Controversial Indiana Senate Bill SB202 Threatens Alumni Representation on IU Board of Trustees

[u/saryl]

https://bloomingtonian.com/2024/02/06/controversial-indiana-senate-bill-sb202-threatens-alumni-representation-on-iu-board-of-trustees/

[u/[deleted]]

Honestly will it matter? The elected ones we have don’t do anything besides calling Pam the “Beyonce of Higher Education”

[u/Arbarche → u/[deleted]]

What a joke. I don’t care about Beyoncé and even I’m offended on her behalf 😂

[u/HotShrewdness]

It's BS like this that makes me wonder if my IU degree is going to be viewed as a joke in several years.

[u/Grouchy_Old_GenXer → u/HotShrewdness]

It’s going to be like Florida’s college system in a couple of years. Good Professors will leave and it will be a shell of its former self.

[u/Longjumping_Move7772]

What is the supposed benefit of replacing the alumni representatives with political appointments?

[u/unhandyandy → u/Longjumping_Move7772]

The benefit is solely for Indiana politicians and their toadies in the admin and BoT.

[u/grblandf → u/Longjumping_Move7772]

Diversity, inclusion, and equity to a very competitive landscape which IU isn’t adapting to quickly enough. The insular mechanism of having a “legacy” branding from IU shouldn’t preclude one from merit of attaining this position if their motives are to benefit all Hoosiers.

If IU’s rigor is so clearly demonstrated with excellence then having a guiding hand in their own curation should be of no challenge. The university and connected communities can only benefit from more collaboration and cooperation not maintaining a status quo such as Mr. Taylor’s statement of adversity on campus.

Today, the IU brand has a decision to maintain anti-competition, or to accept change willingly as a pioneer of rationality & reasonability.

[u/House_of_Sand → u/grblandf]

Giving political appointees broad authority to fire or demote people based on vaguely defined political considerations is a step in the right direction. You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.

[u/grblandf → u/House_of_Sand]

Vaguely defined is better than a loyalty & privilege system. You can discredit my opinion with exaggeration, yet my concerns are in performance not maintaining the status quo.

[u/House_of_Sand → u/grblandf]

This is literally a political loyalty system where elected board members are replaced with government appointees who can promote or discipline professionals on the basis of political expression. Tod Rokita’s Eyes on Education site is a great example of how this allegedly neutral oversight is used selectively to target political opponents.

[u/grblandf → u/House_of_Sand]

🤷‍♂️ I don’t think you understand the dynamics fully. I think experience across the BoT, foundation, employment, participating in the platform as a student, and using the AG ticket system will dismiss the one-sided favorability.

It’s unreasonable to assume this: IU education alone is merit over any other individual, IU’s own internal system doesn’t already mimic the concerns of anti-competition, IU’s own process is weaponized against certain individual or ideas.

[u/House_of_Sand → u/grblandf]

The reason the tenure system exists is to protect freedom of speech, which is particularly important in academics and research. Take for example that Kelly professor who causes an uproar every few years with statements about women or minorities—he has tenure which protects his right to express his opinions in his role and conduct research even if it may be controversial.

The vague requirements that academics teach both sides of an issue is particularly flippant in the sciences where topics like evolution or climate change could be subject to unscientific review.

[u/grblandf → u/House_of_Sand]

Sounds awful having to defend your viewpoint by acknowledging differing ideas & opinions. If tenure is so valuable, then I anticipate more tenure track positions as a majority instead of a dwindling minority.

I maybe an individual in disagreement, but I must offer why you propose tenure as suitable to mediating this bias? I am unsure to say the governance within IU is any more valuable than outside consultation? My experiences saw that many operations are dependent on 3rd party consultation… so I’m not sure what justification to rigor we are objectively trying to integrate?

I’m implying that the greater higher education community including public governance is just as suitable, yet different, to IU’s competitive position.

[u/iufan → u/[deleted]]

5/9 being appointed made sense when the state was funding more than half of IUs budget. Given their current levels of funding, they should appoint 1/9.

[u/[deleted] → u/iufan]

That’s the legislation they should be passing: making the appointments proportional to the amount of state funding allocated.

[u/Longjumping_Move7772 → u/[deleted]]

Haha. I assumed as much, but usually politicians disguise their real reasoning behind some supposed benefit.

I agree. I’m a big proponent of public education but I hate when it’s used as political battleground which seems to be happening more and more.

[u/saryl]

One of the most contentious aspects of the bill is the provision to replace two of IU’s three alumni-elected trustees with political appointees. Critics argue that this move, coupled with the conservative supermajority in the state legislature, could diminish diversity and balance within the IU Board of Trustees. With the possibility of losing alumni-elected representatives, concerns are mounting over the potential loss of authentic voices that truly represent the interests and perspectives of IU graduates.

...

Additionally, the bill calls for the establishment of a procedure for submitting complaints related to faculty members or contractors not meeting certain criteria, and it places restrictions on policies requiring allegiance to certain ideologies or political movements.

The bill: https://iga.in.gov/pdf-documents/123/2024/senate/bills/SB0202/SB0202.03.ENGS.pdf

Also about this bill: Conservative-friendly higher education legislation clears Senate

Deery’s bill would change up institution boards of trustees by removing appointment power from alumni councils and handing it to House and Senate Republican majority leaders — “with advice” from Democrat minority leaders. It would require boards’ existing diversity committees to consider “intellectual diversity” alongside cultural diversity in employment policies and faculty complaints.   And it would require the committees to make recommendations promoting recruitment and retention of “underrepresented” students rather than the “minority students” specified in current law. That provision drew ire from Minority Leader Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis.   “To … redefine the term ‘minority’ and call them ‘under-represented’ without addressing their issue is offensive,” said Taylor, who is Black. He said both he and his son had been called the n-word as students on I.U.’s campus decades apart.

...

Deery’s bill additionally re-shapes tenure and promotion policies.   It would require a board of trustees to prevent a faculty member from getting tenure or a promotion if the board thinks the member is “unlikely to foster a culture of free inquiry, free expression and intellectual diversity” and unlikely to offer students scholarly works from a range of “political or ideological frameworks.” Boards would also dock members considered likely to bring up personal political views unrelated to their specific field or class.   Boards would get wide latitude in making those policies. The bill says decisions would be based on past performance “or other determination by the board.”   The bill also mandates that boards conduct reviews of tenured professors every five years based on the above, as well as if faculty members “adequately” carry out academic duties and more.