Deery: In defense of SB 202, Indiana’s higher ed reform bill
In this op-ed, state senator from West Lafayette fends off what he calls ‘myths’ close to home and across state campuses about his higher ed reform bill, now waiting for a signature from the governor
Editor’s note: Senate Bill 202, an Indiana higher education reform measure that cleared the General Assembly last week, awaits a signature from Gov. Eric Holcomb. State Sen Spencer Deery, a West Lafayette Republican who spent recent years of his career at Purdue in then-President Mitch Daniels’ administration, authored and carried the controversial bill. This op-ed is followed by other reads and resources about SB 202.
DEERY: IN DEFENSE OF SENATE BILL 202
By Sen. Spencer Deery, R-West Lafayette
Last week the American Association of University Professors and the leadership of Purdue University independently released communications on the same topic: the passage of the higher education reform bill I authored, Senate Enrolled Act 202.
The two statements could not have been more different. The AAUP press release hit a new low in rhetoric by absurdly calling the bill "Eugenics 2.0." In contrast, the communication from Purdue's leadership, always the adults in the higher education arena, emphasized that the law would cause limited inconvenience given that Purdue is already doing much of what the act requires.
I agree with Purdue, including the description that Purdue is a "bastion of individual freedom to doubt, debate and dissent."
But I cannot say the same for every state university, nor can I claim that even at Purdue, there isn't room for growth. Consider, for example, that the crosstabs behind a state-financed 2022 Gallup survey, not yet released to the public, show that even at Purdue, there are large disparities between how conservative students and liberal students experience higher education.
By any measure, the current system fails to adequately recruit, retain, and cultivate conservative scholars who are then empowered to foster robust, unretaliated debate. That should concern all of us, regardless of our politics.
This is an example of what former Stanford Provost John Etchemendy called in 2017 the "threat from within." Etchemendy considered "intellectual intolerance" as a more serious threat to universities than external threats. In my view, the two overlap. Public universities, financed with billions of taxpayer dollars, should not overlook, exclude or dismiss any significant segment of the public if they expect to maintain the support of the people and their representatives for very long.
As a state senator, one of my pre-eminent duties is to advocate for Purdue and higher education against such threats. To that end, SEA 202 establishes minimum standards and key values public universities should maintain. Had I permitted someone who lacked respect for academic freedom or a willingness to work with rather than against universities to take the lead, I would have shirked my duties as an elected official, and I will never do that.
Some opponents of the bill have missed that big picture, and shared as fact, unsubstantiated claims that the sky is falling. Several myths have been repeated as facts that deserve strong refutation.
The first myth is that this bill is designed to protect conservatives from feeling uncomfortable or from being offended. Striving to help an overlooked group on campus feel like they are respected and belong, does not require us to shield anyone from challenge or discomfort.
While I have tried to draw attention to the fact that Hoosiers enroll in higher education at lower rates than the national average and one cause is the ongoing rapid decline in trust for higher education among conservatives, I still believe higher education should make every student feel uncomfortable from time to time. As John Stuart Mill wrote, "Both teachers and learners go to sleep at their post as soon as there is no enemy in the field." We serve students poorly, including our left-leaning students, when we fail to expose them to true ideological debate.
The second myth is that the bill expects something unreasonable of faculty or that it requires them to teach or avoid any particular content.
SEA 202 requires the trustees to include among their tenure criteria whether the faculty "foster a culture of free inquiry, free expression and intellectual diversity within the institution" and whether they refrain from pushing irrelevant political content during classroom time.
We already informally expect faculty to meet these standards. It's appropriate to formalize those expectations into tenure criteria just like the Purdue Trustees did with mentoring in 2015. However, ultimately, the course curricula will continue to drive the content taught, not the tenure criteria (see page 7 of the bill). It's ludicrous to claim that valuing intellectual diversity is a mandate to teach something offensive or non-scholarly, such as the "other side" of genocide.
The third myth is that this bill ends tenure. To the contrary, SEA 202 elevates tenure protections from a university policy that can be discarded or manipulated to a legally enforceable right in state law. On the bottom of page 6, the bill states that faculty may not be retaliated against for their political activity, criticism of a university's administration, or for their research or commentary. That is a historic win for academic freedom in our state and a reaffirmation of why we created tenure.
The fourth myth is that post-tenure reviews will drive faculty away. It's a scary claim, but these reviews are already the norm in both red and blue states including Georgia where IU's current president helped establish them before moving to Indiana. The AAUP reports that 68% of universities have post-tenure reviews and 47% of those have policies that can lead to HR actions.
The fifth myth is that asking trustees to oversee the tenure process is a new power. Under current practice, trustees establish criteria for tenure, and they then vote on tenure decisions every spring after faculty committees have done their work. The new post-tenure reviews will work similarly with, as Purdue phrased it, "a low-overhead process."
The last myth I will address is the suggestion that the complaint procedures in SEA 202 will impact academic freedom. From student evaluations to a Purdue website with over a dozen ways to express a concern, these processes are common. There is no mandate that the university respond to a complaint in a specific way, and I trust our universities to implement it with the same professionalism they implement similar avenues. But I won't apologize for believing in the goals of the bill enough to establish a mechanism by which trustees can flag serious problems or disregard for the law.
In crafting SEA 202, my goal was to get ahead of the threats facing our universities, and to do so in a way that protects academic freedom. SEA 202 threads that needle, and I am proud of the bill we passed.
Deery, a West Lafayette Republican, represents District 23 in the Indiana Senate.
OTHER READS ON SENATE BILL 202 …
• State Rep. Chris Campbell, D-West Lafayette, this week sent a post to constituents on her Substack feed: “Tenure bill does not reflect the West Lafayette Community.” In it, Campbell wrote:
“It’s disheartening to see someone from my community carry this legislation. From the amount of correspondence I’ve received, I know SB 202 fails to represent the views of my constituents and the Purdue faculty. We’re proud to be a college town, and many members of our community are successful, tenured professors. They’ve worked hard for West Lafayette and for our state through their research and development, but this bill calls their dedication to their fields into question. Dozens of faculty members from Purdue University have testified against this bill and the hardship it will create.
“In many ways, this bill acts as the proverbial thought police. It seeks to punish faculty for things they are ‘likely to do’ instead of actual misdeeds. It places vague, concerning standards on our public universities and their faculty without clear guidelines. Individual faculty should be judged by the standards of their field, not by a particular student or board member who believes they fail an ideological litmus test.”
For the full commentary from Campbell, here’s a link.
• Laura Merrifield Wilson, an associate professor of political science at the University of Indianapolis, had an op-ed on Senate Bill 202 in the Indiana Capital Chronicle this week, in which she outlines the higher ed challenge that concerns her most “is the misguided assumption that academia is unwelcoming and inhospitable to different perspectives, particularly conservative ones.” Here’s a snippet:
“Yes, there is factual knowledge that evades subjectivity and is measured through objective assessment. But beyond the 101 level understanding of defining representative democracy, I want my students to apply that knowledge into challenging the benefits and limitations of the system. How does gerrymandering impact representation? How does the shift of competition from the general election to the primary election impact the ideological extremes? How is policy-gridlock in part a by-product of polarization and, more importantly, how can we avoid it?
“These questions don’t presuppose an agenda. They don’t reveal a hidden bias. I tell my students every semester how I don’t care if they complete my courses with the same perspectives and opinions they held when they began because what I want is for them to learn and understand other views. After all, you cannot argue against a perspective that you yourself cannot even articulate.”
Find Wilson’s full piece here: “Limiting freedom in the name of freedom.”
• Mirror Indy reporter Claire Rafford had this in an edition this week, as a coalition including the Indiana State Conference of the NAACP, the University Alliance for Racial Justice and others criticized the portion of Senate Bill 202 aimed at diversity, equity and inclusion efforts at state universities. The bill would require universities to report to the General Assembly how much they spend on diversity, equity and inclusion efforts annually. It also prevents universities from taking formal, institutional stances on political issues that are unrelated to the school’s “core mission.” Former IU professor Russ Skiba told Mirror Indy: “In the context of this bill, being within a national movement to attack DEI … you have to look at where it’s ending up in places like Florida and Texas.” Here’s the full story: “Civil rights leaders say higher ed bill would negatively impact Black faculty, students.”
• Ball State economist Michael Hicks had this column, midway through the House debate, via the Indianapolis Star: “I'm a professor. Indiana's progressive colleges stifle debate.”
• The Indiana Conference of the American Association of University Professors organized a #StopSB202 campaign, which included collecting coverage and op-eds about the bill. Find it here.
• Here’s some of the coverage in recent weeks, as Senate Bill 202 went through the Indiana House, via Based in Lafayette:
Thank you for supporting Based in Lafayette, an independent, local reporting project. Free and full-ride subscription options are ready for you here.
Tips, story ideas? I’m at davebangert1@gmail.com.
Let’s remember that an overly large percentage of conservatives also “experienced” the 2020 presidential election as having been “stolen” by Joe Biden — an “experience” utterly at odds with fact. Basing fundamental policies of structural faculty independence on politically driven grievances, “feelings,” and “experiences” of campus life can be a very slippery slope….
Conservatives can’t get a fair shake in a state that has had a Republican governor since 2005, has supermajorities in the state House and Senate, 7 of 9 U.S. representatives, and both U.S. senators? Ridiculous!