New York's Assembly Higher Education Committee Chairman Ronald Canestrari is sponsoring a bill that would make classroom materials used in public schools exempt from New York's Freedom of Information Law. Canestrari's idea is that academic freedom is inhibited by the law, which "only creates an unnecessary concern that may limit an instructor's ability to pass on knowledge and ideas to students."

Advocates of the bill see it as necessary to protect professors' rights. "Misuse of the (Freedom of Information Law) does have potential for intimidation and second-guessing," Frank Maurizio of the United University Professors union told the Oneonta Daily Star. "There is no place for that when you're talking about the kind of debate that needs to be fostered in an academic setting." "We are in favor of freedom of speech and expression," said William Simons, also of the UUP; "but we must also be careful about intrusions in terms of government or anything else. We live in an era where we need to be vigilant about civil liberties." "I'm not comfortable with someone calling me up and saying they want to see my syllabi," said SUCO adjunct professor of education Gary Turits said. "I don't want any Tom, Dick and Harry reviewing what I teach."

This has to be one of the more convoluted pieces of academic self-justification I've seen in a long time. Academic debate will be chilled if it is second-guessed? Debate is second-guessing. Allowing the public to see what's taught at public colleges and universities threatens the civil liberties of professors? Only if you think professors have the right never to be questioned. Syllabi should be treated as sensitive information? Only if the professor has something--perhaps lack of seriousness or lack of competence--to hide. The above quotes are the rationalizations of professors who don't want to be criticized, who don't believe John Q. Public is qualified to criticize them, and who don't want to acknowledge either their snobbery or their thin skin.

Luckily, Canestrari's bill has opponents. Among them are Richard Lee, a SUCO professor who says "people have the right to make open decisions and that requires having access to information. It behooves us to make this information available to parents or students or whoever needs it." Robert Freeman, executive director of the state Committee on Open Government, also opposes the bill: "The public should have the right to know the kinds of materials used in public classrooms. ... There is nothing secret about the material that is displayed and distributed to students."

Thus far, the bill's most eloquent opponent is SUNY trustee Candace de Russy, who expressed her disgust at length in the New York Sun last week. Noting that if passed, such a bill could result in the peculiarly Orwellian scenario of students being required to sign confidentiality agreements in order to register for courses, de Russy goes on to outline the patent bad faith of the bill:

To invoke academic freedom in this manner is disingenuous and illogical. Academic freedom entails the liberty of professors to teach what they believe to be the truth, and to write and do research, without official interference. But this special protection of academic utterances is accompanied by contractual obligations and ethical responsibilities. As one expert on academic institutions, Edward Shils, has noted, once a professor has satisfied himself that his research is sound, he or she, with rare exception, is obligated to publish it openly. "Secrecy," Mr. Shils observes, "is alien to the obligation of university teachers." The same principle that applies to research applies to teaching. Academic freedom is not a licence to operate in secret; the classroom is a venue for openness. This bill would make the classroom less of an open forum.

It is a peculiar, and distinctly un-academic, breach of logic to imply, as this bill does, that the quality of college teaching will decline if the public is privy to what is being taught. What a high-wire act for anyone in the academic profession or in politics--for his or her own sake and for the sake of the profession--even to appear to wish to hide public matters. What an indefensible proposition it is to make higher education in New York less open, less responsive, and less accountable.

Hat tip: reader KCJ.