ACTA's Must-Reads
« "Serving notice on misbehaving universities" | Main | Missouri debates intellectual diversity »
Intellectual diversity done right
Arizona legislators are confused about how to ensure accountability at state colleges and universities while still respecting faculty members' academic freedom and constitutional rights. Perhaps they should look around them for examples of how to do this sort of thing properly. They would find a strong example in Montana, where the House Education Committee is considering a bill that would require state schools to report on the measures they are taking to guarantee intellectual diversity on their campuses. While detractors predictably say this bill jeopardizes academic freedom, in fact it is designed to do just the opposite, protecting precious institutional autonomy while at the same time balancing that against equally precious principles of accountability and transparency.
ACTA's 2005 report, Intellectual Diversity: Time for Change, is the inspiration behind the bill. And ACTA president Anne Neal has been, consequently, an important figure in the debate about it:
"This bill is unnecessary in light of continuing excellence of each of the institutions in the Montana University System," ASUM President Andrea Helling said. "Come to any of our campuses."Anne Neal, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, said that the bill was really designed to ask questions that might not get asked otherwise.
"If the Legislature doesn't inquire about academic malpractice, who will? There is no way this one-sided coercive atmosphere can be conducive to a good education," Neal said. "Students are not empowered to think for themselves when orthodoxy subtly restricts the subjects taught, discussed and researched."
The other supporters of the bill included some of Montana's better-known faculty, including MSU-Bozeman associated English professor and published author Paul Trout and UM Law School professor Rob Natelson.
Trout said that some departments are worse than others when it comes to politicizing the classroom.
"Departments in the social sciences and humanities are often lopsided. What's noteworthy is that these departments create the attorneys, the teachers and the other opinion-shapers of the future," Trout said."Campuses and departments are increasingly becoming enclaves of group think, which insures that certain ideas are not entertained, certain claims not made, certain questions not asked," he said.
Trout's comments seemed to be embodied in the presence of Natelson. In 2004, Natelson took his own case of alleged political discrimination before the Board of Regents to try to overturn the University's decision not to appoint Natelson to a position he applied for. Natelson said at the time that he was denied the job because of his conservative political beliefs.
"I have taught at the University of Montana for 20 years now. I wish I could say I was happy to be here," Natelson said. "The point I'm trying to make is that you don't want to send students to a university where there aren't a diversity of opinions."
Here's to healthy debate -- and to finding balanced, fair ways to compel colleges and universities to manage their affairs better, while still respecting their right to determine internally just how they do so.
UPDATE 2/24: The proposed Montana bill was defeated Thursday, on the grounds that it might be unconstitutional. The Montana Constitution stipulates that the Board of Regents has sole control over the state university system.
Posted by acta online at February 23, 2007 10:28 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/297