This article was originally published in Indiana Capital Chronicle.
A federal lawsuit filed Tuesday challenges a controversial new Indiana law that aims to push speech and course content in classrooms toward “intellectual diversity.”
The lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Indiana alleges that Senate Enrolled Act 202 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The measure was passed by the General Assembly and signed into law by Governor Eric Holcomb in March.
The law requires all public colleges and universities in Indiana to adopt policies that chill or coerce the speech of faculty members, a news release claims.
Get stories like this straight to your inbox. Sign up for the 74 newsletter
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two professors at Purdue University Fort Wayne. Steven A. Carr is professor of communications and director of the Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies. David G. Schuster is an associate professor in the Department of History.
The ACLU of Indiana said Purdue University is the named defendant because the state institution is mandated to enforce the law’s allegedly unconstitutional provisions.
“Although Professors Carr and Schuster both already attempt to promote a culture of free inquiry in their classrooms, this does not mean that they believe it is appropriate to give equal time or attention to all questions,” the lawsuit said. “They exercise their judgment and academic freedom to determine when further research on a topic is no longer desirable or appropriate, and they have no way of knowing whether this type of decision-making in the moment will subject them to discipline or other forms of decision.” consequences for employment.”
Professors ‘afraid’ of the penalties of the law
The law in question stipulates that professors should be disciplined if they fail to “promote a culture of free inquiry, free expression and intellectual diversity” and “expose students to scholarly works from a variety of political or ideological frameworks.”
Both plaintiffs allege in the lawsuit that they may be “coerced or prohibited from speaking,” in violation of their First Amendment rights, or put at risk of adverse employment actions – including failure to promote, revocation of their term of office or risking disciplinary action up to and including termination.
The ACLU of Indiana indicated that professors are concerned that the law could require public colleges and universities to give “debunked” theories equal time in their classrooms alongside “rigorously studied academic analysis.”
The lawsuit provides specific examples of course content that concerns the two professors.
As part of his courses on the history of the United States in the post-Civil War period, Schuster teaches about the “culture wars” surrounding the LGBTQ rights movement in the 1990s, the lawsuit said.
“(Schuster) is aware that some academics are teaching this movement as the embodiment of the rise of a ‘homosexual agenda,’ in which they allege LGBTQ people sought to indoctrinate students and others with ideas about homosexuality,” the complaint states. However, Schuster does not believe that the “divergent perspective” is accurate, and instead claims that teaching such a perspective would be “harmful to his students.”
“Thus, he does not believe that he should be required to teach this perspective, and although he has in the past invited students to discuss this perspective during office hours, he does not devote class time to it,” the lawsuit continued.
Schuster also teaches about slavery and its legacy. The lawsuit claims the professor also doesn’t believe he should be required to teach a number of “diverse” scholarly perspectives on that subject — including that slavery “ultimately benefited the African American people,” which was once a was the dominant view among academics in that field. .
Carr teaches separately about the Holocaust through his work at the Institute.
The lawsuit emphasizes that there are “diverse perspectives regarding the existence and scope of the Holocaust,” ranging from denial that the Holocaust occurred to “revisionist” narratives that question the scope and causes of the genocide Pull.
“Professor Carr would not teach these ‘perspectives,’ but the language of the statute appears to require him to do so,” the complaint reads.
Another example referenced in the lawsuit describes a course recently taught by Carr on the eugenics movement — including research on forced sterilization legislation passed in Indiana in 1907.
“He does not believe that he should be required to teach, for example, the ‘divergent’ scientific perspective that racially based forced sterilization could ever be appropriate or even defensible,” the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit aims to block the “unconstitutional” parts of the statute to protect the two professors’ freedom of expression before the law takes effect on July 1.
“SEA 202 puts Indiana professors in an untenable position. Through vague language and the threat of harsh sanctions, including termination, the law deprives professors of the academic freedom that the Supreme Court has long recognized they have the right to exercise,” ACLU of Indiana attorney Stevie Pactor said in a written statement . “No professor should have to choose between their job and their First Amendment rights.”
What does the new law say?
Senate Bill 202, one of the most debated higher education bills this year, was touted by Republican lawmakers as a way to increase “intellectual diversity” in publicly funded classrooms.
Although teachers and students overwhelmingly claimed the proposal would micro-manage their institutions and have a “chilling effect” on free speech, the governor signed the bill into law, saying it “requires free exploration and programming of civil discourse for new students, academic freedom and academic freedom is strongly encouraged.” protects faculty from expressing different views of their colleagues and university leaders.”
The law makes changes to the institutions’ diversity-focused positions and their policies on tenure, contract renewals, performance reviews and more. It also establishes new reporting and research requirements based on “free inquiry, free expression and intellectual diversity.”
Now, Indiana is also one of a handful of states that require boards of trustees to establish diversity committees on campuses.
Under the new law, these diversity committees must make recommendations to promote the recruitment and retention of “underrepresented” students rather than the “minority students” specified in the current law.
Senate-enrolled Bill 202 also requires a five-year review process for Hoosier educational institutions. Yet many Hoosier institutions already have some degree of control over faculty member tenure.
The law further requires institutions to establish grievance procedures in which students and staff can accuse faculty and contractors of failing to meet free speech criteria. Institutions will be required to refer these complaints to HR professionals and supervisors “for consideration in employee reviews and hiring and promotion decisions,” the law says. In limited circumstances, complaints may be referred to the Indiana Commission for Higher Education.
Indiana Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Indiana Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. If you have any questions, please contact editor Niki Kelly: info@indianacapitalchronicle.com. Follow Indiana Capital Chronicle on Facebook and Tweet.
