BY DALE E. MILLER

Several states have taken or are considering measures to prohibit the teaching of “divisive concepts.” In my state, Virginia, new governor Glenn Younkin immediately issued Executive Order Number One (E.O. 1), “Ending the Use of Inherently Divisive Concepts, Including Critical Race Theory, and Restoring Excellence in K–12 Public Education in the Commonwealth.” E.O. 1 doesn’t apply to postsecondary education, so today my own teaching is unaffected—although since E.O. 1 states that “critical race theory” teaches students to engage in behavior prohibited by Virginia’s Constitution, its logic suggests that higher education won’t escape scrutiny for long. Efforts in other states do include higher education, such as Georgia’s Senate Bill 377 (S.B. 377) and Alabama’s House Bill 312 (H.B. 312).

All of these measure define “divisive concepts” in roughly the same way, through a list of propositions such as: “That one race, sex, or religion is inherently superior to another race, sex, or religion” (H.B. 312);  that “the United States of America and the State of Georgia are fundamentally or systemically racist” (S.B. 377); that “meritocracy or traits, such as a hard work ethic, are racist or sexist or were created by a particular race to oppress another race” (E.O. 1); or “that with respect to American values, slavery and  racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to the founding principles of the United States, which include liberty and equality” (H.B. 312).

No instructor at any level should dogmatically indoctrinate students into accepting controversial political claims. However, the college classroom should be a place where such claims can be discussed and debated, and to a perhaps more limited extent the high school classroom should as well. In one sense, teaching an idea means presenting it to students as something they should accept. In a broader sense, though, it means only familiarizing students with the idea so that they understand it. One reason for concern about these measures is that they will inhibit the teaching of disputed views on topics like race, ethnicity, gender, and religion in not only the first sense but also the second.

Ostensibly, at least, these measures do seem to allow so-called divisive concepts to appear on a professor’s syllabus. S.B. 377 says that it shouldn’t be construed to “prohibit the discussion of divisive concepts, as part of a larger course of instruction, in an objective manner and without endorsement.” H.B. 312 has similar language, although it adds that this is permitted only if “the institution expressly makes clear that it does not endorse these divisive concepts.” (They are less permissive for K–12 instructors.)

But there is real reason to worry about how well practice will conform to theory. Any professor who covers political controversies in class is likely to be seen by some students as pushing their own agenda. If we make refraining from political indoctrination a matter of law rather than professional ethics, however, and if, for example, state funding is at stake, then institutions will be increasingly anxious about student complaints even when the complaints appear invalid. Hence there’s obvious reason to worry that faculty will shy away from discussing divisive concepts altogether rather than risk being accused of failing to remain perfectly impartial—especially untenured faculty and particularly those on contingent contracts. The probable result will be a chilling effect on any discussion of controversial subject matter.

Even instructors who don’t refrain from discussing these divisive concepts altogether may be more reticent to reveal their own views. “Without endorsement” suggests that faculty members who believe that systemic racism exists, for instance, would be precluded from acknowledging this to students. (Those who deny its existence apparently wouldn’t be banned from saying so.) While this is presumably meant to prevent students from being influenced to accept divisive claims by the fact that their professor accepts them, ironically it might have the opposite effect. Many faculty members believe that revealing their own positions actually facilitates objective discussion, through bringing into the open leanings that might otherwise bias discussion invisibly. In any case, openness about which side of a debate you’re on needn’t preclude discussing the matter objectively and making students feel safe about revealing that they disagree.

Measures like E.O. 1, S.B. 377, and H.B. 312 reflect, and contribute to, a moral panic about how topics like race are being approached in classrooms at all levels (and in workplace trainings). Insofar as the problem of political indoctrination that they’re ostensibly meant to solve exists at all, however, the cure may be worse than the disease. If “thinking for yourself” about controversial questions means reasoning carefully, then it requires being introduced to a range of possible positions and the arguments for and against. Ham-handed attempts to preclude students from being told what to believe about controversial questions won’t lead to their thinking for themselves in this sense. Instead, such measures will only result in their reasoning carelessly or, more likely, failing to consider the questions at all.

Dale E. Miller is associate dean for research and graduate studies in the College of Arts and Letters at Old Dominion University and professor of philosophy in the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies. He is the author of J. S. Mill: Moral, Social and Political Thought (Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2010).