Thanks, but I don’t need Alabama politicians to tell me how to do my job
/
not my classroom. and that’s not critical race theory on the screens. though some people probably think it is.
I mentioned CRT in a class the other day. But I am not worried about getting fired. My students promised that if they ever bump into a state legislator, they’ll say I was talking about Customer Relations Training. Tee-hee.
The Alabama Senate is about to consider a bill, a version of which passed the House two weeks ago, that in essence prohibits or restrains the teaching of Critical Race Theory and other “divisive concepts” related to race and gender at all levels of education. This is a solution that has no problem.
The potential for unjustifiable interference with academic freedom looms larger for secondary education, but I wish to focus here on higher education, where professors across the state have protested this bill and its earlier versions.
The bill itemizes “divisive concepts,” and states that a public university may discipline or fire violators.
As evidence that the sponsoring white Republican legislators know they are in dangerous constitutional and political territory, the proposed law as it relates to higher education is heavily caveated. The University of Alabama and other state universities have pushed for and achieved language changes, but of course they have to let the Legislature pass some kind of law like this because institutions of higher education are loathe to push back too hard against the people who decide their funding.
Among the caveats for colleges:
The bill allows discussion of the listed divisive concepts as long as: students aren’t “compelled” to agree with them; the instruction occurs “in an objective manner”; and “the institution expressly makes clear that it does not endorse these divisive concepts.”
The bill allows the teaching of topics and historical events “in a historically accurate context.”
Among the listed divisive concepts is this one: “That this state or the United States is inherently racist or sexist.” Not sure what “inherently” means. Nobody’s telling students that Alabama’s air and water make them racist. But the idea that the institutions and laws of Alabama have systemically perpetuated racism over time – Critical Race Theory, in essence – stands upon a mountain of evidence. I mean, there’s no way to spin the state constitution of 1901 as anything else. This seems like a good and necessary topic for the classroom.
Another divisive concept: “That an individual, solely by virtue of his or her race, sex, or religion, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, sex, or religion.” I dunno. I think the issue of reparations would be worthy of a spot on a syllabus.
If this bill becomes law, I could broach such subjects with students, but I’d feel truly perplexed about how to portray, for instance, white supremacy “in an objective manner.” And the requirement to say I don’t endorse a divisive concept? I feel a case of convenient forgetfulness coming on.
It’s fair to ask whether the majority of the Alabama Legislature has a clue as to what goes on in a college classroom. I won’t argue that CRT and similar topics aren’t being taught, because I know they are – in scattered, appropriate courses at UA and other places. But professors are not indoctrinating their students. We can’t even get them to learn the syllabus. Nor are we compelling assent, which to me means threatening disagreeing students with a lowered grade. Exposing students to new ideas and challenging existing ones falls many steps short of forced agreement.
One of my department colleagues, Dr. A.J. Bauer, teaches media law and his courses include some topics that might fall within the bill’s targeted concepts. He’s not trying to indoctrinate anyone, and doesn’t think he could anyway.
“Students, and especially conservative students, have no issue playing devil’s advocate or pushing back on lessons that don’t fit their preconceived notions about the world. Assent isn’t even the goal — critical thinking and active engagement with the course material and themes is.”
Bauer believes the bill is “extremely vague” and likely the U.S. Supreme Court would eventually rule such a law unconstitutional. In the meantime, though, “it will result in a chilling effect, where teachers and professors will self-censor when discussing matters of race, gender, and sexuality – if they choose to discuss them at all – for fear that a frivolous and unwarranted student complaint will result in their termination. This is likely the desired outcome of the bill’s sponsors.”
They say it isn’t, of course. But the other political factor to consider here is that Alabama’s jackass of an attorney general would probably love to yank a lib professor into court to further his political ambitions. In the same vein, multiple conservative groups around the U.S. have encouraged students to secretly record their professors.
If we ever get to the point that teachers are scared of their students, that would be as destructive to good education as anything I can think of. It would be quittin’ time for a lot of educators.
In the smaller picture, I view this bill as political pandering. In the bigger picture, it’s an attempt to prevent educators from merely offering ideas that threaten the demographic groups that traditionally dominate politics and economics. Societies can’t progress when younger generations aren’t allowed to think about failures of the older ones, so they can do better. The state must let higher education play its role in this process.
The state should understand, too, that college students can handle divisive concepts, and they have the brains and free will to reject what they hear. For all the rightful alarm over infringement on the academic freedom of faculty, I’m even more troubled by the way this legislation insults my students.