More details in TFA. Nice recipe for turning your state into an intellectual+educational backwater.

A new Indiana law allows universities to revoke a professor’s tenure if they don’t promote so-called “intellectual diversity” in the classroom.

Supporters of the measure say it will make universities more accepting of conservative students and academics. But many professors worry the law could put their careers in jeopardy for what they say, or don’t say, in the classroom.

“I’d say it ends tenure in the state of Indiana as we know it,” said Ben Robinson, associate professor of Germanic Studies at Indiana University.

Tenure is supposed to mean indefinite employment for professors, where they can only be fired for cause or some extraordinary circumstance. According to Robinson, the status “allows faculty the freedom to pursue their inquiries and their teaching without fear of reprisal.”

But some academics in the state are worried that the new law allows university boards of trustees to interfere with tenure, which normally is handled by university departments.

That’s not how supporters see it.

Republican state Sen. Spencer Deery, a former chief of staff for the Purdue University president and the bill’s sponsor, said the new law would help conservative students feel more comfortable expressing their opinions on campus.

“The American public and Hoosiers as well are losing faith and trust in higher education,” Deery said. “One of the strong reasons for that is, frankly, higher education hasn’t done a great job of making every viewpoint feel welcome.”

The law also creates a system where students and staff can submit complaints that could be considered in tenure reviews.

The Purdue University Senate passed a resolution denouncing the bill.

The law does include some protections for faculty, preventing trustees from disciplining professors for criticizing the university or engaging in public commentary.

Irene Mulvey, president of the American Association of University Professors, said protections don’t go far enough.

“This is a big deal. This is a national thing,” she said. “I’ve read the bill, and it’s absolutely chilling.”

Indiana is the third state, after Florida and Texas, to redefine tenure in recent years. A survey of Florida faculty found that after its law passed, nearly half of professors said they planned to seek employment in another state.

“We are seeing the brain drain that we predicted in Texas and Florida, and I think Indiana will follow suit there,” Mulvey said.

  • @FirstCircle@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
    9•9 months ago

    blood-letting and incantations

    Won’t work for me. My illnesses are always due to possession by evil demons. Isn’t this true for all patients? I read, today I think, that the UK royals subscribe to some kind of “chemo” nonsense to banish the cancer demons. I guess we know who didn’t have the benefit of an Indiana college education.

    Also, imagine you’re

    • an American history prof who, assuming you’re allowed to teach about slavery at all, has to give class time to “diverse” opinions as to whether slavery was actually a Good Thing for the slaves, that slaves were actually a happy, healthy, grateful bunch.
    • a physics or astronomy prof who has to teach “diverse” theories about how the universe was magic’d into existence just a few thousand years ago.
    • a chemistry, geology, ecology, or atmospheric science prof who has to give credence, in class or via grades, to “diverse” viewpoints denying any connection between burning fossil fuels and anthropogenic global warming, not that the latter is a Real Thing, of course, I diversely protest!

    I do wonder if Indiana religion-aligned “higher-ed” (either schools teaching religion only, or teaching a general curriculum and just aligned with some particular religious sect) faculty will have to welcome students who present “diverse” viewpoints regarding religious truths - viewpoints like atheism or (gasp) satanism or Native spiritualities or “Christian Science” or occultism or ancient Greek/Roman beliefs, to name a few. Probably not, eh?

    • Maeve
      3•9 months ago

      Your second example-- I was recently in an online “first cause” discussion. One user put forth “God” because the idea that matter has always existed was ridiculous. When I asked from whence God came, he ironically said God just always was with a lot of circular babble. There may be a god, but the idea that that being requires no first cause but matter does is just dumbfounding.