By: Mira Costello

Editor-in-Chief

On July 1, Indiana Senate Enrolled Act 202 became effective, amending the Indiana Code regarding state higher education institutions. The provisions of the bill are broad and “establish various requirements and restrictions for institutions requiring free inquiry, free expression, and intellectual diversity”, most notably including post-tenure review for professors and a system for filing complaints against faculty members who may violate the bill’s standards of fostering free inquiry.

Faculty, including IU South Bend’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, fought in February and March of last year to prevent the bill from passing, but were unsuccessful. With a new semester beginning, faculty across IU have received guidance about SEA 202 from their campus administration, which has left many feeling uncertain and fearful about the real implications of the bill.

While there is not necessarily one event that precipitated the passage of SEA 202, it comes out of a national climate in which state legislatures have increasingly pushed to change the landscape of higher education based on the idea that universities are encouraging politically radical ideas and discouraging dissent by students.

Anthropology professor and AAUP member Jay VanderVeen noted that a previous bill requiring that all university students be polled about their campus’ educational environment may have contributed to support for SEA 202, even though the poll had a low response rate.

“The survey was exactly what this new SEA 202 is trying to ‘fix’. There’s a belief that faculty are trying to…radicalize, to liberalize, to turn every student into a California democrat, and that’s just not true,” VanderVeen said. “The results of that survey, even in the tiny response that came, was, ‘that’s not true.’ Overwhelmingly, the students said, ‘there’s no problem.’”

Jake Mattox, associate professor of English and president of IU South Bend’s AAUP chapter, also referenced the poll and said he believes its findings don’t support the provisions of SEA 202.

“If there is something students are concerned about, it’s actually what other students will think of what they say,” he said. “Which is related, and it matters, but it’s not about supposed professor abuses and professors and their classrooms needing to be policed.”

According to a slideshow shown to College of Arts and Sciences faculty in August, SEA 202 may limit professors’ ability to discuss current events and even student-led events in class, since the bill discourages the inclusion of any content outside of the course’s “scope”.

In a section labeled “Responding to students who bring up current events”, the slideshow reads, “Faculty should be prepared to indicate that they can help students who are struggling with issues find the appropriate campus resources and support after the class, as an alternative to engaging in a classroom discussion that is not part of the course content.” 

Later, the slideshow warns faculty to be careful about what campus events they promote to students and to be prepared to defend their decisions. 

As an anthropology professor, VanderVeen explained that he is not concerned for his own ability to discuss current events, because he believes anything humans are doing is related to his field and therefore strongly defensible if challenged. 

However, as a literature teacher, Mattox expressed concern that the bill may threaten his courses. In particular, he mentioned that he teaches a piece about the 1991 beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles police officers, which requires deep social context to study thoroughly.

“I want my students to understand race and policing and the justice system, and we need to dive a little deeply into those things, so – is that okay?” Mattox wondered. “Otherwise, what are we studying when we study that literature? That’s all part of literary studies, not just the text itself. Anybody in my field knows this. Politicians don’t know this. If I’m being surveilled from someone who doesn’t understand what the methods of literary studies are…they might very well find me contravening this law.”

VanderVeen supported this idea, expressing that discussing current events and campus happenings is a cornerstone of the college experience.

“Putting a halt – because of fear – on promoting student events is against the mission of our university. It’s not just to teach our courses. We’re here to help educate the next generation, to help create citizens, to help people be curious and question,” he said. “But now people might be kind of walking on eggshells.”

Another element of uncertainty and concern comes in the complaint process. Currently, complaints can be submitted through EthicsPoint, an online system initially designed for whistleblowing that, since July 1, has featured a button for the submission of a “Classroom Climate” complaint. 

Faculty concern about this system is twofold: first, it is completely anonymous and does not require an IU login. Second, faculty at IU South Bend have not yet been given specific information about where complaints go or how they are vetted and resolved.

The only information the form requires is the name of the offending party and a written description of the alleged violation. All other fields are optional or can be marked “don’t know” or “remain anonymous.” There is also no limit to the number of reports an individual can submit. 

While this system is optimal for true whistleblower reports, VanderVeen and Mattox believe it is not an apt solution for the classroom climate complaint, especially since syllabi, course descriptions and faculty information are publicly available.

“The university is putting a piece of duct tape on a very large structural flaw,” VanderVeen said. “I believe if you have a publicly accessible, non-trackable complaint page, somebody can sit there on their computer in Tennessee and create a bot to just overwhelm that particular system. This is not a hypothetical; this has been done in other states.”

Mattox added that universities already have systems in place to prevent these problems..

“Professors are evaluated every year; there are accountability mechanisms that have worked and worked well. I have tenure, but I don’t want people to misunderstand what that means; it doesn’t mean I can do anything I want…it doesn’t mean I can sit around and lecture students about what I believe in politics,” he said. 

Tenure, according to the AAUP website, “provides the conditions for faculty to pursue research and innovation and draw evidence-based conclusions free from corporate or political pressure.” SEA 202 provides an unprecedented condition that professors, including those with tenure, must be reviewed at least every five years and found to be in compliance with the bill.

According to VanderVeen, uncertainties remain as faculty have not been given specific information about the five-year review. However, they remain steadfast in their commitment to their students.

“I’m not going to change what I do, because what I do is rooted in the established and productive methods of my field,” Mattox said. “I don’t look forward to battles and fights, but I feel utterly confident that I can defend what I do, and I think my students would back me up on that.”