A federal lawsuit filed Tuesday challenges a contentious new Indiana law that seeks to push speech and course content in college classrooms toward “intellectual diversity.”

The litigation lodged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Indiana asserts that violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The measure was adopted by the General Assembly and signed into law by Gov. Eric Holcomb in March.

The law requires all Indiana public colleges and universities institute policies that chill the speech of or compel speech from faculty members, a news release alleged.

The suit was filed on behalf of two professors at Purdue University Fort Wayne. Steven A. Carr is a professor of communication and the director of the Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies. David G. Schuster is an associate professor in the history department.

The Purdue University is the named defendant because the state institution is mandated to enforce the allegedly unconstitutional provisions of the law.

“Although Professors Carr and Schuster both already seek to foster a culture of free inquiry in their classrooms, this does not mean that they believe it is appropriate to provide equal time or attention to all lines of questioning,” the lawsuit said. “They exercise their judgment and academic freedom to determine when further inquiry on a subject is no longer desirable or appropriate, and they have no way of knowing whether this type of in-the-moment-decision-making will subject them to discipline or other employment consequences.”

Professors ‘fearful’ of the law’s penalties

The law in question states professors must be disciplined if they fail to “foster a culture of free inquiry, free expression, and intellectual diversity” and “expose students to scholarly works from a variety of political or ideological frameworks.”

Both plaintiffs assert in the lawsuit that they could be “compelled to speak or prohibited from speaking,” in violation of their First Amendment rights, or risk adverse employment actions — including not being promoted, having their tenure revoked, or facing discipline up to and including termination.

The ACLU of Indiana indicated the professors are concerned the law could require public college and university faculty to give “debunked” theories equal time in their classrooms alongside “rigorously studied academic analysis.”

The lawsuit provides specific examples of course content of concern to the two professors.

As part of his courses examining United States history in the post-civil war period, Schuster teaches about the “culture wars” surrounding the LGBTQ rights movement in the 1990s, according to the lawsuit.

“(Schuster) is aware that some academics teach about this movement as embodying the rise of a ‘homosexual agenda,’ during which, according to them, LGBTQ people were attempting to indoctrinate students and others with ideas about homosexuality,” the complaint said. Schuster does not believe that “divergent perspective” is accurate, however, and instead maintains that teaching such a perspective “would be harmful to his students.”

“He thus does not believe he should be required to teach this perspective, and while he has in the past invited students to discuss this perspective during office hours, he does not devote class time to it,” the lawsuit continued.

Schuster additionally teaches about slavery and its legacy. The lawsuit claims the professor does not believe he should be required to teach any number of “divergent” scholarly perspectives on that subject, either — including that slavery “ultimately benefited African American people,” which was once a dominant view among academics in that field.

Carr separately teaches about the Holocaust through his work at the Institute.

The lawsuit emphasizes that “divergent perspectives regarding the existence and scope of the Holocaust exist,” ranging from denial that the Holocaust occurred, to “revisionist” accounts challenging the scope and causes of the genocide.

“Professor Carr would not teach those ‘perspectives,’ but the language of the statute would appear to require him to do so,” the complaint reads.

Another example referenced in the lawsuit describes a course recently taught by Carr about the eugenics movement — including study of legislation involving forced sterilization passed in Indiana in 1907.

“He does not believe that he should be required to teach, for example, the ‘divergent’ scholarly perspective that racially based forced sterilization could ever be appropriate or even defensible,” the lawsuit said.

The suit seeks to block the “unconstitutional” portions of the statute to protect the free speech rights of the two professors before the law is set to take effect on July 1.

“SEA 202 puts Indiana’s professors in an untenable position. Through vague language and the threat of harsh sanctions, including termination, the law strips professors of the academic freedom that the Supreme Court has long recognized they have the right to exercise,” said ACLU of Indiana attorney Stevie Pactor in a written statement. “No professor should have to choose between their employment and their First Amendment rights.”

What’s in the new law?

, one of this year’s — was touted by GOP lawmakers as a way to increase “intellectual diversity” in publicly funded college classrooms.

Although faculty and students overwhelmingly contended the proposal would micromanage their institutions and have a “chilling effect” on free expression, the governor , saying it “requires free inquiry and civil discourse programming for new students, strongly encourages academic freedom and protects faculty to express differing viewpoints from their colleagues and university leadership.”

The law makes changes to the institutions’ diversity-oriented positions and their policies for tenure, contract renewals, performance reviews and more. It also establishes new reporting and survey requirements based on “free inquiry, free expression, and intellectual diversity.”

Now, Indiana is additionally one of a handful of states that requires boards of trustees to establish diversity committees on campuses.

Under the new law, those diversity committees must make recommendations promoting recruitment and retention of “underrepresented” students rather than the “minority students” specified in current law.

Senate Enrolled Act 202 requires a five-year review process for Hoosier education institutions, as well. Even so, for tenure of faculty members.

The law further requires institutions to establish complaint procedures in which school students and staff can accuse faculty members and contractors of not meeting free-expression criteria. Institutions will have to refer those complaints to human resource professionals and supervisors “for consideration in employee reviews and tenure and promotion decisions,” according to the law. In limited circumstances, complaints could be advanced to the Indiana Commission for Higher Education.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Indiana Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Niki Kelly for questions: info@indianacapitalchronicle.com. Follow Indiana Capital Chronicle on and .

The Alaska House Education Committee on Monday gave its unanimous support for a price transparency bill aimed at the University of Alaska.

If Senate Bill 13 becomes law, the state university system will be required to list the cost of course materials, including textbooks, in its course catalog.

“This bill has got a simple concept: We’re trying to give students as much information as possible to financially plan as they’re signing up for their classes,” said Sen. Robert Myers, R-North Pole and the sponsor of the bill.

The state Senate , and the education committee was its only stop before a vote of the full House.

“I think it’s a great idea. I want people to be as informed as possible to help them budget,” said Rep. Jamie Allard, R-Eagle River and co-chair of the education committee, after Monday’s vote.

SB 13 is modeled on in other states, Myers said.

In provided to the Legislature, the university system said it could implement the bill as part of an ongoing IT modernization program.

University officials cautioned that while they can absorb the financial cost, there will be a time cost as well.

“Requiring professors to focus on administrative tasks takes away from the core educational mission. New professors are particularly vulnerable to compliance,” the fiscal note stated.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alaska Beacon maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Andrew Kitchenman for questions: info@alaskabeacon.com. Follow Alaska Beacon on and .

LINCOLN — Bills to eliminate tenure protection for university professors in an effort to halt “indoctrination (of) leftist ideology,” and one to do away with Nebraska’s inheritance tax were among 37 proposals introduced during a snowy Monday at the State Capitol.

State Sen. Loren Lippincott of Central City, who introduced the tenure bill, said in an email that “higher education lacks a serious degree of accountability” because of tenure, which grants protection to professors after proving their competence, from being fired for disagreements with administrators or for controversial scholarly opinions.

Meanwhile, a spokeswoman for the University of Nebraska system hinted that eliminating tenure could threaten recruitment and retention of faculty.

Lippincott said the tenure system protects “poorly performing professors” and those who “allow their students no wiggle room for disagreements with their espoused dogma.”

‘Woke ideology’

The senator wrote that “woke ideology” is being pushed at the University of Nebraska campuses.

” 
 As tax-paying citizens, we have a right to expect that our tax dollars will be used to educate and edify our students, not indoctrinate them with leftist ideology,” Lippincott said in an email.

His Legislative Bill 1064 has 11 co-sponsors.

The bill calls for tenure to replaced by “employee agreements” at state universities and colleges that require annual performance reviews, “minimum standards of good practice” and “procedures for dismissal for cause, program discontinuance, and financial exigency.”

Melissa Lee, a spokeswoman for the NU system, said officials there are reviewing Lippincott’s proposal.

“Our plans for the University of Nebraska to grow and compete will require us to hold all our faculty and staff to high levels of performance and accountability,” Lee said.

One University of Nebraska-Lincoln professor tweeted that there were so many problems with Lippincott’s proposal “that I hardly know where to begin.”

“Lippincott told a reporter that he wants to destroy tenure because he wants to punish professors for expressing opinions he doesn’t hold. Which is precisely why tenure and academic freedom exist,” wrote Ari Kohen, a UNL political science professor.

Bills to end or restrict tenure were introduced last year in Texas, North Dakota, Florida and Iowa. The legislature.

‘Double tax’

Elmwood Sen. Rob Clements would eliminate the state’s inheritance tax by 2028 via his LB 1067, which has 24 co-sponsors.

Nebraska is one of only five states that levy such a “death tax,” and eliminating it has become a prime target for tax cutters over the years and again in 2024.

Clements said the inheritance tax amounts to a “double tax,” since property taxes are already paid on land and residence. It encourages retirees to move out of Nebraska, he said, so their descendants don’t have to pay the tax.

Right now, immediate relatives, such as a parent, sibling or child, pay a 1% inheritance tax on property they receive in excess of $100,000. But the tax rate climbs to up to 15% for the most remote relatives, and less is exempt.

Nebraska counties have consistently defended the inheritance tax as a way to finance one-time capital improvement projects — such as bridges — and argue that if it goes away, a much more objectionable tax — property tax — will rise.

Another aspect of Clements’ proposal would have the state reimburse counties $35 a day for any state prisoners held at a county jail, unless the state is short of funds.

LB 1067 would allocate $3.9 million a year for the State Prisoner Reimbursement Act.

Incentives for teachers

Fremont Sen. Lynne Walz introduced two bills Monday to help address the state’s teacher shortage.

LB 1052 would allow teachers at public and private schools to obtain up to $300 per year in reimbursement for purchases of classroom supplies.

Walz, a former teacher, said it would be welcome help, especially for new teachers, who have to buy many of their own classroom supplies.

Another proposal, LB 1053, would give veteran teachers a bonus if they stay on a few more years.

The bill would provide up to five “extended-career retention grants” of $2,500 a year for such teachers who decline to retire.

Walz said part of Nebraska’s teacher shortage is because of the exodus of experienced teachers from the profession.

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Nebraska Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Cate Folsom for questions: info@nebraskaexaminer.com. Follow Nebraska Examiner on and .

Daniel Brinks, who chairs the government department at the University of Texas at Austin, doesn’t usually have a tough time recruiting professors. After all, UT is one of the best research universities in the country, located in a high-tech boomtown with a thriving music scene, a warm climate and first-rate enchiladas.

But this year, in “a pretty significant change,” Brinks said, eight candidates turned down job offers. Several of them cited events transpiring a few blocks south of campus, at the Texas Capitol, where some Republican lawmakers were pushing to eliminate tenure at state colleges and universities.

Anti-tenure Republicans in Texas — and in other states including , , , ,  and  â€” have said they want to rein in unaccountable professors who are pushing a liberal agenda in the classroom.

Supporters of tenure, which professors typically must earn after years of teaching and publishing original research, argue that it protects academic freedom. Without it, they say, professors might be wary of taking on controversial topics for fear of being fired.

“American higher education is the envy of the world because of the current system,” Irene Mulvey, president of the American Association of University Professors, told Stateline. “These bills that weaken tenure or limit tenure are bills that will undermine the quality of education in the state.”

But defenders of tenure — a practice adopted in its current form in 1940 — have deployed another argument that goes beyond academic freedom: Attacks on tenure are a threat to state economies. That argument, used by Brinks in Texas and others elsewhere, has figured prominently in debates over tenure in several states.

“If you no longer can attract the top researchers, you no longer have people developing cutting-edge technologies, cutting-edge medical innovations,” Brinks told Stateline, echoing testimony he delivered to Texas legislators.

The top teachers and researchers receive federal grants, Brinks noted, “and if you don’t have the top researchers in the various fields here, then that source of funds, which is millions and millions of dollars, it just goes away.”

Despite such concerns, the Texas Senate in April approved legislation that would have prohibited public colleges and universities from granting tenure to faculty members, starting in 2024.

“Tenured university professors are the only people in our society that have the guarantee of a job,” Texas Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who presides over the Senate, . “These professors claim ‘academic freedom’ and hide behind their tenure to continue blatantly advancing their agenda of societal division.”

But the Texas House last month approved a much milder version, allowing schools to fire tenured faculty for “professional incompetence” or “conduct involving moral turpitude.” is the one the legislature sent to the desk of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who is expected to .

State Rep. John Kuempel, the Republican who authored the House version, it would “provide accountability while maintaining an environment that is conducive to recruiting and retaining the best faculty and researchers in the state and nation.”

The economic argument also has surfaced in Ohio, where the state Senate a sweeping that aims to promote “intellectual diversity” on campuses. The measure would mandate a yearly performance review for faculty, including those with tenure.

Shortly before the vote, state Sen. Jerry Cirino, the Republican sponsor of the bill, argued that the legislation would attract more students and faculty to Ohio. The bill is still .

“When all is said and done here, our universities are going to be better,” Cirino said. “We are going to attract more people who have been turned away because of the liberal bias that is incontrovertible in our institutions in Ohio.”

But Democratic state Rep. Joe Miller argued the opposite, citing released last month which found that Ohio’s 14 public universities had a $68.9 billion impact on the state’s economy in fiscal year 2021-2022 — 8.8% of Ohio’s total gross state product. The study also found that the universities and their students supported nearly 867,000 jobs, 1 in 8 in Ohio.

The legislation would “make it extremely difficult to attract students and faculty to Ohio, which will be extraordinarily damaging to our economy, financially impacting cities from Akron, to Athens, Kent and Columbus,” Miller .

Economic concerns over curbing tenure also have been raised in and .

“We’re one of the few states, particularly of our size, to have two tier-one research institutions, so doing things to damage their reputation has broad implications,” Dustin Miller, executive director of the Iowa Chamber Alliance,  in explaining his group’s opposition to anti-tenure bills in his state.

There is little doubt that research universities are economic engines.

In a recent review of relevant research, the Brookings Institution think tank showing that higher state spending on universities to more patents and entrepreneurship; that each new patent outside the university in the local economy; and that regions that to a land grant university over a century ago have stronger economies than regions without one.

Joshua Drucker, a University of Illinois Chicago associate professor who about the economic impact of research institutions, said the millions of dollars that top researchers bring into their universities are “pure addition to a region,” and that curbing tenure could diminish that flow.

“What I expect to happen if tenure is severely weakened, but only in some places, [is that] those places would then have to spend a lot more to get top talent or they will lose the top talent,” he said.

Brinks, a top expert in his field who has secured funding from the National Science Foundation and worked with researchers around the world, said he always thought the University of Texas “was the perfect place for me.”

“I really like the mission of a public university in a place like Texas. I think we do something that’s really important to the state,” he said. “But to the extent that this atmosphere of questioning and even hostility to our mission and what we do continues, then it does occasionally raise questions about going to a private university or going out of state.

“It’s dispiriting to find that you’re the object of suspicion when you think what you’re doing is really important and valuable.”

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org. Follow Stateline on and .

A coalition of professors from across Idaho have filed a lawsuit in federal court against the state alleging a law prohibiting the use of public funds to promote or counsel in favor of abortion is “sweeping and unclear” and violates their constitutional free speech and due process rights.  

It is the fourth lawsuit filed against Idaho for abortion-related laws, with three others challenging the details of the state’s near-total ban on abortion and a so-called “abortion trafficking” bill that restricts adults from taking minors out of state to obtain abortion care. Tuesday’s lawsuit targets the , which passed in the 2021 session of the Idaho Legislature and prohibited public funds from being used to “procure, counsel in favor, refer to or perform an abortion.” Since public schools are largely funded by the state government, the law applies to faculty and staff at colleges and universities, including the largest schools of Boise State University, the University of Idaho and Idaho State University. Violations of the law include penalties ranging from a misdemeanor to a felony with prison time of up to 14 years, along with termination of employment and restitution of the public funds.

“The NPFAA therefore leaves Idaho’s public university educators with an impossible — and unconstitutional — choice: avoid any speech that could be construed as favorable to abortion in course materials, lectures, class discussions, student assignments and academic scholarship, or risk imprisonment, loss of livelihood and financial ruin for violating the law,” the complaint says.

The lawsuit asks U.S. District Judge David C. Nye to issue a preliminary injunction that would block enforcement of the law.

States Newsroom has reached out to Idaho Attorney General RaĂșl Labrador’s office for comment.

The Idaho Family Policy Center, a state-based organization that has pushed for anti-abortion legislation since 2020, drafted the bill in conjunction with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a national religious organization that wrote the model legislation used to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. Blaine Conzatti, president of the policy center, said in a press release Tuesday that the challenge is “meritless” and he believes it won’t be successful.

“The First and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not provide carte blanche legal protections for higher education faculty to advocate or engage in criminal behavior on the taxpayer’s dime,” Conzatti said in the release. “The ‘No Public Funds For Abortion Act’ simply does not infringe on academic speech protected by the First Amendment, including classroom discussion on topics related to abortion.”

Professors have significantly altered courses for fear of prosecution, complaint says

The complaint was filed by the , the University of Idaho Faculty Federation and six individual professors: Aleta Quinn, Casey Johnson, Markie McBrayer, Zachary Turpin and Kathryn Blevins of the University of Idaho, and Heather Witt of Boise State University. The national and Idaho chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union are representing the plaintiffs, along with local law firm Strindberg Scholnick Birch Hallam Harstad Thorne.

Scarlet Kim, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, told States Newsroom some plaintiffs reached out to the Idaho branch of the ACLU independently and others contacted the union to express their concerns. 

“It’s vital for Idaho’s public universities to have autonomy in fostering vibrant debate on their campuses, free from government interference,” said Leo Morales, executive director of the ACLU of Idaho, in a press release. “Idaho’s abortion censorship law directly undermines that autonomy, attempting to restrict educators’ free speech and stoke fear of retaliation for such speech in our state.”

The complaint states the professors and the faculty within the two union groups teach about abortion across a diverse array of disciplines and say the law has placed a “straitjacket upon the intellectual leaders” of the state’s public universities.

“(The law) has stifled free and open academic inquiry about abortion across Idaho’s public universities,” the complaint states. “Professors who previously taught, discussed or wrote about abortion no longer do so. 
 The threat of prosecution continues to hang over professors as they plan for the upcoming school year, renewing their dilemma about how to structure their courses, teach their students and pursue their own research.”

A professor of philosophy removed an entire section of her biomedical ethics course that discussed human reproduction out of fear of prosecution, and professors of history, sociology, journalism, political science and social work have significantly altered course content as well, according to the complaint. Professors have also made changes to lectures and halted classroom discussion, stopped assigning, evaluating and giving meaningful feedback on student research and writing, and refrained from pursuing or sharing some scholarly and academic work because of the law, it said.  

Martin Orr, president of the Idaho Federation of Teachers and a sociology professor at Boise State University, said professors have told him they have felt “on edge” during classroom discussions that veer into the topic of reproductive issues and students have reported feeling frustrated by the limitations placed on course content and professor instruction. The lack of clarity around the meaning of the law makes some teachers wonder if even talking about the law is perceived by some as “promoting abortion.”

“This interview might constitute a violation of that law,” Orr told States Newsroom. “For a faculty member, just being accused of a violation could lead to termination, so it’s not like we would necessarily get our day in court before there were severe consequences.”  

Orr said the stress of avoiding legal consequences is a distraction from the work and time that could be given to students, and it can interfere with the types of exercises typically used in a classroom setting. 

“Students are not infrequently assigned to argue a position they don’t agree with, it helps us think critically and communicate more effectively,” Orr said. “Can we suggest, even as devil’s advocate, that students argue in favor of reproductive rights? There are all sorts of fundamental teaching tools that start to look very dangerous in this context.”

Attorneys argue law does not provide adequate definitions

The attorneys also argue the law violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that prohibits vague laws, in part because the law does not provide definitions for words like referring or counseling in favor of abortion. Because the law is unclear, it allows police and prosecutors to arbitrarily and discriminatorily enforce the law and “draw their own lines between permissible and prohibited speech,” according to the complaint. 

In March, portions of an art exhibit  at Lewiston’s Lewis-Clark State College because it included depictions of abortion pills and taped interviews with women who had abortions for various reasons. The college’s spokesperson cited the section of code with the No Public Funds for Abortion Act and said after obtaining legal advice, some of the proposed exhibits could not be included.

At the beginning of the University of Idaho’s fall semester in 2022, the school’s general counsel  to all employees advising them not to provide any reproductive health counseling to students and prohibiting the dispensing of any drugs classified as emergency contraception except in cases of rape. The memo also said the language of the law was unclear and because violations could result in a felony, the attorneys were taking a conservative approach.

Following the memo, Idaho Rep. Bruce Skaug, R-Nampa, introduced a bill in January to withhold sales tax revenue from cities that declined to enforce abortion laws, and that bill included language stating the law should not be interpreted to include classroom discussion of abortion, but it did not advance. The version that  into law, , did not include that language.

The story was originally published at .