Ball State’s AAUP chapter calls upon President Geoff Mearns, Provost Anand R. Marri, the Presidents and Provosts of Indiana’s other state universities, all State Senators and Representatives, and all university faculty, employees, and students of Indiana to oppose the government overreach and restriction of academic freedom of expression inherent to Senate Bill 202.
This bill proposes to:
-
- Subject faculty to politicized review every five years, thus interfering in long-held norms of tenure recommendations by academic experts (giving the non-academic Boards of Trustees the right to demote or fire “tenured” faculty for ideological reasons) (Article 39.5-2-§2);
-
- Abolish academic freedom by setting up a commission to assess faculty’s adherence to arbitrary ideological criteria (§23-30);
-
- Impose political/legal restriction on academic discourse;
-
- Establish a complaints mechanism whereby students and even fellow employees are encouraged to inform on faculty members for a perceived failure to showcase ideological and political diversity (Article 39.5-2-§4);
-
- Restrict the use of statements on diversity, equity, and inclusion (“or related topics”), curtailing the university’s own decision-making in framing inclusive excellence, imposing governmental limits on the way in which admission, enrollment, employment, promotion, or tenure decisions are made (Article 39.5-3-§1).
The Board of Trustees at Ball State University have affirmed their support of academic freedom of expression through their adoption of a modified version of the Chicago Principles on January 31, 2020, which—among other principles advancing the protection of free speech and inquiry—pledges to “keep inclusive excellence at the highest level of institutional importance and as the foundation of all that we do” (BSU Freedom of Expression Statement). Aspects of SB 202 hamper free expression and inquiry by subjecting faculty to ideological review conducted by politically appointed personnel with no subject matter expertise, and explicitly bar faculty and applicants to Ball State University from making statements of inclusivity.
Ultimately, SB 202 is a direct attack on academic freedom, tenure, and universities’ own admissions and hiring practices. While the bill attempts to use the language of academic freedom and intellectual diversity, it determinedly aims to limit academic freedom and transform the process and protections of tenure. This bill will severely limit faculty members’ ability to fulfill their duty to impart knowledge and promote learning in higher-education classrooms. It will undermine the climate of trust and basic faith that are required for mentoring and collaboration. Rather than promoting a “neutral” environment, this bill will introduce a layer of political bias in higher education where none existed before, particularly as the proposed 5-year review makes no exception for apolitical fields, like STEM disciplines (the bill specifies that ideological/political scholarship should be applicable to the field, but there are no alternative review mechanisms for apolitical fields). The lauded network of state institutions in Indiana will become sterile places merely credentialing rather than creating environments for cultivating critical thinking, professionalization, and democratization, as the fear of failing a review by not exposing students to an undefined range of political/ideological scholarship—and the fear of reporting—will dampen freedom of inquiry.
Equally disturbing is the infeasibility of granting Boards of Trustees the power to supersede faculty members’ expertise through additional reviews of tenure. Such acts are in violation of the cherished values of academia, and the AAUP opposes the idea of a politically based post-tenure review, as laid out in “Post-Tenure Review: An AAUP Response” (here). As this document states, while ongoing faculty development is certainly beneficial, any such post-tenure review must be developed and carried out by faculty and must not be a reevaluation of tenure itself. In the proposed bill, however, there is no stipulation for Board members to have expertise in the academic fields that they are evaluating. Further ensuring the political slant of Boards, the law stipulates that additional Trustees will be appointed by the legislature. Alarmingly and in contradiction to the norms of academia, the bill would allow for tenured faculty to now face “termination; demotion; salary reduction; [or] other disciplinary action” if they do not live up to the hazy ideological stipulations of the bill.
By removing the protections—particularly that of free expression and research— of tenure from the auspices of faculty oversight, the evaluation of discipline-specific criteria, and the century-old value of shared governance, the bill contributes to government overreach by placing curriculum and retention decisions in the hands of politically appointed personnel rather than scholars who are in principle committed to two preeminent values: truth and academic ethics. That higher education has been a public good, for which the United States and Indiana have acquired global reputations, is of no consequence in the text of this bill.
In direct contrast to such political oversight stands John Dewey’s 1915 “Declaration of Principles” of academic freedom, which states that “The term ‘academic freedom’ has traditionally had two applications—to the freedom of the teacher and to that of the student . . . Academic freedom in this sense comprises three elements: freedom of inquiry and research; freedom of teaching within the university or college; and freedom of extra-mural utterance and action. . . An adequate discussion of academic freedom must necessarily consider three matters: (1) the scope and basis of the power exercised by those bodies having ultimate legal authority in academic affairs; (2) the nature of the academic calling; (3) the function of the academic institution or university.” These principles have provided the basic operative values of the university for well over a century. Overturning them would result in chaos.
Further, the bill interferes with universities’ ability to make their own policy regarding inclusive excellence on campus, intervening in what the bill refers to as diversity, equity, and inclusion statements. It mandates that “If an institution receives a pledge or statement described in subsection (b), including any statement regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion, or related topics, the institution may not award: (1) admission, enrollment, or employment; (2) benefits; (3) hiring, reappointment, or promotion; or (4) granting tenure; to an applicant, an employee, or a person described in subsection (a) on the basis of the viewpoints expressed in the pledge or statement.” This could limit the university’s ability to attract and retain a diverse student and faculty body, and this is especially relevant given Ball State’s concerns about enrollment generally and about growing its enrollment of underrepresented students in particular, fundamentally undercutting the inclusiveness that is articulated as one of our “enduring values.” In so doing, it hampers the university’s right to make its own decisions regarding hiring and admission processes, as well as its ability to emphasize the commitment “to respect and embrace equity, inclusion, and diversity in people, ideas, and opinions” (as stated in Ball State’s current Inclusive Excellence Plan). Ultimately, while the bill uses the language of “intellectual and cultural diversity,” it creates impediments on faculty and institutions by stigmatizing expressions and statements of diversity or inclusivity, whether intellectual or cultural.
With Ball State Faculty Council having voted in favor of the BSU AAUP’s Statement on the Teaching of Race and Gender (2022) (here), we note accordingly that BSU faculty as a body has spoken out against such legislative interference as SB 202 now represents. The resolution passed by BSU Faculty Council affirms the AAUP, AAC&U, PEN America, et al.’s Joint Statement on Legislative Efforts to Restrict Education about Racism and American History (2021) (here). The resolution passed by Ball State’s Faculty Council also affirms that “in a nation that has for centuries struggled with issues of racial inequity and injustice…the Faculty Council resolutely affirms the values of freedom of inquiry, imparting knowledge, and advancing the frontiers of knowledge, all for the purpose of bettering society and individuals. We stand firm against encroachment on these aforementioned values, in particular as they impact student learning and matters related to racial and social justice.” Thus, Ball State faculty has already come out against such legislative attempts to interfere with teaching and curricula, and specifically affirms the right to teach and discuss the kinds of issues enumerated above, without the government overreach of a bill like SB 202. Now, we urge the university administration and all right-thinking people to do the same.
In light of all of the above, it is eminently clear that SB 202 will wreak havoc on Ball State’s and the other Indiana state universities’ operations, teaching, and student affairs, as well as the climate/morale in academia in Indiana more generally. We already know what this looks like, based on recent developments in Florida and Texas. The results will be undemocratic, stifle academic freedom, and will ultimately push faculty out of higher education and leave our students underserved, particularly when Indiana is in great need of an educated workforce to contribute to its economic development. We therefore reiterate the urgent call to oppose and defeat Indiana bill SB 202.
(Statement Date: January 31, 2024)