University Senate condemns S.B. 202

Purdue’s University Senate voted 81-5 Monday to condemn Indiana Senate Bill 202, which is set for a Wednesday hearing in the state's House of Representatives.

With four senate members abstaining, about 20 Senate Members gave input on their stances on the bill, all of them in opposition.

S.B. 202, authored by Republican Sen. Spencer Deery, targets government-funded universities in Indiana, seeking to establish guardrails around professor tenure and giving universities’ boards of trustees power to maintain “intellectual diversity” among faculty.

Intellectual diversity, as defined in the bill, is “multiple, divergent and varied scholarly perspectives on an extensive range of public policy issues.”

But professors across the state have soundly condemned the bill, citing it as an attempt to encroach on academic freedom in Indiana universities.

“I believe that the temperature of the room is clear,” University Senate Chair Brian Leung said Monday during the senate's two-hour meeting, in which professors expressed outrage over S.B. 202.

But even with the senators holding a staunch decision, several senators striked blows with President Mung Chiang and Provost Patrick Wolfe for not making a stronger stance against S.B. 202.

Senators Colleen Brady, Alice Pawley and Howard Zelaznik all asked Chiang where he stood on the bill.

Sen. Alice Pawley asked Chiang if the senate were to condemn S.B. 202 would Purdue administration communicate the results to the Indiana General Assembly.

“Well, this is a public meeting,” Chiang said. “I understand (that it is) open to not only university senators, but to everyone, so I would assume that any resolutions at this body discussed or passed will be already in public domain.”

“The answers to Professor Pawley’s questions are clearly lacking in a sort of concise response to very clear questions,” Sen. Howard Zelaznik said. “I understand some of President Chiang's concerns, but it would be important to know where he and the provost will stand on this very important issue.”

Chiang did not answer Zelaznik’s request, but Provost Wolfe did.

“As we listen to all the input from this body, which represents students, faculty and staff, and as we listen to other stakeholders like alumni, we will optimize across various channels to communicate effectively with the Indiana General Assembly,” Wolfe said.

Pawley later went on to further criticize the president and provost during the discussion period of the document itself.

“I joined with my colleagues who've already spoken in intending to vote yes on this document in order to strongly oppose S.B. 202,” Pawley said. “I ask us to do so in a decisive manner, especially given the bill's author's past leadership position at Purdue, and given the disappointing — and I might even say cowardly — responses offered by our president and provost in question time today, and their lack of assurance of passing on the outcome in their back channels to whomever they're talking to.”

During the meeting, Sen. Anish Vanaik gave a presentation condemning S.B. 202. According to one of the powerpoints slides, the bill is “poorly written”, “promotes suspicion and mistrust on campus” and “will have a detrimental impact on academic freedom at state schools in Indiana.”

Senators expressed several reasons for their stances, ranging from the politicization of tenure positions to insufficient reasons to actually claim that there is a problem in the first place.

“I have to ask myself, if the subject of Senate Bill 2023, the bill before the Indiana Senate is in place, am I going to subject myself to disciplinary action if I don't talk about a complete laissez faire approach to antitrust and regulation,” said Sen. Stephen Martin. “Let's not turn Indiana into Florida.”

Sen. Dennis Savaiano from the College of Health and Human Sciences said the bill doesn’t address the problems it aims to solve.

“The proposal does not solve a problem,” he said. “It creates a problem of politicizing the appointment of board of trustee members. The university needs to be separate from that political process.”

Sen. Julio A. Ramirez from the College of Engineering also aired his opposition to the bill, but said the University Senate’s condemnation wouldn't be enough.

“I would like to remind us that this should be just the beginning.” Ramirez said. “A group of professors protesting against the senate bill is not going to be necessarily compelling.

“They don't respond to us. They respond to the people that elect them.”