But that particular part - "laws requiring professors to publicly post their course outlines in searchable databases" - is great, and should be done everywhere. There are actually universities who _claim_ to have great math (or physics or other science) program, but actually just teach it at "advanced high school" level. So public syllabi - something that was very common in 2000's but going out of style today - are critical for anyone choosing the university to go to.
What's happening in practice, though, is a group of people (like Campus Watch) are looking specifically for anyone teaching gender, trans issues, race, and religion, and analyzing the coursework through their ideologies and harassing professors on account of it. And they're going through past years as well as present.
[1] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_Amsterdam_civil_registry_...
The University of California is one of the largest universities in the US. It is governed by a Board of Regents. The majority of those Regents are appointed by the state Governor.
Do you consider that 'political interference'?
One of the things those Regents did was vote to end the use of SAT scores in admissions. They did during a meeting in which several spoke of the value of the SAT. And they acted against the recommendations of the Academic Council's Standardized Testing Task Force.
You might think that the staggered and long terms protect against political interference/influence. But if that's the case, how do we explain how so many votes are unanimous when, on the day of the vote, some regents express opposing views?
That reminds me of the Politburo voting scene in The Death of Stalin. Small group politics at their finest.
Anyway, the UC Board of Regents is full of political hacks and corrupt cronies. Diane Feinstein's husband was famously a regent, while simultaneously serving as Chairman of both CBRE and his own leveraged buyout private equity firm.
What do you mean by that? And could you give an example?
It's hard to imagine any university teaching science majors at 'advanced high school' level, as I understand it. I could see a US community college or almost any university teaching intro courses that way. I can't iamgine what a 4th year chemistry major would be studying that fits the scope of 'advanced high school'.
You have to think about the consequences.
It seems like a great thing until doors are smashed down and people are taken away for discussing topics the current regime doesn’t want discussed.
Universities have always had their critics and back then was no exception. Complaints centered widely from about the ratbag student element causing troubles, to critism of subsidiaries/what universities cost the state, and about the spoilt and privileged class, and that universities were a hotbed of political activism—which at the time they were—but nothing approached this level of intense scrutiny.
We students and those teaching us could say what we wanted without retribution. I remember being cheered by the student body after giving an anti-Vietnam War speech in the student union building and I suffered no repercussions, and that's how it was for everyone, staff and students alike.
It was a wonderful time to be a university student, and 1968 was very special.
If you are interested in removing bias, then hopefully you're interested in removing bias in the military too?