I'm at a loss sometimes when I see what some lawmakers think is smart legislation, and I'm finding myself in that place again with the discussion in the Arizona Senate over the new measure to restrict the conduct of professors in classrooms.
In summary, as an effort to prevent teachers from expressing or advocating political opinions in classrooms, legislators have introduced a bill that would make it illegal for teachers to take a stand on controversial issues, require schools to educate faculty, students and their families on such policies. The bill also outlines penalties for violations.
The world of news commentary has already ignited with descriptions of how grossly ambiguous and subjective the guidelines are, allowing for misapplication and abuse.
To quote directly, the bill prohibits instructors from "endorsing, supporting or opposing any political candidate or office, legislation, litigation or court action" and, the real kicker, "advocating one side of a social, political or cultural issue that is a matter of partisan controversy."
The bill, pushed by Republican majority leader Sen. Thayer Verschoor, would, in effect, limit professors from saying anything that could be taken as not coldly objective.
With "matters of partisan controversy" being the crux of the limitations, the bill haphazardly muzzles professors across the board, preventing them from valid subjects.
But apart from the embarrassingly vague wording, the bill ridiculously asserts that the university is not a place for professors to discuss their opinions. Supporters say the goal is to restrict advocacy. But they seem to be walking an unknown line between formal advocacy and legitimate opinion.
While instructors should not officially endorse causes or political figures, they should remain at liberty to present persuasive opinions on topics, provided they do not abuse their authority or allow students' personal responses to affect their grades.
And that's what syllabi are for. When students receive their syllabi, they enter into a formal contract, outlining the standard of participation their grade will be based on and allowing for dispute if they think they have been unfairly treated.
Hearing opinions from instructors is both legitimate and rewarding. In my education, hearing their honest opinions has given lessons the compelling weight that brought me to engage them.
I remember when discussing a system of moral values back in the days of Philosophy 101, a potentially controversial subject under the new legislation, my professor related the story of a peer whose subscription to the system led him down a dark path ending in state prison.
His words left little room for speculation of his opinion of the conclusions that took the man where it did, and with his sobering words, the ethical system we were considering took on a new weight as the classroom heard its potential to affect lives.
Arizona lawmakers say they have students' best interests at heart. In Verschoor's words, "We should be teaching students how to think, not what to think."
But with the lines of restriction being drawn along partisan borders, the political self-interest of the endeavor begs attention. On campuses every day, students grapple under the leading of instructors with a myriad of meaningful, life-changing and controversial ideas, but no efforts are being made to address the appropriate use of instructor authority when presenting them.
As students make their way through university education, the rightful influence of instructor opinion is part of what makes their endeavors meaningful, and activity to limit it should not be taken lightly.
Rather, as students, we need to make clear that the open discussion of issues with the professor input is part of what brings us to class every morning and to speak out against efforts to bring recklessly enforced political silence into the activities of our classrooms.
Reach the reporter at: matthew.bowman@asu.edu.
