Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, a Republican, has taken a controversial stance on academic freedom in public universities. His office asserts that:
- Professors in Indiana’s public universities have no First Amendment rights within their classrooms.
- Classroom curriculum at public universities constitutes “government speech” regulated by state law.
- The curriculum and instruction provided by state-employed professors are forms of “state speech.”
- Professors have no right to control this “state speech.”
Rokita’s office argues that professors claiming academic freedom are essentially seeking a novel “First Amendment right to academic freedom” specific to state universities.
This position aligns with similar legislative efforts in Florida to regulate public university classrooms, suggesting a broader trend in some states to exert greater control over higher education content.
Four professors from Indiana and Purdue University campuses last May filed a lawsuit challenging a new state law weakening diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, as well as tenure protections in state universities by mandating a shift in focus to “intellectual diversity.” The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, acting on the professors’ behalf, argued that these provisions violate their First Amendment right to academic freedom. Specifically, the lawsuit contends that the law infringes upon the professors’ ability to decide on and present their course material without state interference.
Governor Eric Holcomb, a Republican, signed the law last February, empowering university boards of trustees to define and enforce “intellectual diversity” within faculty disciplines. The legislation grants these boards the authority to:
- Establish discipline-specific definitions of “intellectual diversity”
- Evaluate professors’ compliance with these standards
- Determine appropriate consequences for non-compliance
While boards may delegate the review process, they must implement policies to withhold promotions and tenure from faculty members who, based on past performance or board assessment, are deemed unlikely to promote intellectual diversity. The law also mandates regular post-tenure reviews at least every five years, with intellectual diversity as a key consideration.
The situation took an unexpected turn on Monday when the universities involved filed a clarification with the court, stating that they were not aligned with the attorney general’s argument regarding academic freedom.
Stay tuned.
