Indiana Lawmakers Are Advancing A Very Bad Higher Education Bill

The Indiana Senate has passed a higher education bill that, were it to become law, would substantially increase partisan political control of the state’s public universities and colleges and undermine the academic freedom of faculty members.

While Senator Spencer Deery (R-West Lafayette), has called his Senate Bill 202 a “reform” that would remedy the “declining views” of higher education; a long list of opponents, including students, faculty, and college administrators have come out strongly against the bill, condemning it for political overreach and threats to faculty tenure. As one faculty columnist wrote, Senate Bill 202 is a “Trojan Horse for a clampdown on academic freedom.”

The bill, which is now under consideration by Indiana’s House of Representatives, passed the Senate in a party-line vote 39-9, with all the “yes” votes coming from Republicans. In its present form, it contains several worrisome provisions, often modeled on parts of legislation advanced by conservative lawmakers in other states.

Here are two parts of the bill that are among the most controversial.

Deery’s bill would change the composition and appointment process of the boards of trustees for Indiana’s public universities and colleges in several ways. The most significant change is that instead or being elected by votes of the institutions’ alumni groups, alumni members of the boards would be appointed by House and Senate majority leaders — “with advice” from minority leaders.

For example, currently at Indiana University, the board of trustees has six members appointed by the governor and three elected by alumni. Deery’s bill would replace two of the elected alumni positions with one appointed by the president pro tempore of the state Senate and one by the speaker of the House. Similar substitutions – but with different numbers– would occur for Ball State University, Indiana State University, Purdue University, the University of Southern Indiana and Vincennes University.

Giving the majority party in the state legislature this kind of appointment power is almost certain to invite political litmus tests for the appointees.

Deery’s bill also would have a chilling effect on tenure and promotion policies at the state’s institutions. It would require a board of trustees to not grant tenure or promotion for a faculty member who the board determines is:

• “unlikely to foster a culture of free inquiry, free expression and intellectual diversity” or
• “unlikely to expose students to scholarly works from a variety of political or ideological frameworks that may exist.”

Boards could also take action against faculty who are ”likely, while performing teaching or mentoring duties to subject students to political or ideological views and opinions that are unrelated to the faculty member’s academic discipline or assigned course of instruction.”

Boards would be required to conduct post-tenure reviews every five years to determine if a tenure faculty member has:

• helped the institution foster a culture of free inquiry, free expression, and intellectual diversity within the institution;
• introduced students to scholarly works from a variety of political or ideological frameworks;
• refrained from subjecting students to views and opinions concerning matters not related to the faculty member’s academic discipline or assigned course of instruction;
• adequately performed academic duties and obligations;
• met any other criteria established by the board of trustees.

What could go wrong? Presumably nothing if:

• you’re economic professor who teaches a class on the virtues of capitalism but also includes sufficient reading material on the benefits of socialism or communism.
• your class on European history gives a “balanced” view of the Nazis;
• the advanced seminar on virology also includes material on discredited claims involving vaccines.

University boards would be given very broad discretion in making these judgements. Decisions could be based on judgement of what would be “likely.” If that’s not enough latitude, personnel actions could also rely on “other criteria established by the board of trustees” to evaluate faculty.

University leaders in the state appear united in opposition. The AAUP chapters at Indiana University, Bloomington and Purdue University, West Lafayette issued a joint statement that read in part:

SB 202 mandates a system of surveillance and political scrutiny that will instead stifle the free flow of ideas. It requires that hiring, tenure, and promotion become subject to reviews that judge faculty based on political criteria, and that post-tenure employment be contingent on further periodic reviews.

In a statement to Indiana Public Media, Indiana University President Pam Whitten said:

While we are still analyzing the broad potential impacts of SB 202, we are deeply concerned about language regarding faculty tenure that would put academic freedom at risk, weaken the intellectual rigor essential to preparing students with critical thinking skills, and damage our ability to compete for the world-class faculty who are at the core of what makes IU an extraordinary research institution.

We all share the common goal to maximize the university’s capacity to make scientific breakthroughs, attract talented students and faculty, drive economic development, and create better outcomes for all Hoosiers. As crafted, my concern is that SB 202 risks unintended consequences that threaten not just the stature of Indiana University, but the economic and cultural vitality of the state.

Whitten and the AAUP are right. Senate Bill 202 is severely flawed. Now is the time for business leaders, editorial boards and local officials in Indiana to join them in opposing this bill.