ACTA's Must-Reads
« Sending in the bill | Main | Georgia Tech student responds »
Missouri House approves HB 213
ACTA's latest press release:
JEFFERSON CITY, MO (April 12, 2007) -- The Missouri House of Representatives today passed House Bill 213, as amended, which seeks to ensure a free exchange of ideas on the state's public university campuses. Provisions in the original legislation were drawn from Intellectual Diversity: Time for Action, a report by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni.
"For years, the academic establishment has refused to take action to protect the free exchange of ideas," said ACTA president Anne D. Neal. "It is no wonder that now, confronted with real problems, Missouri legislators have asked for a measure of accountability."
The vote was 97 to 50 on the third reading. The bill earned preliminary approval on a voice vote yesterday, following various amendments from the floor. It goes next to the Senate.
House Bill 213, as amended, will require Missouri's public universities to report annually on specific steps taken to "to ensure and promote intellectual diversity and academic freedom." Institutions must post the report on their website and ensure that students are notified of the measures taken as well as how to report alleged violations of policy. The bill's sponsor is Representative Jane Cunningham.
The bill defines intellectual diversity as "the foundation of a learning environment that exposes students to a variety of political, ideological, religious, and other perspectives, when such perspectives relate to the subject matter being taught or issues being discussed."
It includes suggested actions universities can take, including several added by amendments on the floor--none of which are mandatory. The content of the report is entirely up to each institution.
The vote comes in the wake of a poll--commissioned by ACTA--of undergraduates at Missouri's two largest public campuses. Results were presented in ACTA's testimony earlier this year on the bill before the House Higher Education Committee. They included:
--58.7 percent of the students reported that "some professors use the classroom to present their personal political views";
--56.8 percent reported courses that "have readings which present only one side of a controversial issue"; and
--51 percent of the students reported "courses in which students feel they have to agree with the professor's political or social views in order to get a good grade."
The vote also follows the release last week of a report offering a scathing indictment of classroom practices in the social work program at Missouri State University. HB 213 is named for Emily Brooker, a student who was singled out for punishment by school officials at the MSU program after she refused to sign a letter to the state legislature advocating a public policy her professor agreed with--but she did not.
In response to her case, the university had an independent study done by outside experts. The external reviewers noted "an atmosphere where [policies are] used in order to coerce students into certain belief systems" and "to bully and browbeat students." The report found that: "Faculty appear wedded to old history and grudges. Some faculty and students do not feel safe. This toxic environment permeates every aspect of the School."
Since last year, legislation similar to HB 213 has been introduced in six states. The Missouri measure has also been endorsed by the chief executive of the Kansas City Public Library, a curator of the University of Missouri, and a former president of the University of Missouri Alumni Association.
A reporting requirement similar to that of HB 213 is already in place in Pennsylvania, approved last year by a special bipartisan committee following testimony by ACTA. The South Dakota Board of Regents also took action last year, requiring all public university professors to notify students on syllabi that their "academic performance may be evaluated solely on an academic basis, not on opinions or conduct in matters unrelated to academic standards.
"ACTA has said for years that the public wants action--not words--given the sorry state of the marketplace of ideas on our campuses," Neal concluded. "Today's news from Missouri is more evidence of that. Rather than waiting for legislatures to demand accountability, I hope more colleges and universities will take action themselves in the future."
The American Council of Trustees and Alumni is a bipartisan, national nonprofit dedicated to academic freedom, academic quality, and accountability in higher education. ACTA has a network of trustees and alumni around the country and has issued numerous reports including How Many Ward Churchills?, Intellectual Diversity: Time for Action, The Hollow Core, and Losing America's Memory: Historical Illiteracy in the 21st Century. For further information, contact ACTA at 202-467-6787 or visit www.goacta.org.
Posted by acta online at April 13, 2007 04:32 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/332
Comments
Oh, great, when the legislature comes after us for not teaching Intelligent Design or young Earth theory or Holocaust denial or the Hamas p.o.v. or the case that 9/11 was a U.S. gov job -- whatever the theory of the moment is -- we'll have ACTA to thank.
Meanwhile, Missouri has become notorious for its "Diversity" programs. The real ones, the ones with teeth. The legislature there and in other states is absolutely cowardly in dealing with real Diversity programs.
Posted by: Mike at April 14, 2007 01:40 PM
"when the legislature comes after us for not teaching Intelligent Design or young Earth theory or Holocaust denial or the Hamas p.o.v. or the case that 9/11 was a U.S. gov job"
This is miles over the top, but I understand and share the concern underpinning the exaggeration.
The problem is: What do we do when people in the schools simply refuse to reform obviously corrupt and destructive practices? The problem has been going on for decades, schools are now graduating overwhelming illiterate students, and there is no sign at all that people can or will fix the disarray without external intervention. My experience, especially with FIRE, proves to me that precisely nothing will happen without serious outside insistence. This is why, though I share concern about legislative intervention, I have zero confidence that people in the schools can or will reform themselves on their own.
Posted by: Federal Dog at April 14, 2007 05:03 PM
Mr. Dog: Good questions. I wish I had good answers. I don't think my hypothetical cases are that far out, by the way. But let that pass. I have to admit, I am somewhat torn about this kind of legislation. More later, I am on the road.
Posted by: Mike at April 15, 2007 09:27 PM
When those running our state schools refuse to see, much less act to fix, the kinds of problems that have been so well documented over the past decade or so, they invite governmental meddling.
IMO, it is inevitable that the rules by which these schools operate will change. The only question is whether the changes will originate from within the schools themselves (I hope so, and from what I've read, ACTA does too) or will be imposed on them by government.
Posted by: Clawmute at April 16, 2007 12:39 AM
The speculations here about creationism are well-founded. What the press release fails to acknowledge is that the bill includes a mandate to report on the protections of Biblical inerrancy views, specifically.
Posted by: Sherman Dorn at April 16, 2007 08:50 AM
Mr. Dorn has just presented one (of many) very compelling reasons why schools should clean up their acts themselves.
Change will happen. The only question is who's going to control the process and the outcome?
As I used to tell my kids when they were very young: "It's time for bed now. You have a choice: you can go nicely, or not nicely."
Posted by: clawmute at April 16, 2007 12:19 PM