The substitute bill for Republican state Rep. Emily Chenevert’s HB 421 finishes an incomplete job in a way that promotes unbiased learning and respectful treatment of individuals.
The bill, which advanced, on a party-line vote in the House and Governmental Affairs Committee with all from the GOP in favor, in the form of substitute as it met with substantial change, prohibits public colleges’ instructional content that relates to concepts of critical race theory, white fragility, white guilt, systemic racism, institutional racism, anti-racism, systemic bias, implicit bias, unconscious bias, intersectionality, gender identity, allyship, race-based reparations, race-based privilege, or the use of pronouns; and in promoting the differential treatment of any individual or group of individuals based on race or ethnicity, imputed bias, or other ideology related to diversity, equity, or inclusion; or any course with a course description, course overview, course objectives, proposed student learning outcomes, written examinations, or written or oral assignments that include this content The original form of the bill included only a prohibition against preferential treatment by suspect categories by state government agencies, but added to that dismantling parts of any state government agency involved in these activities and oversight of this by the Legislative Auditor with possible corrective actions by the majoritarian branches.
On the latter score, it significantly improves upon actions – in the case of the Louisiana State University System, but inaction by the other three higher education management boards – to eliminate in name these concepts and applications of these that collectively are known as diversity, equity, and inclusion practices. DEI assumes that non-minority race or sex individuals by nature unreasonably discriminate against others and therefore government must bestow privileges on the other individuals to account for the difference.
The LSU System eliminated by name DEI practices and offices, but it is unclear whether these continued in other forms. The new law makes subterfuge much less likely to occur.
And it discourages forcing DEI nonsense into the heads of college students unless they choose to expose themselves to it. Unfortunately, the “scholarship” purporting to inform DEI comes off as a half-baked form of mutilated Marxism with scant empirical verification and far more appellant to emotion rather than to logic. Worse, it deliberately demeans certain students only because of their innate characteristics tied to imputed behavior, rather than engaging at an intellectual level.
Of course, academia’s history is replete with similar fads passed off as wisdom, but the ability to investigate and even propagate foolishness is part of the tortuous road to truth. Wisely, the bill doesn’t restrict this, as the instructional prohibition applies only to general educational requirement coursework and program requirements that don’t clearly establish their courses of study as primarily focused on racial, ethnic, or gender studies. Thus, DEI material doesn’t become foundational in courses required by students outside of curricula and related courses that would accept DEI as a theory or the theory of how the world works, which students optionally may pursue cognizant of the inherent disrespectful treatment some may receive as part of this study.
Nor does the bill run afoul of instances where use of racial or other distinctions in instruction outside of academia that have a helpful, legitimate end, as laid out in existing federal law. It also exempts science-validated instructional material and instruction drawing upon history in discussion of episodes driven by differential treatment and its justification. Finally, it reiterates guarantees of academic freedom.
None of this is unreasonable or unduly restrictive. DEI still may be taught if not acting as the linchpin of an entire curriculum, only being subject to time, place, and manner restrictions assuredly within the province of taxpayers to mandate. And faculty members or students who feel affronted by this are free to teach or learn at private institutions.
Perhaps an improvement would be for the bill to add a requirement that institutions disseminate a notice detailing the student’s right not to have DEI be taught foundationally to them in compulsory courses. Otherwise, the substitute language needs passage that will ensure better use of taxpayer dollars and an improved educational experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment