Intellectual diversity evaluated
Published March 18, 2008
Legislation associated with intellectual diversity on college campuses has been looked at by more than 30 states since 2004, but has never been enacted into law in any state. This year, 11 states are considering or have considered similar legislation and have had varying results.
Minnesota Rep. Mark Olson, R-Big Lake, proposed legislation March 10 to a House committee that, like a similar bill in Missouri, would require colleges and universities to maintain a grievance system for intellectual diversity complaints. The bill would also require professors at Minnesota colleges and universities to provide “scholarly viewpoints” other than their own in discussions.
Olson said the failure of this type of legislation in other states gives him motivation to work hard to pass the bill. He said the fact this legislation has not been put into law in any states could explain why the quality of education in the United States falls short of other countries in certain areas.
“We’re funding indoctrination more than we’re funding education,” Olson said.
Indiana State Rep. Cindy Noe, R-Indianapolis, proposed a bill earlier this year that would also make colleges and universities submit annual reports on intellectual diversity. The bill was turned down in an Indiana House committee. Noe said the defeat of the bill is a result of her party’s minority status in the House.
“Anything I brought to the table was not looked upon fairly,” Noe said.
In Virginia, where Republicans hold more sway in the state’s lower house — called the House of Delegates — legislation that would require the state’s colleges and universities to report their efforts in promoting intellectual diversity, as well as giving the state’s council on higher education the authority to remove academic programs from Virginia’s public institutions of higher learning, passed the House and moved to the Senate.
Delegate Steve Landes, R-Weyer’s Cave, said he removed the legislation from the Senate on Feb. 8 before it could be voted on because of a federal court case in Virginia that could affect the enforcement of the bill. He said he plans to reintroduce the bill after the case reaches a ruling.
“The legislature of Virginia needs to have a law that will give us information to see if there are any problems protecting intellectual freedom,” Landes said.
Students for Academic Freedom national director Sara Dogan, whose organization supports legislation for intellectual diversity, said this year the organization would not offer the same type of support for legislative measures on the issue that it had in recent years, such as testifying in state houses and working with lawmakers. The organization, she said, would focus this year on changing regulations within universities and supporting student groups.
Free Speech on Campus Coalition field director Megan Fitzgerald, whose organization opposes measures involving intellectual diversity, said that while roughly the same number of states has considered this type of legislation as of last year, she doesn’t expect any more states to propose similar legislation. She said during an election year legislation involving controversial issues such as intellectual diversity are proposed less often.
The national outlook of intellectual diversity legislation is controversial, and that is represented in Missouri, which has experienced debate on a similar bill the past two sessions.
The Emily Brooker Higher Education Sunshine Act, sponsored by Rep. Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield, was brought before the committee in a hearing Feb. 5 and further action has been yet to be taken on the bill. The bill would require similar actions by colleges and universities across the nation. Last year’s bill passed the House and reached the Senate, where it was placed on an informal calendar, but was never voted on before the end of the session. Each UM system campus has since created a Web site to receive complaints that pertain to intellectual diversity, but no formal complaints have been received.
Cunningham said, regardless of steps that Missouri colleges and universities have taken, she has been encouraged by headlines that relate to the topic to propose legislative action on the issue.
“We just want to make sure everyone is free to express their viewpoints without penalty,” Cunningham said.
Otto Fajen, legislative director for the Missouri National Teachers Association said the organization is “strongly opposed” to the legislation.
“There’s no potential to eliminate the possible occurrence of people disagreeing,” Fajen said. “The state legislature doesn’t need to step in.”