Faculty Senate affirm academic principles
(Derek Simons, University of Missouri News, 2/25/08)
In a pre-emptive strike against any possible future legislation emanating from Jefferson City which could impose political oversight on university curricula, the UMKC Faculty Senate has approved a statement on academic freedom clarifying the rights and responsibilities of faculty, students and administrators alike.
The document affirms the necessity for members of the academic environment to be able to proceed on their chosen paths in the pursuit of knowledge "without fear of suppression or reprisal," encouraging all participants to question and challenge ideas, while maintaining respect for "generations of experience and scholarship" within each field of study.
State legislation currently under consideration (HB 1315), if passed, would require public universities to present an annual report to the Missouri general assembly detailing what the institution is doing to "ensure intellectual diversity and the free exchange of ideas."
Already defeated in more than 20 states in the last five years, the bill debuted (and was defeated) last year in Missouri as the Emily Brooker Intellectual Diversity Act (HB 213). It was resubmitted in January by Rep. Jane Cunningham, R-St. Louis County, as the Emily Brooker Higher Education Sunshine Act (HB 1315).
American Association of University Professors (AAUP) UMKC Chapter President Pat Brodsky said she hopes public pressure will be able to stop the bill. It was supposed to come out of the House Higher Education Committee and onto the floor on Feb. 19, but apparently the legislators didn't even discuss it, according to Brodsky. She said some take this as a positive sign, but she is still worried for the future.
UMKC Faculty Senate Chair Dr. Gary Ebersole said he had heard from Jefferson City the Republican leader was not going to put it in the queue.
"I don't expect that bill will go anywhere," Ebersole said. "But we always have to be vigilant."
Among the provisions of HB 1315 is clause J, requiring that teaching methods avoid conflicts between personal beliefs and classroom assignments, so educational objectives can be achieved "without requiring a student to act against his or her conscience."
Testifying at the Feb. 5 hearing in Jefferson City, AAUP Missouri Conference President Professor Keith Hardeman, Westminster College, was opposed to the clause and to the bill in general.
"Government intrusion in our course content is what would, in reality, politicize course content and significantly reduce the quality of Missouri's public colleges and universities," Hardeman said. "This legislation gives biased, unqualified politicians a significant say in college course content. Amazingly, this bill would actually allow students to opt out of doing class assignments simply by saying they say they object to the content."
Ebersole said use of the phrase "intellectual diversity" was a diversionary tactic by those in favor of the legislation.
"It [HB 1315] actually requires specific positions to be taught in every course," Ebersole said. "There's a place for creationism to be taught, but that's probably not in biology."
This sentiment was echoed in testimony by AAUP Missouri Conference Vice President Dr. David K. Robinson, Truman State University.
"Legislating so-called 'balance' in the classroom will mean that political opinions or religious beliefs will be given equal weight with facts and scientific theories, regardless of the consensus of scientists and scholars," Robinson told the legislators.
The bill will also place enormous financial burdens on Missouri's universities, according to Robinson. He said other states have estimated the annual costs for "diversity assessment" required in similar bills at $4.2 million in Florida, $348,000 in Montana, and $130,000 per institution in Virginia.
Robinson was one of seven to testify against the bill, while only one person besides Cunningham spoke in favor, according to UMKC AAUP newsletter "Faculty Advocate No. 23," edited by Brodsky.
Another of the seven, Dr. Victoria Johnson, co-vice president of the University of Missouri-Columbia AAUP chapter, said the bill was ill-conceived, ambiguous and invited confusion.
"HB 1315 shows intense disrespect for university faculty throughout Missouri," Johnson said. "This bill threatens academic standards by ignoring the foundational principles of the university, which valorize the use of reason, critical analysis, and evidence to assess the credibility of claims."
A three-person ad-hoc committee prepared the Faculty Senate statement. The committee members were two senators, Dr. Dan Hopkins, geosciences, and Dr. Hali Fieldman, Conservatory, and AAUP UMKC Chapter representative at-large Dr. Stuart McAninch, School of Education. Fieldman said they wanted the document to be from the faculty as a collective body to all of the constituents.
"We had to make sure that it wasn't partisan," Fieldman said, "that it didn't exclusively and entirely represent the faculty position, but included multiple perspectives."
Hopkins, (who served as the principal author, according to McAninch,) also said they tried to write a very neutral, non-invasive document.
Fieldman noted the inherent difficulties in trying to present in class all the various competing theories on any given subject, as HB 1315 would require.
"In 2008, I don't think that most of us can claim any sort of comprehensiveness in what we teach," she said.
Hardeman gave a more blunt assessment in Jefferson City.
"A clone of political activist David Horowitz's misnamed Academic Bill of Rights, the Brooker bill would put unsubstantiated (in many cases, factually discredited) opinions and perspectives on a level playing field with mainstream disciplinary facts, evidence and logic," Hardeman said. "The bill is redundant in that there are appeals procedures already in place in all Missouri colleges. These are more than sufficient to remedy the rare occasion when a professor abuses academic freedom."