist of the Duke of Wellington, Tokugawa Ieyasu and Genghis Khan. The most liberal of the three - the Duke of Wellington - will take the chair.

Professors should feel free to lecture accordingly.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It may not even take that -- simple economics may clean things up.

https://time.com/6265266/america-college-degrees-essay/?utm_source=pocket-newtab

[Gandydancer]

Not saying this syllabus requirement is a good idea, but deciding whether behavior is dishonest is a perfectly normal task. If a professor consistently inserts controversial material (e.g., "Whiteness"-pushing) but doesn't list it in his syllabi I think a conclusion can be drawn.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Suppose a professor decides, in the middle of the course, to teach something that wasn’t on the syllabus"

That's breach of contract.

Students signed up for what was on the syllabus, the university agreed to pay you to teach what is on that syllabus, and now you are unilaterally renegotiating that contract.

[Nige]

This sounds counter to the idea of lively intellectual exploration. If you can be fired for briefly looking at a tangential topic, that's bad pedagogy.

[Gandydancer]

Compared with what? Bad pedagogy is what we have already.

[Magister]

The bill prohibits the use of diversity statements and the like (huzzah!). It also requires that universities "seek out intellectual diversity in invited speakers,"

Ironically, universities cannot mention the latter policy, given the preceding requirement.

[Lee Moore]

Why would it matter if they can't mention the policy, so long as they follow it ?

Better, Shirley, than the current practice which is the other way round.

[Magister]

So, can they follow the former without making a statement about it? That would seem to be worse, even from the point of view of people who dislike such policies.

It seems difficult to practice the latter without any statement of it, given the ... diversity ... of people at the university who would implement it. But I imagine that the intent is for those who oversee the university will state their preferred policies and expect the academics to toe the line.

[Gandydancer]

"Diversity statements" are actually pledges to exhibit no intellectual diversity at all, so what you imagine to be a problem isn't one.

[Magister]

You seem to define "diversity statement" in a very specific way solely to align with your political preferences.

[Davy C]

Did you read the bill?

Prohibit political and ideological litmus tests in all
hiring, promotion, and admissions decisions, including diversity
statements and any other requirement that applicants describe
their commitment to a specified concept, specified ideology, or
any other ideology, principle, concept, or formulation that
requires commitment to any controversial belief or policy;

This is talking about requiring prospective students and faculty to give a diversity statement, not about the university itself making a statement about diversity.

[Ben_]

A standardized, searchable syllabus format will be a clear and quite valuable benefit to students.

[Archibald Tuttle]

KEITH E. WHITTINGTON said, "Seems like an admirable goal, but again the implementation is likely to cause all kinds of problems."

Lee Moore said, "The left did not take control of universities by issuing orders from the state government about how universities should be run and what they should teach, they took control of appointments."

I too worry about the workability of micro-management. I too feel that the root cause is leftish control over appointments. Therefore, I'm inclined to think that a political-viewpoint affirmative action program would be a better solution. Not just in academia, but in all employment. If NPR had just as many journalism graduates from say Utah State, as they do from say Columbia, we might expect differences in the world-view perspectives that shape the content broadcast.

How about an amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Law that adds political-viewpoint to "race, color, religion, sex, and national origin."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Clingers are starting to recognize their predictable future to the point that they propose affirmative action for bigotry, superstition, ignorance, and backwardness?

On behalf of the liberal-libertarian mainstream, victors at the marketplace of ideas and in the American culture war, I reject that proposal.

In education, as with everything else, conservatives will be painted into increasingly small, desolate, intolerant, ignorant corners of American society. Don't like it? Get better ideas. Or, at least, persuade more people to embrace the bad ones.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"How about an amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Law that adds political-viewpoint to “race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.”"

I believe some states have that -- but who will enforce it? Even if SCOTUS rules as we suspect, do you honestly think racial discrimination will end?

[Gandydancer]

California has a constitutional amendment to prohibit relevant types of racial discrimination but it is not enforced except with a wink and a nod at its continuance.