Tennessee Fails, Good Intentions Notwithstanding.

The law is bad, as in unconstitutionally bad. It’s vague and overbroad, and flagrantly conflicts with the First Amendment and academic freedom. And to add insult to injury, it invites students to rat out their profs who raise “divisive issues” in college courses. For those concerned about intellectual diversity in higher education depriving students of learning less progressive thought, this is pretty much the antithesis of what they claim to want. But that didn’t stop Tennessee from passing the law.

The bill, HB 1376, was introduced by Representative John Ragan (R – Oak Ridge). He previously said that the new bill was meant to strengthen the law passed in 2022 by “promoting freedom of expression,” and keep “colleges about advancing knowledge, not about advancing political or social agendas.”

And how exactly did Rep. Ragan plan to “promote freedom of expression”? By prohibiting discussion free expression.

 The [divisive] concepts that were banned from lessons in 2022’s law are listed below.

• That one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex
• That a person, by virtue of their race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist or oppressive — whether consciously or subconsciously
• That a person should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of their race or sex
• That a person’s moral character is determined by their race or sex
• That a person, by virtue of their race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex
• That a person should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or another form of psychological distress because of their race or sex
• That a meritocracy is inherently racist, sexist or designed by a particular race or sex to oppress members of another race or sex
• That Tennessee or the U.S. is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist
• Promoting or advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government
• Promoting division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class or class of people
• Ascribing character traits, values, moral or ethical codes, privileges or beliefs to a race or sex, or to a person because of their race or sex
• That the rule of law does not exist but instead is a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups
• That “all Americans are not created equal and are not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”
• That governments should deny to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the law

It also bans lessons that include “race or sex scapegoating” or “race or sex stereotyping,” as those terms are defined in law. In October 2022, a group of UT faculty called the law “chilling,” and questioned the law’s intent.

The point of the law seems fairly obvious, and perhaps even noncontroversial in another time and with a different mindset. Who would argue something as ridiculous as “That a person’s moral character is determined by their race or sex”? And if not, then why would it be unconstitutional to enact a law saying so?

The free speech problem is twofold, that it prohibits discussions about these issues that are very much a part of a proper curricula and that there is no clarity as to what is and is not prohibited, such that any fragile snowflake or pissed off student can snitch on his prof to exact a little payback. You might believe you know what they’re getting at with a law like this, to prevent the “indoctrination” of students into anti-racists or pro-woke ideology, but that’s not at all what this law does or where this law stops. Even the teaching of entirely factual history would appear to be prohibited, as it could make feel ashamed of what their racial ancestors did.

Rep. Justin Jones (D – Nashville) spoke about the bill when he returned to the House of Representatives after he was expelled and reinstated. He asked a series of questions, such as whether “college students are mature enough to talk about race and systemic racism, some of the concepts you want to prohibit being discussed at the college level?”

“I believe in God. All else is settled by facts and data,” Ragan said.

Well, no, all else is not so simplistically settled for either side of the culture war. The flip side of the same discussion about “systemic racism” would similarly be prohibited. There could be no discussion, for or against, systemic racism, or even whether the phrase has any useful meaning at all? While Ragan and Tennessee might view this law as prohibiting progressive indoctrination, it precludes challenging the dogma as well. And if you don’t think some student will rat out his prof for allowing discussion of why something isn’t racists, you’re living in a fantasy.

In a different world, there would be neither fear nor concern that a professor would teach students  “That Tennessee or the U.S. is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist,” and it may well be that this law is more performative than real as this extreme critical theory ideology is not being taught, so much as raised as part of a valid discussion of the differing views of this nation, its problems and what should be done to make things better.

But bad laws are not the solution to fear of ideological indoctrination. The same free speech that protects your right to challenge the view that “systematic racism” is the answer to all disparities protects a professor’s right to include it in a relevant course. These wildly bad laws, coming fast and furious as of late, are not the way to address fears of campus indoctrination.