Via Instapundit comes this piece on an effort to help foster and promote intellectual diversity in South Dakota higher education:
HB1222, passed by a vote of 42-26, asks the Board of Regents to report annually on what the state’s six universities are doing to promote “intellectual diversity,†defined as “a learning environment that exposes students to a variety of political, ideological and other perspectives.â€
“The 2007 higher education budget request is half a billion dollars,†Rep. Phyllis Heineman, R-Sioux Falls, the chief sponsor of the bill, said. “It is simply good governance that legislators ask questions and seek answers. Students and taxpayers deserve no less.â€
I’ll admit some level of skepticism about how the Legislature intends to measure intellectual diversity, and how much interference is appropriate in this case. Indeed, despite the fact that the bill has already passed the House, there are some worries about how it would be implemented:
Other opponents took issue with a list of suggestions included in the bill on which reports can be based, such as encouraging a variety of speakers at campuses and creating an ombudsman.
Rep. Tom Hills, R-Spearfish, a retired Black Hills State University professor and dean, said the bill would “micromanage†tasks that should be left up to administrators.
But Rep. Thomas Brunner, R-Nisland, disagreed. He said the criteria are merely suggestions and that an annual report is not a hardship.
However, reading the full text of the bill helps show why this law is narrowly constructed enough to not be burdensome. The bill is quite simple, and lays out exactly what the report should contain. This does seem like a reasonable measure to help foster a climate of intellectual diversity.
The fact is that higher education often has a view of diversity that is literally only skin deep. Diversity is more than the color of one’s skin or one’s geographical position. Universities are often some of the least intellectually diverse institutions in society, where each and every issue from anthropology to zoology seems to be based on the secular Trinity of race, gender, and class. The partisan identification of college professors is overwhelmingly Democratic – and far to the left.
I know many people in academia, and while they aren’t consciously biased against conservatives, they have a worldview which systematically ignores and suppresses ideas that don’t fit within the narrow confines of normal academic discourse. They’ve essentially defined “academics” in accordance with a particular worldview, which is why the academy is often so far removed from the rest of society. Conservatives are kept as a minority, and conservative ideas are rarely if ever given much of a fair hearing. This kind of educational monoculture stands in opposition to the values of free inquiry and intellectual diversity.
As they say, sunshine is the best disinfectant, and ensuring that taxpayer-funded higher education upholds the values of intellectual diversity and pluralism is a goal that’s worth supporting. This bill should pass the Senate and Governor Rounds should sign it into law.
Rather than pressing the thought police bootheel onto the necks of institutions of higher education, wouldn’t it be more in spirit with the First Amendment for conservatives to encourage their ranks away from accounting careers and into higher education careers? As always, you guys want it both ways. You want to centrallize your employment in sectors where you make enough money to cash in on all the Bush administration tax freebies, but you still want to wield authoritarian control over the employment sectors where salaries are not high enough for said freebies to exist.
Tell you what…..let’s compromise. I’ll accept this plan you endorse to micromanage political philosophy on college campuses if you support my initiative for more “intellectual diversity” in America’s evangelical churches.
Let’s look at the bill then, shall we?
HOW DARE THEY EXPOSE PEOPLE TO MULTIPLE POINTS OF VIEW! FASCISM! FASCISM I SAY!
Filing a report yearly? WHY DO THEY HATE FREEDOM SO?!
A STUDY?! Look, look at the oppression!
See, look at those horrible bootheels of oppression!
Publishing names! It’s McCarthy all over again!
Don’t they know that threats of violence are an integral part of freedom of speech?!
How dare they include diverse viewpoints?!
You mean not descriminating against people based on ideology? LOOK AT THE OPPRESSION!
Remember, suppressing speech is OK in Mark’s world, so long as it’s suppressiny ideas he doesn’t like!
HOW DARE THEY?!
How dare they oppress free speech by not oppressing free speech!
A JACKBOOT-WEARING OMBUDSMAN OF PAIN!
LOOK AT THE JACKBOOTED HEEL OF ELECTRONIC OPPRESSION!
I know that it’s too much work to think before spewing out another silly like Mark Tirade™, but perhaps it would be to your benefit to actually read the legislation before commenting on it. You can even find the big words in the dictionary if you like.
Give me a break. Since when are evangelical churches funded by taxpayers? Furthermore, have you ever been to an evangelical church? Given that many prominent Democrats are evangelicals, and evangelical churches compromise a majority of denominations in America today your comment is the sort of mind-boggling stupid argument that may impress the intellectual lightweights on Democratic Underground, but doesn’t even pass the smell test here.
“Let’s look at the bill then, shall we?”
Why bother? The entire premise of this bill is folly and directly contradicts the GOP’s alleged market-based philosophy. Even as a liberal, I admit that the political climate on today’s college campuses is less-than-healthy, but why does this require a big government solution? If more conservatives were able to get past their visceral disdain for higher education, they could transform it from within as they did with their other long-standing bogeyman, “the liberal media”. Conservatives wisely opted not to pursue a hypocritical big government solution to their perceived woes in the media, so why is one needed for America’s colleges and universities?
“Since when are evangelical churches funded by taxpayers?”
Well, the easy answer to that question would be 1776, but for a more contemporary example, let’s go with 2001 when the Bush administration pushed forward with its plan to finance “faith-based charity” efforts, thus using taxpayer money to fill the collection plates of the GOP’s favorite fire-breathing clergymen.
Again, another set of transparently thoughtless arguments.
If you even have to ask this question, then you’ve already indicated how seriously you’ve considered this issue. If you can’t even be bothered to read a simple bill you either need to retake high school civics or refrain from making ridiculous accusations about it.
Public universities are supported by public funds.
This is hardly a big government solution. All the universities are required to do is report on how they’re encouraging intellectual diversity and put policies in place to support those ends. Hardly worth the silly hyperbole of your comment – which you yourself admit was made in utter ignorance of the text of the bill.
Again, this argument is stupid. One of the largest reasons why there are so few conservatives in acedemia is because academics tend not to give conservative professors tenure and treat them with disdain. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to think that if your outlook is treated like the plague by academia you’re a hell of a lot less likely to become an academic.
That should be Logic 101, but then again you keep flunking the remedial courses.
Again, the media is not funded by taxpayer dollars. Public universities are. The voters of South Dakota have the right to know that their tax dollars are being spent well.
It’s an easy answer, and also dead wrong. There’s a large difference between having a Congressional chaplain and state funding of churches. The latter would be a violation of a little thing called the Establishment Clause.
Apparently American education is in a crisis. So far you’ve flunked both Logic 101 and Civics 101.
Except any and all religious groups from Buddhists to Pastafarians can do the same. Unless you really want to argue that all evangelicals are “fire breathers” and staunch Republicans. Because Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton (both Southern Baptists) would probably tend to disagree.
You call yourself a conservative?
This violates the first law of small gov’t. Create no unnecessary bureaucracy. I’m not familiar with SD state gov’t but assuming there is some executive oversite of state college system then the Gov should do their job of overseeing the education that is provided. If that isn’t being done then this law won’t do anything other than add another layer of do nothing gov’t.
Bandit, exactly the point I was trying to make….a point Jay either missed entirely or elected to ignore, favoring frat boy thumb-wrestling over conceding the inherent contradiction of conservative lawmakers advocating government programs that promote “intellectual diversity” in higher education.
This doesn’t create any additional bureaucracy. You can just as easily have the Dean of Students or a member of the faculty serve as an ombudsman.
And that’s what’s happening here. The Legislature has jurisdiction over public education in South Dakota. In order to exercise oversight, they need to have accurate information.
No new layer of government is added. No funding is allocated for this program. It’s a procedural change and an additional report once a year. The idea that such a thing constitutes some sweeping government program is just silly.
One report once per year, a designated ombudsman, and a call to recognize intellectual diversity in campus policies isn’t “big government”, and to argue such is just plain silly.
‘No new layer of government is added. No funding is allocated for this program.’
‘One report once per year, a designated ombudsman’
Well which is it?
You may want to brace yourself for this:
Both.
It is quite possible for someone to write a report once a year and for someone to serve as an ombudsman for intellectual diversity issues without the need to spend money on it. There is no requirement that a Dean of the Faculty, a Dean of Students, or someone else already on the payroll can’t also serve as ombudsman. State universities do have administrative staffs for administrative duties, and the idea that you need to spend a bunch of money to write a report and post it to a site once a year is more than a little ridiculous.
Then again, if you’d start using a little common sense before shooting your virtual mouths off, you’d avoid making fools of yourselves.
You can insult me all you want but if you think adding another reporting tool and assigning additional assignments to existing resources is going to be free and isn’t going to create additional bureaucracy then I think you’re mistaken. TNSTAAFL.
Gotta say this is a good call. One of the problems with the current academic enviorment is that state universities are monitored for their budget, but not how they treat ideas. Get yourself a bunch of liberal board of trustees and you’ll have a very liberal college. Now wouldn’t it be better to have a situation where the people who ultimately are responsible for the state universities can step in and at least monitor how ideas or treated? I see that stepping alittle away from smaller government, but smaller government isn’t always better government.