David R. Hoffman: Why michigan must resist the trap of Indiana’s 'intellectual diversity' law

EDITOR'S NOTE: The views and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not of Ottawa News Network.

While lawmakers and many institutions of higher education in Michigan have limited or banned diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, fortunately they have not, like Indiana, passed a so-called “Intellectual Diversity” law.

Nor should they.

While the name of this law seems innocuous, almost benevolent, it is, in reality, one of the most disingenuous and duplicitous forms of censorship, because it is so vague that professors, not knowing how or what they can teach about a topic, often avoid teaching anything about it at all.

Recently, for example, supporters of an instructor at Indiana University, who did not have her contract renewed, raised concerns not only about this law and its impact on academic freedom, but also the methods used to achieve her termination.

In this case, the complaining party apparently bypassed the university’s internal system and complained directly to the office of Jim Banks, who is, according to the Indianapolis Star, a MAGA United States senator.  This immediately injected politics, and political pressure, into the situation.

The university, however, alleged it did not terminate this instructor’s contract due to her lecture, but for other classroom misconduct.

What makes this particularly chilling is that this law can also impact tenured professors.  In fact, several have endeavored to challenge it in court, but were turned away because allegedly nobody had been actually harmed.  Of course, this is because professors are engaged in heavy self-censorship just to avoid such harm, meaning that only a brave soul willing to risk their tenure, and perhaps even their livelihood, can ever legally challenge it, and, even then, there is no guarantee they will win.

Decades ago, a tenured professor at the University of Colorado, Ward Churchill, wrote a controversial essay that subsequently prompted demands for his firing.  While the university stated they could not do so on First Amendment grounds, they instituted an “investigation” that led to allegations of “academic misconduct,” resulting in his termination.

He sued, and a jury ruled that this alleged “misconduct” had simply been a pretext to fire him, but the trial judge overruled them and refused to reinstate him. 

While I cannot personally attest to the circumstances regarding the IU instructor or Churchill, I did work as an adjunct instructor at various colleges for roughly thirty years, and, at a few, have witnessed the machinations they engage in to penalize someone for one thing while pretending it is for another.

The first is student complaints, which have risen since Indiana’s “intellectual diversity” law has gone into effect. The issue with student complaints is that professors often have little defense against them, even when they are unfounded.

For example, several years ago I taught at a private, religious-based college. One afternoon I received a call from my supervising professor who first praised me for my work before pausing and saying, “However, one student has complained that they could tell I wasn’t a Christian.”

My first response was that my course did not teach religion, and therefore I never discussed it one way or the other, and that, if this were indeed true, it would seem that more than one student would have mentioned it. When I asked who the student was, he replied that he couldn’t tell me.

I remarked that it was impossible to defend myself without this information. I did have one student who habitually turned in assignments late, and, in accordance with my clearly delineated syllabus policy and, in fairness to other students who did their work on time, his grade was marked down accordingly; therefore, I couldn’t help but wonder if my purported lack of “Christianity” was simply based on the fact that I would not facilitate this student’s sense of entitlement that classroom policies applicable to others should not apply to him.

My second experience occurred at another college, where I had previously received the highest performance marks from both my students and my peers during the several years I taught there. I had refused to sign what was an onerous NDA agreement that potentially prohibited me from honestly advising students about their employment prospects and career paths.

Suddenly, I was labeled unqualified to teach the very course I had taught for several years, even to the point that the school claimed I did not even understand the basic terminology of the subject matter.

While these allegations were clearly untrue, essentially what the school was claiming was that it had absolutely no compunction about accepting tuition money from students who were then placed in the classroom of, by their words, an unqualified instructor — an action tantamount to fraud.

So, while the data is still in its infancy, some critics have already contended that Indiana’s intellectual diversity law is resulting in “brain drain,” not only from professors reluctant to take jobs in the state, but also from those now taking premature retirements instead of navigating this intellectual diversity law’s vague minefields.

The entire purpose of higher education is (or was) to instill creative and critical thinking skills that evolve from learning a variety of viewpoints, some of which students may not agree with. The purpose of the classroom setting is so students can engage in vigorous discussion about these viewpoints.  Sometimes, in teaching them, professors may play the proverbial “devil’s advocate” and cite viewpoints they do not personally believe but use to stimulate thought.

Numerous academic subjects do not engage in absolutes and rigid facts, but in theories and scholarly opinions that invoke discussions and disagreements.  Students, who pay thousands for an education, are essentially being robbed if they are denied these experiences.

Education isn’t the enemy; ignorance is, and, unfortunately, in Indiana and several other states, too many politicians now view ignorance as their pathway to election and re-election.

There is a saying from UNCF that “a mind is a terrible thing to waste.”  It’s even more terrible when governments and universities waste it for you.

— David R. Hoffman is a retired civil rights and constitutional law attorney.

How to submit an opinion

Ottawa News Network accepts columns and letters to the editor from everyone. Letters should be about 300 words and columns should not exceed 1,000 words. ONN reserves the right to fact-check submissions as well as edit for length, clarity and grammar. Please send submissions to newsroom@ottawanewsnetwork.org.