Thinking's OK, but don't talk

Lawmakers should be concerned with giving Indiana students the finest education possible, and the "Academic Bill of Rights," House Bill 1531 in the Indiana General Assembly, does reinforce basic principles of a sound education. But details in the bill worry us that the legislature is overstepping its bounds by dictating what is and is not acceptable in the classroom. \nWe wholeheartedly support the reminder that grading and hiring at universities should be free of political or religious bias. While the overall issue of a liberal academia is part of the debate, we are concerned here with the actual bill's provisions. Non-discrimination policies already exist to create an environment conducive to learning. When preference not based on ability is given, a college's integrity is compromised.\nUnfortunately, details of the bill make the proposed law unacceptable as a whole. Lawmakers are trying to control how and what college professors teach, which would severely and negatively affect IU's intellectual vitality. House Bill 1531 threatens the freedom of professors to run their classrooms in the way they and their universities see fit. The bill would require public universities to establish guidelines according to principles in the bill.\nThe bill says all faculty must be hired and fired based on knowledge in the subject but puts special requirements on the humanities, arts and social sciences. Only those specialties must hire with the goal of "fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives." It's puzzling that only certain departments must hire to ensure a variety of views. Shouldn't business schools and physics departments be held to the same standards? \nAnother upsetting line in the bill singles out curriculum and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences, and says that they must "provide students with dissenting sources and viewpoints." We all realize the "unsettled character of all human knowledge in those areas," but knowledge in all areas expands constantly. In the Internet age, business models are continually adjusted, and with the Human Genome Project, genetics textbooks need frequent updates. \nThose double standards suggest ulterior motives: forcing certain classes to align with popular opinion. \nIt also tells professional organizations to "maintain a posture of neutrality" on topics in which they are experts. That provision could mean that a science faculty roundtable could not comment on global warming, and a Spanish honor society could not talk about bilingual education. Community dialogue will suffer if experts cannot evaluate a given issue. How can anyone make good decisions if even the experts aren't allowed to express professional judgements? \nThe bill acknowledges that research benefits when academics are left in peace. Supposedly, professors are free to research and conclude what they want, but the bill expects them to keep that knowledge to themselves unless their conclusions happen to fall inside the mainstream, as defined by the government. \nThis bill's underlying problems are that it targets only some academic areas and restricts professional groups from commenting on controversial issues. \nAlthough the bill expresses universal sentiments of non-discrimination and open inquiry, every student and faculty member at IU should find this interference troubling to the pursuit of knowledge.