BY HANK REICHMAN
Apparently it was all a hoax.
Two months ago Boise State University suspended 52 class sections of a required general education class with some 1300 students in what John Wilson on this blog called “one of the largest attacks on academic freedom in American history.” The move came in response to an anonymous report about a recording of a Zoom session in just one class, in which it was alleged that a white student had been demeaned during a discussion of “structural inequality.” The Boise State administration acknowledged that it had never actually seen the recording, but took action anyway. The course suspension lasted for about a week before classes resumed in an asynchronous format only. Four days after the suspension began, the university retained Hawley Troxell, a Boise law firm, to investigate the matter.
Now that firm has completed its report, released yesterday, which found not a shred of evidence to substantiate the accusation. “No students who participated in the investigation reported that they were ever forced to apologize for the color of their skin,” reads the report. “Nor did any student report being personally singled out for their skin color or being subjected to taunts, name-calling, or other degrading behavior from an instructor or other students based on their skin color, beliefs or ideas.”
The class suspension began on March 15 when the university received a complaint from a “community leader,” who is not a student at the school, alleging that he had viewed a video on a friend’s phone that showed a white student being “forced to apologize … for being ‘white’ or for the student’s ‘white privilege,’” and being taunted by other students. The report does not identify the name of the complainant, but Boise State president Marlene Tromp told the Idaho Statesman that “it is a person who is very broadly respected, and whose words we took seriously.”
Hawley Troxell interviewed about thirty students, multiple instructors of the course, and other university employees, the report said, and also reviewed class syllabus material and other course documents. The firm dedicated an email address to the investigation and asked the nearly 3,000 students who had been enrolled in any section of the course during the fall 2020 or spring 2021 semester to submit concerns or information — either identifying themselves or anonymously — related to their experience in the class. Those efforts led to the discovery of just a single “incident.” During a debate about universal health care a student reportedly called an instructor’s comment “stupid.” Other students in the class objected to the student’s word choice. The student told investigators that she had not called the instructor “stupid” but rather had called the “instructor’s logic” stupid and left the class in tears. Based on interviews the firm determined that the instructor, who told the class that she understood the student had intended to speak only about her logic and who checked in with the student after class, had responded “appropriately.” The report went on to note that no other incidents the law firm uncovered came “anywhere near matching the alleged incident.”
The law firm reports that it eventually interviewed the complainant “after several failed attempts” and that the individual refused to provide additional details about what he had reported, nor did he direct the firm’s representatives to the recording or to the person who allegedly showed it to him. Perhaps this “broadly respected” person might be a member of the Idaho legislature, which, motivated by this now clearly imaginary incident and well before the investigation was complete, passed a bill that, among other stipulations, banned schools from requiring students to “affirm” or “adopt” the belief that an individual could be responsible for historical actions committed by members of the same identity group. The Hawley Troxell report noted that “no students reported being directed or otherwise compelled to personally affirm, adopt or adhere to the tenets prohibited by (the bill).”
But it seems that’s not enough. Apparently undeterred by reality, the Legislature is continuing to offer intrusive and illiberal solutions to this nonexistent problem. The Idaho House Education Committee is now considering House Bill 352, [CORRECTION: See the comment from Jen Schneider below. Apparently this awful bill died in committee; a recent tweet (which I acted on) mistakenly suggested it is still active] which provides that
(2)(a) No instructor, teacher, or professor at any public school receiving any funding from the state shall teach, advocate, or encourage the adoption of any racist or sexist concept while instructing students.
(b) No public school receiving any funding from the state shall host, pay, or provide a venue for a speaker who espouses, advocates, or promotes any racist or sexist concept.
(c) No public school receiving any funding from the state shall require a student to read, view, or listen to any book, article, video presentation, digital presentation, or other learning material that espouses, advocates, or promotes any racist or sexist concept.
(d) No instructor, teacher, or professor at any public school receiving any funding from the state shall penalize or treat adversely any student who refuses to adopt or express any racist or sexist concept.
The legislation defines “racist or sexist concept” as
the concept that:
(i) One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
(ii) An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
(iii) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of the individual’s race or sex;
(iv) An individual should receive favorable treatment because of the individual’s race or sex;
(v) Individuals or institutions cannot or should not treat individuals without regard to race or sex;
(vi) An individual’s moral character is determined by the individual’s race or sex;
(vii) An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by members of the same race or sex;
(viii) Meritocracy or merit-based systems are either racist or sexist; or
(ix) The state of Idaho or the United States of America is fundamentally racist or sexist.
It’s hard to imagine how such language could actually be enforced. Moreover, at least one constitutional scholar is convinced that the bill “wouldn’t survive judicial scrutiny.” Still, the intimidating impact on academic freedom in Idaho’s public colleges and universities should not be minimized. And, unfortunately, such ill-conceived and illiberal legislative control over teaching is hardly atypical these days, extending well beyond the state previously best known for its potatoes.
Back in March John Wilson noted the connection between this manufactured incident, the legislature, and right-wing efforts to control curriculum:
The right-wing Idaho Freedom Foundation noted, “The course suspension comes just hours before the Idaho Senate’s vote on Boise State’s budget.” At the same time that rumors about this Zoom meeting being sent to legislators were circulating, the Idaho legislature was planning a $409,000 budget cut for Boise State, because that was the amount the university reported spending on social justice programs. Sen. Carl Crabtree described the budget cut as a first step to control Idaho’s public colleges, noting that they will all be required to report all social justice spending and “They’re going to get the message.” The message from the legislature is pretty clear: Ban social justice or suffer financial consequences.
Cutting Boise State’s budget for allowing social justice teaching was considered a moderate position in the Idaho state senate. Sen. Steve Vick complained that the budget “only sends a message to Boise State University” instead of punishing all colleges for permitting social justice.
The Idaho state budget also bans any state college from using “appropriated funds” to “support social justice ideology student activities, clubs, events and organizations on campus.” This is an appalling, unconstitutional attack on free speech. The idea that the government in Idaho is openly seeking to ban students from discussing an “ideology” disliked by legislators is a shocking example of censorship.
The Idaho legislators are being pressured by right-wing nonprofits who demand censorship of liberal ideas on campus. A December 2020 report from the right-wing Idaho Freedom Foundation and the Claremont Institute declared that “eliminating social justice initiatives at Idaho’s universities is necessary for meaningful reform, as well as disrupting their ability to provide stable careers for social justice advocates.” The report called for the state legislature to act by “penalizing universities that continue to emphasize social justice education.” This report urged the state legislature to violate academic freedom and ban classes it deemed too liberal: “Direct the University to eliminate courses that are infused with social justice Ideology.” Leading right-wing think tanks are actively demanding a ban on courses based on their ideology. This is an example of conservative cancel culture far more extreme than anything pushed by left-wing activists.
As Wilson concluded, “The Boise State debacle should be a lesson to college administrators everywhere.”
Colleges must be careful not to instantly believe any smear about so-called “woke” folks that gets tossed around. Colleges must investigate first, and only jump to punishment when there is strong evidence and penalty is justified. Colleges must improve their procedures and policies to protect due process. Colleges must have true shared governance and utilize faculty committees to investigate any allegations of misconduct in teaching. Colleges must resist political interference with clear principles rather than sacrificing scapegoats to powerful legislators. Colleges must have transparency and open debate rather than imposing gag orders on everyone. And when someone screws up royally, as Boise State administrators did so badly in this case, colleges must have systems of accountability where questions are fully answered and misconduct has consequences.
The Boise State report is shocking for its complete vindication of the faculty in UF 200 and how absolutely baseless the 8-day suspension (and then complete ban on class discussions) was. The letter yesterday from President Tromp to the campus (https://interactive.ktvb.com/pdfs/uf200-letter-president.pdf) is also shocking for the total lack of any apology to the faculty and students for what happened. The only “regret” expressed by Tromp was for not providing much information during the investigation. The legislator who smeared these instructors needs to be named and asked questions about how all this happened, and the administration needs to voluntarily release all information about this debacle and enact reforms to make sure it never happens again.
I had a feeling I was missing a concluding paragraph. Thank you, John, for providing an excellent one.
Hank, you should know that HB352 died in committee in April, I believe. A tweet circulated in the last few days suggesting it was revived, but it isn’t (I inadvertently retweeted that original tweet before deleting). The legislature has recessed. Hope you can make this correction.
Thank you. Will do.
What should those reforms look like? Sincere question. There are a significant number of well-connected people (whether in academia or politics or media) out there who are smearing educators whose work involves racial justice issues. When this happens in states that are run by legislators whose sympathies align with these people, these kinds of things occur and will keep occurring. When people repeatedly misrepresent or decontextualize the work of others in order to stoke outrage, how do you propose holding them accountable so that they have an incentive to stop?
Pingback: Reading: The Boise State Hoax and the Threat to Academic Freedom – Morgan's Log
Pingback: How to Institutionalize Academic Freedom | ACADEME BLOG