Legislative Impact

Like other businesses, colleges and universities “ . . . are required to comply with a large number of federal regulations, which pose a significant administrative burden,” Rev. Curran noted. “Unfortunately, there are currently proposals under discussion in Washington that would increase that burden and potentially threaten the privacy of every student in the country.”

In Kansas, Dr. Burke said the Higher Education Reorganization Act has been positive. “The result has been an increase of dialogue and discussion between the sectors, and a more seamless system of higher education that benefits all Kansas students.”

Some expressed concern at the increasing emotionalism in legislative discussion. “I guess you have to anticipate and roll with a certain amount of demagoguery,” Dr. Hubbard said. “But after more than 30 years, I get tired of demagoguery on tuition at the same time that support is cut back.” He noted that data showing Missouri’s support for higher education ranks near the bottom of the 50 states, while its tuition is near the midpoint—suggesting that Missouri institutions are very efficient.

Surprisingly, the educators did not consider academic freedom the hot button issue it is often portrayed in the media. Although important, most felt that a relatively good balance was being struck overall.

“To date, I have not seen challenges that have effectively reduced academic freedom,” Dr. Sallee noted. “There have always been challenges and will always be. We simply have to guard against infringement when threats occur.”

Both Kansas and Missouri schools have had recent educational disputes, however. “Academic freedom at the university can be strained by a polarized political environment,” Dr. Farley noted. “It is important for universities to acknowledge and teach about, but remain above . . . confrontations between polarized social, cultural and political viewpoints. To be drawn completely into one camp or another on these issues is to forego the academic freedom university study requires.”

Others stressed the need for an on-campus distinction between discussing topics and promoting them. Dr. Steele used theatre as a hypothetical example. “There’s a difference between what I want them discussing in class and putting on stage,” she explained. “I also distinguish between academic freedom and personal propaganda. I distinguish what a speaker can present for the entire school, and what happens in a classroom where there’s a need for full academic freedom because students must know the full range of ideas.”

Kansas recently saw efforts to introduce Creationism in the form of Intelligent Design into the secondary-school curriculum. The Johnson County Community College faculty argued that Intelligent Design is not science and had no place in science curriculum. Their stance gained legal support from a U.S. District Judge ruling against a Pennsylvania school district that attempted to introduce Intelligent Design into its curriculum.

“Academic freedom does not give faculty the right to do whatever they want in class, but it does give them the right to do what they can to further student learning,” Dr. Grove noted. “Occasionally, people from outside . . . will object to faculty behavior or course content, but if a school can demonstrate that such behavior and content advance the educational mission, then they are justified.”

Others warned that efforts to standardize academia often backfire. “Too often such regulation does not yield its intended result,” Dr. Slepitza said. “In general, we should allow the system to function in the fashion that has led to its exemplary recognition and, when intervention is required, do so in a fashion that offers incentives for movement in the desired direction.”

Dr. Podolefsky said all parties must examine their roles. “In a classroom . . . professors are best served teaching the subject, and academic freedom is intended to protect the right to do that without fear of reprisals over issues such as the teaching of evolution. Academic freedom is a core value in American education and, like our nation’s core values, it is part of what makes American higher education the best in the world.”

 

Increased Involvement

More often than controversy, the colleges and universities reported positive involvement with their communities. Every one of the schools pointed to unique local efforts, from partnerships at Avila to leadership programs at William Jewell College.

Dr. Hubbard at Northwest Missouri cited that school’s largely rural environment and its impact in everything from recruitment to agricultural science. Other schools noted their increasing recognition of economic development.

The three community colleges especially cited an intimate community role, with programs developed to serve local entrepreneurial startups, job training and collaboration with area school districts. Virtually all of the institutions contribute significantly to community arts and cultural life. Programs such as Rockhurst’s business leadership effort impact the area’s economy while Washburn works to strengthen Topeka neighborhoods. Drury operates programs to tackle southern Missouri issues.

Some efforts “think globally and act locally.” Park College will soon add an International Institute for Global Culture, Economics and Understanding. “We live in an era that requires each of us to focus on connections between the local and the global,” Dr. Byers-Pevitts said.

Located in the center of Kansas City, UMKC operates several community pro-grams such as KCSourceLink and Ivanhoe House, a pilot program mentoring children in Kansas City’s urban core.

Ultimately, all of these college and university leaders saw largely positive trends for area higher education. In addressing the issue of academic freedom, Dr. Hubbard’s conclusion could have served as a fitting assessment of the area’s higher education as a whole. “It’s a good debate to have going all the time,” he said. “It’s a debate that can’t be settled, but it is good to keep thinking about those things.”