The "Emily Brooker Intellectual Diversity Act," HB 213, claims to defend academic freedom and to prevent "viewpoint discrimination," but it would do just the opposite. The Act would establish redundant and unnecessary government regulation of higher education.
Emily Brooker was a student at Missouri State University in Springfield who sued the institution. She claimed to have been victimized by the faculty's alleged political bias against her (she opposed gay adoption based on her religious beliefs). The university settled within a week, disciplined the instructor, investigated the Social Work Program and awarded the plaintiff a handsome sum.
All higher education institutions in Missouri have policies and procedures that deal effectively with alleged faculty misconduct. In Missouri and throughout the United States, proven cases of faculty political misconduct are rare or non-existent. There is no widespread problem which legislation needs to "solve."
But HB 213 is not a local response to a local problem. The Act is closely modeled on legislation written by the ultra-conservative American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA). Almost identical legislation has been introduced in Virginia, Georgia, Montana and South Dakota. Other bills of this type have been defeated in two dozen states.
Five years ago, ACTA called for a boycott of over 100 faculties nationwide for criticizing federal policies. Academic freedom, of course, was developed to protect faculty speech, and its scope includes matters of public concern. ACTA's boycott and its continuing ideological assaults on higher education expose its hypocrisy as a "protector" of academic freedom.
HB 213 would undermine the foundations of higher education in the United States, which rests on professionalism (academic standards) and institutional autonomy. Faculty and institutions are delegated responsibility to govern themselves and make their own policies.
HB 213 would replace professional standards with ideological criteria, since it defines "intellectual diversity" in terms of "political, ideological, religious, and other perspectives." The bill would impose these extraneous criteria on all aspects of higher education. These include (quotes are from the bill's text) "teaching and program development," "hiring, tenure, and promotion policies," "institution [e.g. mission] statements," "grievance procedures," campus speakers, the "distribution of student fee funds," and "student course evaluations."
Conflicts between "classroom assignments" (pedagogical standards) and a student's "personal beliefs" would always be resolved in favor of "personal beliefs."
Predictably, it would chill the free exchange of ideas on campus and eliminate academic standards in higher education.
HB 213 would be costly to the reputation of Missouri institutions and their budgets. The best faculty and students would abandon Missouri for less repressive places. Potential faculty hires and students would decide to go elsewhere. Tuition revenue and large grants in the sciences would be lost. Institutions would incur high costs to investigate alleged violations and to defend against lawsuits by the ideologically disciplined.
The Act insults the intelligence, integrity and reputation of all Missouri faculty, students, alumni, staff and administrators.
The Missouri legislature should defeat this bad legislation.
Patricia Brodsky is a professor of foreign languages and literature at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and is the president of the UMKC chapter of American Association of University Professors.
