Indiana law requires "intellectual diversity"

[Parasaurolophus]

NPR's report on the https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2024/bills/senate/202/detailslaw.

A new Indiana law allows universities to revoke a professor's tenure if they don't promote so-called "intellectual diversity" in the classroom.

Supporters of the measure say it will make universities more accepting of conservative students and academics. But many professors worry the law could put their careers in jeopardy for what they say, or don't say, in the classroom.

"I'd say it ends tenure in the state of Indiana as we know it," said Ben Robinson, associate professor of Germanic Studies at Indiana University. . .

The law also creates a system where students and staff can submit complaints that could be considered in tenure reviews.

I don't imagine this will lead to more communists being hired in business schools or economics departments.

If its objective is to get more conservatives hired, I'm not sure that the law can actually do that consistently, rather than simply requiring you to hire a bunch of rando wackos. But also, how will this "intellectual diversity" be measured? By political party membership?

[Hegemony]

My guess is that it will be measured in the contents of the class.

[dismalist]

NPR's report on the https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2024/bills/senate/202/detailslaw.

A new Indiana law allows universities to revoke a professor's tenure if they don't promote so-called "intellectual diversity" in the classroom.

Supporters of the measure say it will make universities more accepting of conservative students and academics. But many professors worry the law could put their careers in jeopardy for what they say, or don't say, in the classroom.

"I'd say it ends tenure in the state of Indiana as we know it," said Ben Robinson, associate professor of Germanic Studies at Indiana University. . .

The law also creates a system where students and staff can submit complaints that could be considered in tenure reviews.

I don't imagine this will lead to more communists being hired in business schools or economics departments.

If its objective is to get more conservatives hired, I'm not sure that the law can actually do that consistently, rather than simply requiring you to hire a bunch of rando wackos. But also, how will this "intellectual diversity" be measured? By political party membership?

You'd be surprised how many commies and wackos work in Economics departments!

There are two places specialized in this stuff. One is the New School in NY City, which harbors a bunch of commies. They are broadly intelligent and good to have around, as a gadfly at least. They have their failures, of course, just like everybody else. Another is the School of American Institutionalism [Thorstein Veblen, Wesley Mitchell, and John R. Commons], essentially the German Historical School writ American. Very much an element of the original Progressivism. The American Institutionalists currently thrive only in, of all places, Texas and environs. Me? I prefer the commies.

But I too don't think commies or American institutionalists can infiltrate many econ departments, though other wackos may be on their way already.

The larger point though is that diversity in view is best accommodated by competing universities, with what goes on inside universities left out of the hands of politicians. A legislature, after all, will have great difficulty in deciding whether that paper is worth a B or a B-.

What we see is less that universities compete in departments' viewpoints -- after all, there's Federal money at stake -- but that States compete with each other about viewpoint. Given the monoculture of thought in universities, these silly sounding Republican efforts are best seen as an anti-trust device, an attempt to restore competition among ideas.

[apl68]

Sounds too subjective to be a very good piece of legislation, that's for sure.

[marshwiggle]

Sounds too subjective to be a very good piece of legislation, that's for sure.

Ridiculous as it is, the irony that the government is accusing universities of having a lack of intellectual diversity shows just how bad the culture wars have been for society.

[Wahoo Redux]

More conservative desperation.

[marshwiggle]

More conservative desperation.

Sure, but the fact that it can even be framed in terms of expanding intellectual diversity rather than the much more obvious requirement that they adopt the government approved viewpoint is unprecedented. (For contrast, consider the legislation that has been discussed here to prevent public schools from teaching certain viewpoints. That's the much more "normal" action historically.)

[apl68]

More conservative desperation.

Sure, but the fact that it can even be framed in terms of expanding intellectual diversity rather than the much more obvious requirement that they adopt the government approved viewpoint is unprecedented. (For contrast, consider the legislation that has been discussed here to prevent public schools from teaching certain viewpoints. That's the much more "normal" action historically.)

If you're saying the the universities have ceded much of the high ground in intellectual freedom debates, and made themselves into easier targets for those who wish them ill, there's a lot of truth to that.

[marshwiggle]

More conservative desperation.

Sure, but the fact that it can even be framed in terms of expanding intellectual diversity rather than the much more obvious requirement that they adopt the government approved viewpoint is unprecedented. (For contrast, consider the legislation that has been discussed here to prevent public schools from teaching certain viewpoints. That's the much more "normal" action historically.)

If you're saying the the universities have ceded much of the high ground in intellectual freedom debates, and made themselves into easier targets for those who wish them ill, there's a lot of truth to that.

That's it exactly. You said it more clearly that I did.

[ciao_yall]

More conservative desperation.

Sure, but the fact that it can even be framed in terms of expanding intellectual diversity rather than the much more obvious requirement that they adopt the government approved viewpoint is unprecedented. (For contrast, consider the legislation that has been discussed here to prevent public schools from teaching certain viewpoints. That's the much more "normal" action historically.)

If you're saying the the universities have ceded much of the high ground in intellectual freedom debates, and made themselves into easier targets for those who wish them ill, there's a lot of truth to that.

That's it exactly. You said it more clearly that I did.

Define "intellectual diversity." Scientific creationism? The Laffer curve? That researcher who claims class size and per-pupil spending have no impact on student outcomes?

[ciao_yall]

Sounds too subjective to be a very good piece of legislation, that's for sure.

Ridiculous as it is, the irony that the government is accusing universities of having a lack of intellectual diversity shows just how bad the culture wars have been for society.

I'm not sure the "government" representatives to which you speak are really interested in true "intellectual diversity," meaning genuine inquiry, the best outcomes for humanity, the scientific method, and all that other boring stuff.

[dismalist]

Mustn't confuse motives with consequences. Too anthropomorphic. The one doesn't map into the other when there is competition.

[Wahoo Redux]

The ideology of "Diversity" is indeed coming back to bite some most devoted in the kettle-drum, that's for sure.

And these are partisan conservatives desperate to hold onto Western culture in its slow intractable glide into liberal (not the Classical definition) ideals who are pushing this business.

[marshwiggle]

More conservative desperation.

Sure, but the fact that it can even be framed in terms of expanding intellectual diversity rather than the much more obvious requirement that they adopt the government approved viewpoint is unprecedented. (For contrast, consider the legislation that has been discussed here to prevent public schools from teaching certain viewpoints. That's the much more "normal" action historically.)

If you're saying the the universities have ceded much of the high ground in intellectual freedom debates, and made themselves into easier targets for those who wish them ill, there's a lot of truth to that.

That's it exactly. You said it more clearly that I did.

Define "intellectual diversity." Scientific creationism? The Laffer curve? That researcher who claims class size and per-pupil spending have no impact on student outcomes?

That's an interesting example. My understanding is that the correlation between class size and outcomes is weak; the correlation between range of ability in the classroom and outcomes is much stronger. (In other words, if the group is homogeneous, then a bigger class is fine. When there are all kinds of different needs and degree of preparation, the class size matters.)

It's a perfect illustration of the kind of discussion that can be suppressed because of ideological goals, like the desire to put all kinds of students in the same class to avoid stigma associated with differences. Intellectual diversity welcomes the discussion of the trade-offs in making any sort of decision like this. (So, for instance, how much more can be spent on education to keep the whole range of students in the same classroom? When are a student's needs so acute that it isn't reasonable to have them in a non-specialized classroom?)

[ciao_yall]

More conservative desperation.

Sure, but the fact that it can even be framed in terms of expanding intellectual diversity rather than the much more obvious requirement that they adopt the government approved viewpoint is unprecedented. (For contrast, consider the legislation that has been discussed here to prevent public schools from teaching certain viewpoints. That's the much more "normal" action historically.)

If you're saying the the universities have ceded much of the high ground in intellectual freedom debates, and made themselves into easier targets for those who wish them ill, there's a lot of truth to that.

That's it exactly. You said it more clearly that I did.

Define "intellectual diversity." Scientific creationism? The Laffer curve? That researcher who claims class size and per-pupil spending have no impact on student outcomes?

That's an interesting example. My understanding is that the correlation between class size and outcomes is weak; the correlation between range of ability in the classroom and outcomes is much stronger. (In other words, if the group is homogeneous, then a bigger class is fine. When there are all kinds of different needs and degree of preparation, the class size matters.)

It's a perfect illustration of the kind of discussion that can be suppressed because of ideological goals, like the desire to put all kinds of students in the same class to avoid stigma associated with differences. Intellectual diversity welcomes the discussion of the trade-offs in making any sort of decision like this. (So, for instance, how much more can be spent on education to keep the whole range of students in the same classroom? When are a student's needs so acute that it isn't reasonable to have them in a non-specialized classroom?)

Alternatively, let's say you have 30 kids - 15 are seemingly above average, 15 seemingly below.

30 kids of mixed abilities is a lot. 30 kids of any ability is a lot.

If you put the 15+ kids in one class and 15- kids in the other, they would come out about at the same relative levels in which they came in.

If you mixed them up, the + and - kids get a chance to learn from each other, because they all come with different strengths and weaknesses. The + kids get a chance to model good learning to the - kids, the - kids get a chance to show the + kids other skills they might have.


If you mixed them up