果冻传媒app官方

Table of Contents

Oklahoma community college cancels summer course on race in knee-jerk reaction to new state law

FIREcalls on Oklahoma City Community College to reinstate Smith鈥檚 course 鈥 and any other course that has been 鈥減aused鈥 subject to review as a result of HB 1775.

FIRE calls on Oklahoma City Community College to reinstate any course that has been 鈥減aused鈥 as a result of HB 1775.

On May 18, Oklahoma City Community College adjunct professor Melissa Smith received an email 鈥 her fully enrolled summer course on 鈥渞ace and ethnicities鈥 had been because it was 鈥渇acing challenges (and specific complaints) in light of HB 1775.鈥

In the sociology , which Smith has been teaching for several years, students 鈥渆xamine[] sociological theories of contact between minority and majority groups in a multicultural society, including topics such as prejudice, discrimination, acculturation, and pluralism.鈥

In a statement to the Washington Post, college spokesperson Erick Worrell the course had been cancelled because Oklahoma HB 1775, signed by Governor Kevin Stitt on May 7, 鈥渨ould require substantial changes to the curriculum鈥 for Smith鈥檚 course because HB 1775 鈥渆ssentially revokes any ability to teach critical race theory, including discussions of white privilege鈥 in required courses.

But, as FIREpointed out in a letter to the college today, the new law 诲辞别蝉苍鈥檛 actually mandate that any college courses be cancelled or their curricula altered. 

While banned the teaching of disapproved 鈥渃oncepts鈥 in a 鈥渟chool district, charter school or virtual charter school,鈥 those provisions do not purport to apply to institutions of higher education. The separate section applicable to 鈥渋nstitution[s] of higher education within The Oklahoma State System of Higher Education鈥 is intended to prevent mandatory trainings required as a condition of enrolling in classes, not to regulate college course content. In drafting legislation intended to bar K-12 teachers from making certain viewpoints 鈥減art of a course,鈥 Oklahoma鈥檚 legislature demonstrated that it knew how to describe classes, and chose not to impose the same obligations on institutions of higher education.

Oklahoma City Community College鈥檚 broad reading of HB 1775鈥檚 provisions addressing institutions of higher education would impose a breathtaking range of censorship of discussions in college classrooms, an interpretation that 鈥 if it were accurate 鈥 would indeed call into question the law鈥檚 constitutionality. The First Amendment does not allow legislators to impose such a 鈥pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.鈥 And, as the has decided, even expression that some may find 鈥渞epugnant鈥 in a college classroom is protected by the First Amendment when it is germane to the subject matter of the class. This is particularly true when that expression addresses topics that are 鈥渙f overwhelming public concern 鈥 race, gender, and power conflicts in our society鈥 鈥 many of which are topics Smith addresses in her course.

The basic tenets of academic freedom allow Smith the breathing room to make pedagogical choices concerning the content of her course. 鈥淚 tell my kids all the time, get comfortable being uncomfortable,鈥 Smith a reporter for the Washington Post, 鈥淸a]nd if I don鈥檛 make you uncomfortable in class then I鈥檓 not doing my job.鈥

Further, according to the college, the about the course that the administration alluded to in its May 18 email did not even come from her students. 

The college鈥檚 spokesperson that this is merely a 鈥減ause鈥 on teaching the course and said that cancelling Smith鈥檚 summer session will allow them 鈥渕ore time to get this right 鈥 or to let the legal issues play out with other universities and colleges before we teach it again in its current form.鈥 This is better than outright cancellation, but still not acceptable. FIREcalls on Oklahoma City Community College to reinstate Smith鈥檚 course 鈥 and any other course that has been 鈥減aused鈥 subject to review as a result of HB 1775.

It bears emphasizing, though, that the college鈥檚 misreading of the law and preemptive cancellation of Smith鈥檚 course is just another reminder that legislation addressing how educators approach discussions of race and gender is fraught with danger. It must not just be carefully crafted by legislators but also accurately applied by colleges to avoid chilling academic freedom 鈥 and, as in this case, getting both sides of this equation right will too often prove difficult or impossible.

Recent Articles

FIRE鈥檚 award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.

Share