Campus up in arms about bill

IU students and faculty are growing increasingly concerned with a House of Representatives Bill that might constrict academic freedom in higher education. \nHR 3077, also known as the International Studies in Higher Education Act, is an amendment to Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965, and was initially created to increase foreign studies funding in universities. \nThe majority of the bill is favored by most interested parties, but Section 6 of the bill has come under intense scrutiny. Section 6 would form an International Higher Education Advisory Board, which some claim could infringe upon a university's academic freedom.\nThe advisory board, if approved, would oversee activities by area studies programs receiving Title VI funding. Additionally, the board would work in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security for some activities. \nBoth the IU Graduate and Professional Student Organization and the Bloomington Faculty Council have expressed written disapproval of Section 6.\nDirector of the Russian and East European Institute David Ransel said the advisory board has the potential to take a role more active than "advisory."\n"The idea that you politicize the teaching of these subjects is obnoxious and opposed to all our traditions and is very dangerous," Ransel said. "We condemned the fraud of Russia against their students all these years, telling them what to teach, and this is what this is."\nThe bill was passed in the House Oct. 21, 2003, and currently awaits action in the Senate. One of the enumerated goals of the proposed advisory board is to "meet the goals of an enhanced national security objective." But its opponents say the advisory board could do more to harm national security than to help it. \nHistory Professor Jeff Wasserstrom said political freedom in universities is completely beneficial.\n"We need to have an atmosphere where we can debate freely different positions on international issues," Wasserstrom said. "In fact, I think being able to have those types of debates benefits national security."\nWasserstrom was among a three-professor panel presenting a statement to the Faculty Council April 6 asserting an unfavorable view of Section 6. The council voted and passed the statement, with only one dissenting vote -- Business Professor Eric Rasmusen.\n"I think HR 3077 is a good bill," Rasmusen said. "When the government gives out grant money for purposes such as increasing our national security by increasing our understanding of foreign countries, it has a duty to make sure the money is indeed spent for that purpose."\nBut Ransel said Rasmusen, who is well-known for his conservative viewpoints, should be the first person opposed to the advisory board.\n"He's pretty short-sided in favoring this," Ransel said. "If a liberal, left-of-center administration got into power, then their extremist hang-arounds could get into his courses and decide they're inappropriate and remove him."\nRasmusen said he has yet to hear an effective argument against the debated section.\n"The critics I've seen avoid mentioning any specific dangers they fear from the oversight boards," Rasmusen said. "Critics talk vaguely about McCarthyism and the destruction of academic freedom, which is ridiculous once you look at the mild procedural changes that the bill makes."\nThe GPSO also passed a statement opposed to the advisory board. GPSO Campus Affairs Committee Chairperson Elizabeth Rytting said the proposed board could be the first step to controlled thought.\n"We're afraid it can be used in order to suppress certain ways of viewing things," Rytting said. "Creating an advisory board which directly looks at a sample of activities in a program could be used in a more investigate manner to control or interfere with the actual content of classes."\nRytting said the Senate has already altered the rhetoric creating the advisory board but said the changes were not enough.\n"To me (the new language) sounds like you can still look at somebody's syllabus and say you can't teach this or you need to add this to your syllabus," she said.\nThe statement passed by the GPSO Assembly proposes the Senate pass HR 3077 but rephrase or eliminate Section 6. \nRansel said the advisory board would be an affront to free political discourse. \n"The leaders that established this country argued very strongly that it's the duty of citizens to question the government when it tries to quash free expression," Ransel said. "That behavior is very dangerous and goes against all that we stand for."\n-- Contact staff writer Rick Newkirk at renewkir@indiana.edu.