Educators share concerns about Senate bill

Feb. 9—A controversial bill before the Indiana Legislature with implications for tenure and academic freedom is raising concerns at both Indiana State University and Indiana University.

ISU faculty are paying close attention to Senate Bill 202 and the possible implications, if passed," said Andrea Arrington-Sirois, Indiana State faculty senate chairwoman, who added she was speaking from a personal perspective.

The bill represents overreach that could hurt free expression on college campuses and deter faculty from pursuing, or continuing, employment at the state's public institutions, Arrington-Sirois said in an email.

The bill passed out of the Senate this week and is now in the House; it is slated for a hearing before the House Education Committee on Wednesday morning.

Indiana Capital Chronicle has described SB 202 as "a sweeping bill tightening lawmaker oversight of Indiana's public colleges and universities for 'intellectual diversity' purposes."

State Sen. Spencer Deery, R-West Lafayette, and other Republican lawmakers, argue conservative students and faculty members are increasingly ostracized at progressively liberal college and university settings — or at least perceive such shunning.

The senate bill would affect tenure and promotion policies and require institutions to establish complaint procedures if students and staff believe faculty members and contractors are not meeting free-expression criteria.

On Tuesday, Deery pointed to a 2022 Gallup survey commissioned by the state which found that only 46% of politically conservative students in Indiana believe they can openly express their opinions compared to 79% of politically liberal students.

He pointed to other surveys as well and suggested that is causing some students not to pursue higher education.

Among other components, the bill would require faculty to undergo a post-tenure review every five years "to ensure they are meeting adequate performance expectations, as well as encouraging intellectual diversity and refraining from pushing political views in the classroom that are unrelated to the scholar's expertise," according to a release by Indiana Senate Republicans

In her statement, Arrington-Sirois said Indiana State faculty are committed to free speech and inclusive excellence, "which includes evidence-based intellectual diversity."

ISU faculty share concerns with other faculty across the state that the bill will allow non-experts to evaluate the performance of faculty, who are already evaluated extensively in pre- and post-tenure reviews, Arrington-Sirois said.

Another concern is that the bill, "which its authors claim is meant to foster free expression, will have the opposite effect," she said.

Faculty, and by extension, students, may feel limited in sharing their evidence-informed positions if they fear being reported and subjected to evaluation by non-experts in their field.

Faculty may feel restrained from responding to students sharing opinions or information not supported by facts, "which is a threat to the critical analysis skills building that they build into their courses," she said.

Arrington-Sirois added, "This kind of overreach, which is ill-defined and thus open to wide and inconsistent definition and application, promotes an anti-intellectual culture in a state with already declining college enrollment," she said.

It could deter faculty from pursuing or continuing employment at state institutions and could cause students to seek college opportunities beyond the state, Arrington-Sirois said.

Also raising concerns about the bill is Robert Eno, a retired Indiana University faculty member and member of the executive leadership of the IU-Bloomington chapter of American Association of University Professors.

Faculty have several problems with the bill, Eno said, but the main concern involves criteria for faculty appointments, tenure, promotion and post-tenure reviews.

"We see these as subjecting continued faculty employment as depending on ideological criteria that are counter to the AAUP's principle that we do best in our universities when we encourage academic freedom and multiplicity of views," he said.

People will disagree about what academic freedom is and its value, "but for faculty, it is a foundational value, and if Indiana decides it will place tenure in a weakened position, then IU and Purdue and other state universities will be at a tremendous recruitment disadvantage in bringing in new faculty and retaining the best faculty they have," Eno said.

If other states have full tenure protections providing job security, "Indiana isn't going to stand a chance in maintaining the quality of higher education that it has," he said.

But Eno also acknowledges there is an issue that needs to be addressed. "I think we should all be concerned if students feel they are constrained from expressing their views," he said.

A lot of data exists nationally that indicates students, both liberal and conservative, in large numbers, often self censor and don't feel free to express their views, Eno said.

"And it's very clear that it's conservatives who are primarily affected," he said. He believes it's important for institutions to address the issue.

But at the same time, "To try to solve this problem through a legislative fiat that imposes a regime of surveillance and political criteria that will evaluate faculty through constant review processes is not the right way to go," Eno said.

Indiana University President Pamela Whitten has also issued a statement regarding the bill:

" ... We are deeply concerned about language regarding faculty tenure that would put academic freedom at risk, weaken the intellectual rigor essential to preparing students with critical thinking skills, and damage our ability to compete for the world-class faculty who are at the core of what makes IU an extraordinary research institution."

On Tuesday, Deery said during the Senate session, "We must embrace this issue with care. Well designed tenure protection has its place ... infringing on academic freedom is a red line we should not cross. But we don't need to give up on these values to curb the excessive politicalization and viewpoint discrimination that threatens our state's workforce goals."

Sue Loughlin can be reached at 812-231-4235 or at sue.loughlin@tribstar.com Follow Sue on Twitter @TribStarSue