Attacks on faculty rights are prevalent in academia, where professors’ speech is now subject to scrutiny by illiberal administrators, state legislators, and students. I have been reporting on similar controversies in American higher education for over 20 years. However, I have never witnessed a policy that poses a greater threat to academic freedom and First Amendment rights than what is currently occurring in California’s community college system, the largest system of higher education in the country.
With approximately 1.9 million students enrolled in the system and 116 colleges that admit nearly all applicants, California’s community colleges offer a diverse range of programs and opportunities for students. These colleges embody diversity, equity, and inclusion, providing adults with the chance to improve their lives through education and achieve success with the help of educators and financial aid.
Unfortunately, the same system that promotes inclusivity and opportunity is now enforcing new DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) rules, mandated by state bureaucrats, that not only infringe on free speech but also coerce faculty members on how to teach their subjects, what conclusions to reach, and which political positions to advocate. Some faculty members feel as though they must choose between their job and their conscience.
This approach exemplifies the worst aspects of DEI in higher education, and two lawsuits filed by faculty members argue that the new regime is a violation of civil rights. The state should abandon these guidelines and refocus on the true mission of community colleges: helping students achieve their goals, rather than forcing faculty to adhere to trendy social-justice ideology.
Under the changes to California’s education code, all community college employees will be evaluated based on “antiracist” and “DEIA competencies” (with the “A” representing “accessibility”). Professors will be assessed on their embrace of controversial social-justice concepts as defined by state education bureaucrats, affecting hiring, promotion, and tenure decisions.
The implementation guidelines published by the chancellor’s office are concerning. While some standards, such as effective communication with people from diverse backgrounds and consideration of diverse perspectives, are reasonable, many others are coercive and possibly unlawful. The guidelines suggest that professors should only be deemed competent if they promote and incorporate DEI and anti-racist pedagogy, advocate for DEI and anti-racist goals, and articulate the importance and impact of DEI and anti-racism. It is not appropriate for a public higher education system to compel faculty members to promote or advocate for ideas they disagree with, or to dictate their conclusions on scholarly matters.
Some criteria even require faculty to adopt specific intellectual conclusions, such as acknowledging that cultural and social identities are diverse, fluid, and intersectional, when the nature of identity is a contested subject open to future scholarship. Bureaucrats shouldn’t impose their conclusions on scholars, as it undermines academic freedom. It is alarming to see the state warn against “weaponizing” academic freedom and inflict curricular trauma, as this implies that engaging in inquiry is potentially harmful.
Each of California’s 73 community college districts must decide how to implement the new rules, with the State Center Community College District already completing the process. Lawsuits by faculty members challenge the new approach as a violation of their First Amendment rights. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression represents six plaintiffs, consisting of English, philosophy, history, and chemistry professors, who argue that the regulations force them to adopt a politicized viewpoint they do not share. Similarly, the Institute for Free Speech represents a history professor who believes that requiring faculty to subscribe to a specific creed or political ideology goes against the mission of a public college.
The chancellor’s office counters these claims, stating that the regulations do not restrict free speech or infringe upon academic freedom, but rather set forth a policy objective for community college districts. However, experts argue that the state’s defense is misleading.
Nonpartisan civil-liberties groups, such as the ACLU and PEN America, express their concerns about the new rules. While supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion, these organizations oppose regulations that limit academics to teaching only government-endorsed ideas, as this infringes on academic freedom and violates the First Amendment.
In conclusion, the new DEI rules imposed on California’s community colleges pose a significant threat to faculty rights and academic freedom. It is crucial for the state to reconsider these guidelines and focus on the primary purpose of community colleges: providing opportunities for students to succeed, without coercing faculty to adhere to specific ideologies.
Denial of responsibility! Vigour Times is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
