Thread by @JeffreyASachs

OK, let's talk about Idaho. This bill, which is now on its way to the Governor's desk, is getting a lot of attention this morning. But the mess in that state is so, so much bigger than just HB 377. Let me explain.

kivitv.com/news/political…

First, I'll just dispel one confusion. Contrary to what @ClintSmithIII excerpts here, HB 377 does not prohibit "discussing" the role of race/sexism. That's a misunderstanding based on an earlier draft of the bill. But the reality is still very bad.

https://twitter.com/ClintSmithIII/status/1387364212037595138

Under HB 377, no public K-12 school or college/uni may "direct or otherwise compel students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere" to a series of beliefs about race, sex, religion, etc., nor may any state money be used to do so.

legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/upl…

According to the bill's sponsors, this is necessary in order to "respect the dignity of others, acknowledge the right of others to express differing opinions, and foster and defend intellectual honesty, freedom of inquiry and instruction, and freedom of speech and association."

Of course, they have other motives too.

One legislator, quoting here a substitute teacher she'd met, warned that English courses in Idaho are "riddled with writings from Third World experiences by authors that are completely unheard of, but they are the non-white race."

She went on to say how "the great founders of this country -- Jefferson, Lincoln(?), Washington -- are now being put on a different platform because of their race. They are trying to be pulled down to say that this dirt farmer is just as important as Washington."

Hmmm.

Anyway....this is a very bad bill. First, compelling student speech is already unconstitutional, so that part of the bill is superfluous. But that doesn't mean it isn't dangerous. There is a vigorous push, both in rightwing journalism and in court, to argue...

...that course content requiring a certain kind of student response (e.g. a true/false quiz) constitutes compelled speech. Here's a relatively trivial example from just yesterday, but there are many, many more.

yaf.org/news/az-high-s…

The goal is to redefine the concept of unconstitutional "compelled speech" to encompass pedagogical techniques far beyond anything imagined by the Court in Barnette. There's an important test case right now in Nevada. We'll see how that goes.

nevadacurrent.com/2021/01/21/las…

But look. The reality is that faculty need wide discretion in the classroom to assert a correct answer or require completion of an assignment, even if a student disagrees. @adamsteinbaugh over at FIRE does a good job explaining why here.

thefire.org/federal-court-…

But set the compelled speech issue aside. Much more concerning is the fact that the bill would also prohibit schools from "directing", or using any state money to direct, students to believe one of the proscribed ideas. This is a huge red flag.

Think about what this might include. Could a department host a debate in which one participant argues in favor of race-based affirmative action? Could an evangelical student club invite a speaker who intended to explain why Christianity is the one true religion?

What about an editorial in the student newspaper (subsidized by the university, of course) defending the Trump administration's travel ban on Muslim countries, or that argued how people from certain countries should be subjected to extra screening at the border. Permissible?

Really look at this bill carefully. And don't read it the way a normal person would. Don't even read it the way a judge would. Instead, read it like you're the most paranoid member of a university's legal team, or an ass-covering Assistant Dean desperate to avoid controversy.

And believe me, Idaho schools are very, very paranoid right now. They've been in the crosshairs of activist groups for years now, particularly from the Idaho Freedom Foundation, as @EmmaJanePettit has explained in a series of articles for the @chronicle.

chronicle.com/article/anti-a…

The IFF is mounting an all-out assault on academic freedom and campus free speech in Idaho. They're the driving force behind HB 377 and are a big part of the reason why Boise State suspended 52 different courses over some unspecified, unproven incident.

thefire.org/cancellation-o…

And the IFF is also intimately involved in the reign of terror and self-censorship currently unfolding at North Idaho College. NIC really is a glimpse of what's coming for public higher ed in red states, if we're not careful. You need to read this story.

https://twitter.com/JeffreyASachs/status/1371888379147788291

But perhaps the IFF's most significant contribution is its report on "social justice ideology" at Boise State. Lawmakers cited the report extensively when they forced the course suspensions and stripped money from the school. Here it is.

idahofreedom.org/research/socia…

I can't do justice to the document as a whole, but suffice to say that it alleges widespread SJW indoctrination at Boise State and recommends that lawmakers eliminate offending course offerings and departments.

Departments like History.

Why History? Well, you see, the History Department at Boise State is riddled with social justice jargon and radical leftwing rhetoric. As proof (and this really is all of it), the report cites the following language from the department's website.

That's it. That's the damning evidence of indoctrination. Crazy! And yet it's a kind of crazy that lawmakers in Idaho are taking very, very seriously. It's also a kind of crazy that will be empowered by HB 377. *These* are the watchdogs of Idaho higher ed.

I've been warning for a while now about these so-called "anti-CRT" bills working their way through state legislatures. A new one popped up in Missouri last week. New Hampshire's was recently tacked onto a must-pass budget bill. These things have legs.

medium.com/arc-digital/th…

I've also tried to show why the supporters of these bills are making a big mistake. However they expect they'll be used, they're wrong. Whichever speech they think they'll target, it won't. It's a bad move, one being pushed by craven, unprincipled people.

medium.com/arc-digital/su…

What's happening in Idaho is a warning. Anyone who purports to care about academic freedom, free speech, or higher ed in general should be paying attention and calling out the bad actors. There's a lot at stake.

One correction: The Nevada suit was settled out of court earlier this month, so no judgment on the compelled speech argument.

schoolhouserights.org