KSU Department Head Denounces Legislative Request

Jim Hamilton, KSU Philosophy Department Head, had this to say about the legislative request for courses that contain material directly related to the subject of homosexuality or bisexuality:

In response I make four observations.

1) We in the Department of Philosophy do not know whether it is best simply not to comply with this request at all or to "send them the whole catalog" as has been suggested by our colleagues in SASW [Sociology, Anthropology, Social Work]. We do know we do not keep track of the kinds of things requested here, nor will we ever do so. The request, even if innocently motivated, is an obvious infringement on academic freedom.

Academic freedom is the cornerstone of a free and unfettered university; and any infringement should be politely, but completely, rejected. Please join me in informing our central administration that whatever we do, it should be a concerted effort that has the full and forceful effect of complete non-compliance with this request.

2) It is both astonishing and regrettable that this request ever made it down to the level of department heads/chairs. It was the job of those who are hired to represent us to the outside community to rebuff such a request even before it made it to our dean. As heads/chairs, we should ask why this was not done. And we deserve a clear, honest, and forthright answer from the central administration.

3) Over the past several years KSU and other institutions in the Regents System have had some experience making difficult changes "in the way we do business." We have been repeatedly encouraged in all this to presume there are no longer any serious threats to academic freedom of the kind that that once threatened the free and unfettered research and teaching in major universities. The existence of this request--whether it comes from a single legislator, a committee of the legislature, or the whole body--together with the fact that it has so readily made its way to the level of departments, makes abundantly clear such threats are still very much a part of political and academic life.

We should be very careful not to endorse too quickly measures designed for greater managerial efficiency without taking our most careful look at the long-term consequences for exposure to and protection from this kind of infringement.

4) Finally, it is worth noting that this request comes to us at a time when the very organization and funding of higher education in Kansas is under debate. In precisely these kinds of situations it is both necessary and prudent to make crystal clear the values of a great university. It is precisely those values that we wish never to see diminished under any reorganization and any new funding mechanisms.

This request provides a unique opportunity for our leadership to take the message of what university education and research is all about to the Legislature and see to it that academic freedom, in the laboratory and the classroom, is preserved no matter what the apparent costs. We should encourage those who represent us to the broader political community in Kansas to clearly carry this message forward, publicly and forcefully. And we should stand ready to assist them in this effort.

  Back to FHO March 98 Home Page