Minnesota Republicans are pushing a bill they say defends free speech on campus.
Introduced last week by State Sen. Carla Nelson (R-Rochester) and State Rep. Bud Nornes (R-Fergus Falls) at a press conference alongside members of the University of Minnesota College Republicans, the bill would make state-funded universities adopt policies that place a higher emphasis on free speech.
You will not be surprised to learn that the actual text of the bill does the opposite of that.
although faculty are free in the classroom to discuss subjects within areas of their competence, faculty shall be cautious in expressing personal views in the classroom and shall be careful not to introduce controversial matters that have no relationship to the subject taught, especially matters in which they have no special competence or training and in which, therefore, faculty’s views cannot claim the authority accorded statements they make about subjects within areas of their competence, provided that no faculty will face adverse employment action for classroom speech, unless it is not reasonably germane to the subject matter of the class as broadly construed, and comprises a substantial portion of classroom instruction.
So, placing a “higher emphasis on free speech” is to be accomplished by gagging college professors. That doesn’t sound like free speech to me. As usual, right-wingers use “free speech” as a code for limiting speech they don’t like.
This is also a bill that demonstrates a deep ignorance about how universities work. I am part of a team of faculty who have the mission of helping students acquire basic knowledge about a rich, complex subject. That knowledge is not imparted in a single class (why, not even my class); I rely on students learning preliminary information in the prerequisites to my courses, and my colleagues expect that students will emerge from my classes with knowledge they can build on. There is a tremendous amount of peer pressure to keep class content focused and substantial. I don’t need a law saying that I can’t spend hours and hours of class time talking about, oh I don’t know, Trump, atheism, lobsters, or feminism.
I really don’t need a bluenosed ideologue hovering over my should to police my class time in order to teach well, and in fact, that would be one other factor that would compromise my effectiveness.
Does this mean we could end the pervasive practice in universities of dumping Environmental Science classes in the laps of instructors without environmental science in their background, and turn it over to actual Environmental Science experts? So that we don’t have what is happening at a school near me, where an A&P teacher with no ecological or environmental training, and with a huge dose of global warming denial, is expressing his opinions on the subject in the Environmental Science class he teaches because schools don’t want to hire actual environmental scientists? No? Oh, it only refers to teachers not being able to say things the right wing doesn’t like? Never mind.
This should apply to all professions! Some examples: A barber can only talk about cutting hair, a bartender about serving drinks, and a politician can only introduce (and vote on) bills about fraud and bribery.
There is the risk of professors using their position to express “opinions” with force of authority trying to indoctrinate the students into holding the same opinion.
Introducing material for discussion is not authoritative the professors single opinion, so care must be taken
*sigh*
Last sentence fully Tpyo so needs rework
Yeah, there is a shoulder wanting in that.
How many college students are eleven years old?? Yeah, I was seventeen once, and possibly a bit more easily led than I am now, but hell’s bells – this needs legislation?
And as you say – keep free speech out of this conversation altogether, unless you’re arguing against this bill.
Judging by the OP’s quote of the proposed bill, I suggest far too many politicians aren’t even that old. Some may no longer wear diapers.†
† In the usual way, that is. Using their diapers as tinfoil hats seems quite probable.
Educational Degree #26 Teachers are hereby banned from giving students any information that is not strictly related to the subjects they are paid to teach
You guys, Dolares Umbridge was not a good guy in the story. It wasn’t subtle.
I teach basic composition classes for freshmen. Part of our broad mandate is to teach “critical thinking” skills, which involves assigning reading and writing on a broad variety of subjects, many of them controvertial.
Every day, I’m trying to get students to figure out what their opinions are on a variety of subjects, and express them, and defend them. That means I need to know both sides of a wide variety of issues — whether a student is for or against a particular issue, I need to be able to challenge them with counterarguments and see how their beliefs hold up. But if students ask me for my personal opinion on an issue, I’ll tell them.
This legislation would literally make it impossible for me to do my job.
Now that is actually good advice. Given creationism and climate change denial and all.
@10 No they’ll claim that biologists aren’t qualified to talk about issues of faith. They’ll then trot in their ID/warming denier and claim that they are more qualified than anyone with dissenting opinions.
Not even a little. I live in a Right-to-Work state. I am very familiar with Republican bait-and-switch.