Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Several state university leaders and faculty councils have condemned Indiana Senate Bill 202. Like our colleagues, we are skeptical of legislative attempts to micromanage universities, especially toward particular social perspectives. However, we also recognize that he who pays the piper calls the tune. The Legislature has the authority to influence university operations.
Though we think many of our colleagues’ fears are overblown, a potentially problematic provision is the mandated criteria that evaluation for promotion, tenure and salary be that the faculty member “introduced students to scholarly works from a variety of political or ideological frameworks … within the faculty member’s academic discipline.”
We have taught courses on the works of economist Adam Smith. We admit that Smith reflects a particular perspective on economics. Should we be penalized for such a focus on a single scholar? We hope not. Correspondingly, we welcome a colleague teaching a course on Karl Marx—although Marx’s view reflects only one perspective. The admirable goal of exposing students to various views is best accomplished by methods other than auditing a professor’s syllabi.
Some of our colleagues have expressed concern that SB 202 would end all efforts at promoting diversity. However, the legislation states: “A state educational institution that establishes … noncredit earning diversity programming shall include … both cultural and intellectual diversity.” We interpret this as saying current university “noncredit earning” efforts on diversity are neither restricted nor regulated.
In our reading of SB 202, universities can continue their current efforts to promote diversity as long as they include intellectual diversity. Ball State University’s diversity efforts are designed to do just that. The university defines inclusiveness as a commitment “to respect and embrace equity, inclusion, and diversity in people, ideas, and opinions.”
SB 202 also states university evaluation of a faculty “may not consider … the faculty (1) Expressing dissent or engaging in research or public commentary on subjects; (2) Criticizing the institution’s leadership; (3) Engaging in any political activity conducted outside the faculty member’s … duties at the institution.” We welcome this codification of what has been a norm in higher education.
Other provisions we don’t have space to cover are worthy of discussion. The bottom line is that we are agnostic on SB 202. There are parts we don’t like, but it is not the devil some are making it out to be. Please note these are our opinions and not those of our university or colleagues. That’s what makes our job fun!•
__________
Bohanon and Horowitz are professors of economics at Ball State University. Send comments to ibjedit@ibj.com.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
As to he who pays the piper calls the tune: the Indiana general assembly pays no where near enough to claim that right. Period. Full stop.