Overview
There has been a rash of anti-academic freedom legislation cropping up in states across the country, and Ohio is no exception. The main purpose of these bills is to prohibit the teaching of “critical race theory” in primary and secondary education, but the bills tend to go much farther, and higher education has been a target, too.
Critical race theory (CRT) is an academic concept that has existed for more than 40 years. The core idea is that racism is a systemic social construct. Racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also is embedded in laws and policies.
Critics of CRT contend that it is divisive, teaches hatred for America, and indoctrinates students. Proponents believe that teaching about deep-rooted racial inequities is the only way to confront and remedy these systemic problems.
Last week, National AAUP President Irene Mulvey released a statement with allied organizations condemning efforts around the country that seek to restrict teaching about oppression, race, and gender. “Decisions about curriculum and teaching materials belong in the hands of educators–not politicians,” Mulvey stated.
Clearly, this type of legislation could impact whole disciplines in higher education and stifle the kinds of discussions that faculty have everyday with their students, which help students learn critical thinking and communications skills — and ultimately help to make them thoughtful, well-rounded citizens.
Ohio Legislation
Within the last few weeks, Ohio House Bills 322 and 327 have been introduced, which would restrict the teaching of certain concepts and topics.
HB 322 primarily targets public schools and state agencies, but the Ohio Department of Higher Education would be included under the definition of state agency.
This bill prohibits public entities from requiring discussion of current events and prohibits the teaching of a list of topics dealing with race, sex, slavery, and bias. It also targets history and civics courses, discouraging the discussion of current events, controversial issues, or activities that involve social or policy advocacy.
Moreover, the legislation specifies that teachers cannot be required to teach anything that goes against their “sincerely held religious or philosophical convictions.”
HB 327 is slightly different and more punitive than HB 322. It also specifically targets institutions of higher education. The bill prohibits public schools, state agencies, colleges, and universities from offering teaching, instruction, or training on “divisive concepts” or accepting private funding to promote such concepts. Violations of the bill would result in the withholding of funding to school districts or withholding of State Share of Instruction to colleges and universities.
The bill has a list of concepts related to race, sex, nationality, color, and ethnicity that it defines as divisive and therefore prohibited. It does say that divisive or controversial concepts can be taught if done so objectively and impartially, but who gets to determine what is objective and impartial is unclear.
HB 327 already had a substitute bill introduced last week. The substitute bill contains many changes that specifically target higher education.
For instance, the substitute bill would require institutions to update policies on faculty tenure to reflect the bill’s principles and consider as a negative factor in employment and tenure decisions any confirmed reports that a faculty member knowingly or recklessly violates the bill’s provisions.
The legislation also would prohibit institutions of higher education from including “divisive concepts” in new student or freshmen orientation teaching, instruction, or training.
Take Action!
Both HB 322 and HB 327 have had their first hearings for sponsor testimony. On Wednesday, June 23, the State and Local Government Committee will hold second hearings on the bills.
We have created an Action Network page through which you can e-mail your State Representative and the Representatives on the State and Local Government Committee to express opposition to the legislation. Please take action today!
____________________________________________________________________________
Here are several quick links so that you can read directly about the bills:
House Bill 322 Full Text
House Bill 322 Bill Analysis
House Bill 327 Full Text As Introduced
House Bill 327 Bill Analysis As Introduced
House Bill 327 Substitute Bill Comparative Synopsis
Wittenberg Sanctioned by National AAUP
Wittenberg University was one of six institutions added to the list of AAUP sanctioned institutions at the June 2021 AAUP Council meeting.
An institution is sanctioned by AAUP only after an investigation by the Committee on College and University Governance reveals “serious departures by the administration and/or governing board from generally accepted standards of college and university government endorsed by this Association, as set forth in the Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities and derivative governance documents.”
The report on Wittenberg highlighted three actions that Wittenberg’s board took without consulting the faculty.
The first was its establishment of an ad hoc Academic Program Futures Committee (APFC) consisting of administratively selected faculty members to plan, largely in secret, further academic program reductions than those already approved by the Educational Policies Committee (EPC), an elected faculty body.
The second step came in May 2020, two months into the COVID-19 crisis, when the board approved a resolution “suspending any faculty manual provisions that might delay the actions needed to achieve financial sustainability.”
Finally, in June, the board announced to the faculty its unanimous approval of APFC recommendations to discontinue eight programs and departments and to eliminate two tenured faculty positions in geology and Japanese.
The report describes how the faculty and the Wittenberg AAUP chapter protested each step along the way.
The University of Akron also was investigated as part of National AAUP’s omnibus governance investigation amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. However, a successful negotiation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the chapter and administration on shared governance led the Committee on College and University Governance to make no recommendation on sanction.
However, in its statement, the committee wrote that it “remains deeply concerned about the continued presence in the collective-bargaining agreement of language equivalent to the technically deleted ‘force majeure.’” In light of subsequent developments, the AAUP’s Council referred consideration of a recommendation on sanction of the University of Akron back to the Committee on College and University Governance.
OCAAUP Submits Testimony on SB 135
For the June 2 hearing of the Ohio Senate Workforce and Higher Education Committee, OCAAUP President Marty Kich submitted interested party testimony to address several key concerns that we have with the substitute bill.
On May 19, the Senate Workforce and Higher Education Committee had adopted a substitute version of SB 135. Substitute SB 135 is different and somewhat improved from its original version.
Of particular concern to us in the original bill was language that implied that faculty could be fired for speaking about material deemed to be outside of their discipline or for expressing personal views. The new version of SB 135 no longer has this language.
Instead of a second chance voucher program financed by universities, there would be a second chance grant pilot program funded by the state. The goal of the program is to help students re-enroll at an institution of higher education to obtain a degree or certificate.
The revised bill also scales back the authority of the chancellor in opening and closing programs based on “in-demand” jobs. Under the new language, the chancellor should consider in-demand jobs when potentially approving a new program.
The bill’s new language still would allow universities to withhold transcripts from students, if the students have outstanding debt at the institution, but makes an exception when the student or graduate needs the transcript for a job.
There is no doubt that our advocacy efforts made a big difference in making this bill more palatable to this point, and we thank the AAUP members who spoke to legislators on our behalf and sent emails to members of the Workforce and Higher Education Committee.
Jackson Delivers OCAAUP Testimony about State Budget
On May 4, Dr. David Jackson, Professor of Political Science at Bowling Green State University, as well as President of the BGSU AAUP chapter, delivered testimony on behalf of OCAAUP regarding House Bill 110, the state budget bill.
The testimony focused on the importance of investment in public higher education, as well as the importance of educational quality and full-time faculty.
You can watch the video of the testimony and subsequent questions by legislators by visiting this page, clicking on the May 4 hearing, and going to the 35 minute mark in the video.
Take Action on SB 135
As we reported to you earlier this month, Senator Jerry Cirino (R-Kirtland) introduced Ohio Senate Bill 135, which contains a myriad of proposed changes to public higher education, most of which we believe would be detrimental to institutions and faculty.
The proposals could impact college and university finances, program and degree offerings, and free speech/First Amendment policies, including academic freedom for faculty.
We are asking you to take action by sending emails to members of the Senate Workforce and Higher Education Committee through this Action Network page.
You can easily send a message through that page to all seven members of the committee with just a few clicks. A form letter is provided, but you are welcomed and encouraged to personalize your message.
SB 135 has received two hearings to date: one for sponsor testimony and one for proponents. The Ohio Conference AAUP will be testifying as an opponent when the opportunity arises, which could be next week. While there are some aspects of the bill we support, we believe it mostly would cause serious damage to Ohio’s system of public colleges and universities in its current form.
We have had conversations with the sponsor’s office to discuss our concerns, and we appreciate that Sen. Cirino has been open during this process. We hope that we can continue to work with him and other members of the committee to make the legislation more palatable. We appreciate the goals of affordability and student success, but we believe there are better solutions.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- …
- 21
- Next Page »