Perhaps the most contentious issue surrounding the academic freedom movement is whether or not legislators should get involved with passing things like the Academic Bill of Rights.
At the national Academic Freedom Conference held on April 6-7 in Washington, D.C. one panel of legislators, some who have been vilified publicly for their concerns, discussed measures taken within their own states.
Former state Senator John Andrews of Colorado said that what many denounce as anecdotal evidence, legislators term “putting a human face on the problem.”
“We were the first state to consider legislation,” said Sen. Andrews, explaining that a bill was introduced in the House and it probably would not have passed, but the University feared that it would, and chose compliance without the bill passing.
“Legislation is not necessarily an end, but a lever,” said the senator.
In Florida, state Representative Dennis Baxley had a very personal recollection that spurred his involvement. “I remembered a professor telling me when I was in college, ‘Evolution is a fact. I don’t want to hear anything about creationism. If you don’t like it, get out.’ So I did what everyone else did. Slide down in my seat and spit everything back and get out.” Baxley has said in interviews that his problem was not the teacher’s viewpoint, but the dogmatism that shut out other views.
After hearing similar stories from students in Florida, Baxley filed HB 837 which enumerated the rights of teachers to be hired, tenured and fired based on their performance rather than their politics, and addressed student protections as well. The bill has not been voted on.
Some have criticized Rep. Baxley for his actions and cited a state Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) study proved that there is no problem with academic freedom in the state because the study as having found that in the past three years, formal complaints regarding academic freedom were less than one percent of the complaints. However, Rep. Baxley believes the growing academic freedom movement is a testament to the existence of a problem and explained that the recent OPPAGA study did not prove there was not a problem, it only indicated that students do not file complaints for breaches of academic freedom.
Pennsylvania’s state Rep. Gibson C. Armstrong introduced House Resolution 177 last summer which created a committee to investigate the state of higher education in the commonwealth. As a member of the committee he has heard testimony at three universities and in Harrisburg, the state capital.
“If we are just looking for an ideological tooth fairy, let us look for the tooth fairy. The reason it matters is because there is a problem and they know it,” said Rep. Armstrong. “They say [of each example] it is just one.” But in Pennsylvania, one racially charged email spawned a $10-million sensitivity program and then it turned out the email came from outside the university, Armstrong said.
He also affirmed that HR 177 is not an attempt to replace liberal speech codes with conservative ones or an attempt to function as the school board for the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education.
Kansas state Representative Mary Pilcher Cook believes that all students should have the right to express their views without professors taking one. Cook did not believe academic freedom was in danger in Kansas until Professor Paul Mirecki of the University of Kansas tried to start a class that would teach creationism and intelligent design as religious mythologies and an email he had written proved he intended to upset “fundies.”
In her state a resolution was introduced, but has not been passed.
Massachusetts’ state Representative Jeff Perry gave an example similar to Armstrong’s. “We just passed a law requiring carbon monoxide tests in all homes because of one death,” said Rep. Perry. In Massachusetts, at UMASS Dartmouth a student named Ben Tansley was taking a required economics class. On the first day he learned of his teacher’s drug use, failed marriage and sexual interests. On the second day he learned a one-sided view of price controls. When he asked if Milton Friedman’s work could be discussed, the professor asked if he was a Republican. After Tansley said yes, he was mocked by the professor, said Perry. Tansley then emailed his professor some information about Friedman and was told by the professor to “drop the class or face consequences” and because he did not know his due process rights he dropped the class, Perry reported.
It is stories like Tansley’s that made Perry introduce HB 1234, an Academic Bill of Rights. Perry said he has “little hope that it will pass, but it is worth filing over and over.”
Concluding the discussion was attorney David French of the Alliance Defense Fund who has begun litigating against a number of schools for political and religious discrimination and unconstitutional speech codes.
Professors at state schools are state employees, yet they continually say legislators have no business looking into what they do, said French, “It is the height of arrogance.”
French said that passing an Academic Bill of Rights is not the only legislative option available. Ending speech codes and forced speech in the form of mandatory activity fees would be a great thing, according to French, who said that Michael Moore was the recipient of over $2 million in activity-fee funding.
French also suggested that students contact their legislators and let them know what is going on in their colleges.
Julia A. Seymour is a staff writer for Accuracy in Academia.
