Florida Asserts Control of Public Universities’ Curricula
Scott Jaschik - September 26, 2022 – Inside Higher Ed
The state of Florida, in responding to a lawsuit, asserted that it has near total control of the curriculum at public universities.
Six professors, one retired professor and a student have sued to challenge the Individual Freedom Act, which bars them from endorsing eight concepts of race or racial superiority. The professors say the law unfairly restricts their freedom to speak out.
The state’s response: “Plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenge fails because the Florida Government has simply chosen to regulate its own speech—the curriculum used in state universities and the in-class instruction offered by state employees—and the First Amendment simply has no application in this context.” And: “All it says is that state-employed teachers may not espouse in the classroom the concepts prohibited by the act, while they are on the state clock, in exchange for a state paycheck.”
Faculty members back a K-12 teacher who distributed a list of terms about race and gender to high school students. Some say more of this kind of allyship is needed as public education faces divisive concepts and book bans amid teacher shortages.
Colleen Flaherty - September 26, 2022 - Inside Higher Ed
Professors at Southern Connecticut State University are rallying behind a local teacher investigated for sharing a list of terms about race and gender with 10th-grade students.
“We urge the Southington Board of Education, and all Connecticut Boards of Education, to resist attempts to divide us, and to stand firmly on the side of academic freedom and free speech in the classroom,” says a letter to the Southington Public Schools board signed by more than 60 Southern Connecticut State professors.
‘Voicing Support for Teachers’
“We reiterate our support for all teachers, regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, age, ability, or creed,” the letter continues. “And we call on Connecticut legislators, the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities System, and the Connecticut public to join us in voicing support for teachers who wish to discuss racism in the classroom.”
The glossary in question contains such terms as explicit and implicit bias, bigotry versus prejudice, cisgender, cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation, structural racism, and white privilege. White privilege, for instance, is defined as “societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people in some societies, particularly if they are otherwise [of] the same social, political or economic circumstances.”
The glossary reportedly was adapted from an inclusive vocabulary guide for students at the University of Arizona. A 10th-grade English teacher at Southington High School shared it with students to prepare them for conversations about race and other complex themes in the literature they’ll read this academic year.
The teacher, who remains publicly unnamed, was criticized indirectly by parents and at least one board member at a board meeting earlier this month.
 |
| Mr. Baczewski |
Regarding such comments, the Southern Connecticut State professors wrote in their letter that “we are having a hard time construing this as anything other than a politically motivated attack on free speech. As parents, professors and teachers of teachers, we write to let you know that we are dismayed by the fact that the board seems to be engaging in partisan politics, restricting the free speech and academic freedom of teachers who are struggling to teach in remarkably complex and difficult times.”
The letter continues, “What, exactly, is wrong with a worksheet that provides simple straightforward characterizations of concepts such as ‘marginalization’ and ‘white privilege’ as a way to help students contextualize literature? Sure, these concepts are difficult. So are discussions about genocide, the Holocaust, sexual assault, cyber bullying, suicide and many, many other social ills. This does not mean that we avoid them. To ban the concepts is equivalent to antiquated practices such as banning books like To Kill A Mockingbird in the 1960s. We trust that you are not interested in engaging in censorship.”
The Connecticut teacher in question reportedly was put on paid administrative leave while the district investigated the glossary…. (continue reading)
