>The policy does not define what qualifies as “controversial” or what constitutes a “broad and balanced approach.”

I'm sure it will just be "things that powerful people tell us not to talk about".

The entire tech industry is rooted in the study of subjects which were extemporaneously considered unnecessary by the average person.

UT Austin graduate here. Nowhere in this article does the word "censorship" appear. But that is the only way to describe this new policy. In recent years, UT Austin has suppressed peaceful protests and demonstrations on campus concerning the war in Gaza. Now the university is censoring "unnecessary controversial subjects," and although the new rule does not define what qualifies as “controversial,” it should be obvious to everyone what is prohibited.

Ironically, the state of Texas in 2019 enacted a law aimed at protecting free speech on public university campuses, a measure that was ostensibly intended to reinforce the First Amendment rights of students and faculty. The law designated common outdoor areas as traditional public forums and required policies for disciplining those who interfere with free speech. Back then, conservative legislators were trying to ensure that so-called "woke" or "politically correct" instructors and administrators did not suppress the articulation of conservative opinions.

It is time to change the school motto for UT Austin from "Disciplina Praesidium Civitatis" to something more appropriate for the institution: "All Students and Faculty Are Equal, but Some Students and Faculty Are More Equal Than Others."

Related previously:

Texas A&M Ends Women's Studies and Overhauls Classes Over Race and Gender

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46827968

Texas A&M bans part of Plato's Symposium

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46529257

Self censorship under an authoritarian government is all too common https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship

>departments into a new Social and Cultural Analysis department.

Sound like a Bible Study Department to me. But you can head to Mass, NY and Calif. Schools. There may very well have plenty of openings due to Trumps banning of international students. Plus you will be able to study real Social and Historical Subjects if you so desire.

Disappointing to see my alma mater gradually self-sabotage into irrelevance.

[dead]

Here's the actual policy note with a few comments of mine interspersed. I fully understand why they created this policy seeing how as many sectors in academia have been turned into activist training camps where anyone who speaks outside of some desired narrative quickly gets labelled and shunned instead of actual academical institutions where open discussion on 'controversial topics' is welcomed.

Regents Rule 31004 (Rights and Responsibilities of Faculty Members) asserts that “Faculty members are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing his or her subject…” This freedom must be balanced by a faculty member’s responsibility to adhere to principles of academic integrity and their duty to protect student rights. This includes the responsibility to:

* foster classroom cultures of trust in which all students feel free to voice their questions and beliefs, especially when those perspectives might conflict with those of the instructor or other students

* fairly present differing views and scholarly evidence on reasonably disputed matters and unsettled issues;

This is clearly targeted at defeating the 'cancel culture' phenomenon where those who do not abide by the desired narrative around 'controversial topics' - think 'Gaza' or 'Gender' or 'Climate' - get either ridiculed, ignored by lecturers, shouted down, marked down or used as 'bad examples' by lecturers.

* equip students to assess competing theories and claims, and to use reason and appropriate evidence to form their own conclusions about course material; and

* eschew topics and controversies that are not germane to the course.

The part about students using reasoning and evidence to come to their own conclusions should not need explanation, this is what an academic is supposed to do instead of parroting some desired narrative. The part about eschewing 'topics and controversies that are not germane to the course' is more open for debate as this seems to be a rather subjective assessment. Certainly it is not germane to Math 101 to start ranting about 'racism' as some institutions have been doing for a while now? Then again there is a lot of room for debate on which 'topics and controversies' are and are not germane to a course even if the activists have been put to pasture.

These responsibilities manifest themselves in many ways. In the classroom, instructors must be careful stewards of their pedagogical responsibilities and classroom authorities and must endeavor to create a classroom culture of trust. Instructors must not attempt to coerce, indoctrinate, harass, or belittle students, especially in addressing controversial subjects and areas where people of good faith can hold differing convictions. Similarly, instructors must protect the right of students to express views germane to the class in all of its aspects: classroom discussions, meetings with the instructor and/or other students, online commentaries, and class assignments and exams.

Fully agree here.

In designing course syllabi, readings, and assignments, instructors must carefully consider the topics to be covered to meet the standards of the course, exclude unrelated controversial or contested matters,

See above on the subject of 'unrelated controversial or contested matters' - certainly keep out the activists who want to use courses as vectors for their activism but don't allow this rule to be abused by censorious administrators for their own activism. Who watches the watchers?

clearly disclose in the syllabus the topics to be covered, adhere faithfully to the contents of the syllabus in teaching the course, and avoid introducing undisclosed material that is not clearly relevant and grounded in the topic of that course. When a course includes controversial and contested issues, instructors shall ensure a broad and balanced approach to the discussion and teaching of these issues.

Agree for the most but care must be taken to avoid that 'adher[ing] faithfully to the contents of the syllabus in teaching the course ... avoid introducing undisclosed material that is not clearly relevant and grounded in the topic of that course' turns lectures into nothing more than drone sessions.

In support of these efforts, U.T. institutions must take steps to build appropriate breadth and balance in the faculty body and the curriculum so that students have access to a variety of viewpoints and perspectives and are not, as a practical matter, only exposed to a single viewpoint or perspective.

That is how universities are supposed to work, universities are not Madrasahs.

As part of its curriculum reviews, institutions must make a principled determination on when controversial material is required for a degree in a field of study and/or available as elective credit.

If the 'controversial material' is germane to the topic at hand it should be part of the curriculum including the fact that it is controversial and without bias. If you teach a course in meteorology it is germane to the topic to talk about 'anthropogenic climate change' but it needs to be discussed objectively.

An institution’s offerings in its general education core curriculum must include balanced and broad-based courses that allow students appropriate options to meet the general education requirements without a requirement to study unnecessary controversial subjects.

Here again it is important to note that 'controversial subjects' should be taught if they are germane to the topic but taught without bias. To take the subject of 'anthropogenic climate change' I mentioned above it should be possible for two students to achieve similar grades if one of them supports the thesis while the other denies it as long as both use sound arguments to come to their conclusions.

One - rather big - problem with all the mentioned policies around 'controversial subjects' is that the determination of what is to be seen as 'controversial' is highly subjective. To some religiously motivated people the topic of evolution is controversial while most others see it as a mostly undisputed fact with possibly some quibbling over the details of the process [1]. Teaching a course in biology without discussing evolution would be like teaching a course in mathematics without discussing functions. The mentioned religiously motivated people will certainly disagree with this statement, does that mean it should be possible to pass a course without mentioning the theory of evolution? I don't think it should but others might differ which is why 'controversial topics' which are germane to the topic should be taught. The aforementioned religiously motivated student can pass the course by making clear he understands the theory of evolution while mentioning that he personally considers it unproven because of ${reasons}. He should not be able to pass if he answers 'irrelevant' or 'I do not believe in evolution' to the question on the role evolution plays in the development of species.

[1] https://theconversation.com/the-study-of-evolution-is-fractu...

undefined