Thread by @JeffreyASachs

How hard is it to draft an anti-CRT law that doesn't threaten academic freedom and campus free speech?

This hard.

thefire.org/iowa-state-uni…

The above is from a letter sent by Iowa State University to @adamsteinbaugh of FIRE. At issue is HF-802, a new Iowa law that prohibits public universities from teaching, promoting, etc. certain ideas as part of "mandatory staff or student training".

legis.iowa.gov/legislation/Bi…

@adamsteinbaugh Note well: This law has a strong savings clause that carves out a clear exception for academic freedom. So problem solved, right? I mean, this seems pretty straightforward.

@adamsteinbaugh Not even close. Out of an almost ludicrous abundance of caution, ISU has adopted the loosest and most expansive interpretation possible of "mandatory training", "teach[ing]", and "academic instruction".

provost.iastate.edu/policies/iowa-…

@adamsteinbaugh So for example, a course required as part of a major might constitute "mandatory training". And while academic freedom is supposed to trump the law, that's only if the speech is germane to the subject matter of the course and presented in a way that promotes "open discussion".

@adamsteinbaugh Who will judge whether a professor's speech is germane to the course? How will they know whether classroom discussion is sufficiently open? I have no idea. Nobody does. Maybe the inevitable lawsuits, internal investigations, and political lobbying will shed some light.

@adamsteinbaugh Here's the very obvious reality: Iowa's law is going to create a chilling effect on legal speech. Indeed, that's it's ENTIRE point. That's the point of all of these anti-CRT bills. To scare educators into silence.

@adamsteinbaugh That's why even those bills that are carefully crafted and narrowly written (and Iowa's is probably one of the better ones) must be opposed. You simply cannot trust university admins or cash-strapped school districts to stand up for free speech. They will fold every time.

@adamsteinbaugh The typos. Oof.