1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI - KANSAS CITY 8 FACULTY CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE IN TEACHING 9 ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND INCLUSION 10 PLANNING SESSION 11 12 13 DECEMBER 5, 2007 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 MR. DILKS: I'm Steve Dilks and 2 I'm a faculty member in the English 3 Department, and I teach English and Irish 4 literature. Mostly modern and contemporary 5 is my area of specialization, though I 6 teach popular literature and other 7 subjects, too. 8 And during the course of this past 9 semester I've convened some discussions of 10 essentially of the Intellectual Diversity 11 Bill, as its known in Missouri the Emily 12 Brooker bill, and sort of -- we've been 13 thinking about ways to address ways to 14 respond. And certainly those of us who 15 have been sitting around the table so far 16 thinking our way through things, and this 17 has mainly been faculty and administration, 18 have always from the beginning wanted to 19 say that students ought to be involved, and 20 that there should be a cross-campus 21 conversation. 22 For us to talk about intellectual 23 diversity and to plan events, plan 24 strategies for addressing this question, 25 this issue, we need to be as inclusive as 3 1 possible. And what's really interesting 2 about the conversation as it's developed is 3 that most people around the table so far 4 said we don't really want to be complicit 5 with this particular bill, but we are 6 pragmatic enough, we are practical enough, 7 to understand that we need to somehow 8 address it. We don't necessarily want to 9 address it in its own terms. 10 I don't know if you know that the 11 Emily Brooker Bill, just to give you a 12 context, is -- and I put this up here -- 13 this is House Bill 213. It did go through 14 the Missouri House and passed in the 15 Missouri House. They refer, if you Google 16 it, if you just Google Emily Brooker Bill, 17 you will get to the text of the bill. 18 And I'll just give a few words of 19 introduction here, and then I'm going to -- 20 then we'll sort of allow you to introduce 21 yourselves. 22 This particular bill sets out to 23 define intellectual diversity as the 24 foundation of a learning environment that 25 exposes students to a variety of political, 4 1 ideological, religious and other 2 perspectives when such perspectives relate 3 to the subject matter being taught or 4 issues being discussed, so the foundation 5 of a learning environment that exposes 6 students to a variety of political 7 ideological, religious and other 8 perspectives, which such perspectives 9 relate to the subject matter being taught 10 or issues being discussed. 11 Now, one of the ways in which I 12 personally got involved in this was when 13 this bill was just in the process of going 14 through the House last spring, so in spring 15 2006, I wrote a sort of an as I see it 16 piece for the Kansas City Star, in which I 17 said that this is a dangerous bill. It's 18 unnecessary, and it's going to be 19 expensive. 20 So I'll stake out my own position on 21 this, which is that from my point of view, 22 academic culture has already committed 23 itself for, you could say, for thousands of 24 years, but at least for the last hundred 25 years in very articulated language to the 5 1 preservation of academic freedom. 2 And so what's happened during the 3 course of the conversations is we've gone 4 from talking about this in terms of 5 intellectual diversity to talking about it 6 in terms of intellectual pluralism, to 7 talking about it in terms of academic 8 freedom, and specifically academic freedom 9 and inclusion. 10 And then the last meeting we had 11 people around the table who said we ought 12 to be talking about this in terms of social 13 justice. And so just -- so I'm saying that 14 because I'm very conscious that the ways in 15 which we speak about this issue, this 16 matter, this question, are very important; 17 that the language that we use -- and I'm 18 very conscious, too, that if I as a 19 director of the Faculty Center for 20 Excellence in Teaching am defining the 21 language that we use, then I've already 22 decided what we think to some extent. 23 I've already decided what the 24 questions are. I've already decided what 25 the responses are. And so I think it's 6 1 very, very important for us around this 2 table today and the colleagues that we have 3 who couldn't be here today because they are 4 busy doing finals week, et cetera, et 5 cetera, that we really -- we are inclusive 6 in understanding that this is something 7 that we're still working out as a campus; 8 that -- and if I'm saying things that you 9 disagree with or that you have questions 10 about, it's very important that we treat 11 this that you can respond and tell me what 12 you think in ways that will be constructive 13 to the conversation. 14 So for example, I haven't been talking 15 about this in terms of social justice until 16 the last meeting that we had, but David 17 Green from the LGBT and from the Student 18 Life office said, why aren't we using the 19 words "social justice"? And I didn't have 20 a good reason not. I didn't have a good 21 answer, and from now on we'll use the 22 phrase social justice. That's become part 23 of the way we talk about this. Okay. 24 That's one part. 25 The second part is that as a faculty 7 1 member, you know, I am a member of the 2 union that we have, the AAUP it's called, 3 the American Association of University 4 Professors, and going back to 1916 in fact, 5 we have a statement of academic freedom 6 that says exactly what is our version of 7 what this Intellectual Diversity Bill would 8 commit us to. This is why I say it's 9 unnecessary. 10 If you go to the AAUP 1940 statement, 11 for example, on academic freedom, and you 12 can get there through www, as I like to 13 say, Higher dash Ed dot org, and you get to 14 the 1940 statement, you'll find that it 15 says, for example, and this is -- this is 16 in its section on academic freedom, it says 17 the -- well, it says the common good, the 18 common good, and that's understood as 19 society as a whole. That's not just the 20 academic good. 21 The common good depends upon the free 22 search for truth and its free expression. 23 The common good depends upon the free 24 search for truth and its free expression. 25 And then it goes on to say teachers are 8 1 entitled to freedom in the classroom in 2 discussing their subject, but they should 3 be careful not to introduce into their 4 teaching controversial matter which is no 5 relation to their subject. 6 Limitations of academic freedom 7 because of religious and other aims of the 8 institution should be clearly stated in 9 writing at the time of the appointment. 10 College and university teachers are 11 citizens, members of a learned profession 12 and officers of educational institution. 13 When they write or speak as citizens, they 14 should be free from institutional 15 censorship or discipline. 16 But their special position in the 17 community imposes special obligations. As 18 scholars, they should remember that the 19 public may judge their profession or 20 institution by their utterances. 21 So if you go to the language of this 22 1940 statement, again the details of it are 23 perhaps less important, well, very 24 important, but what you would see is that 25 there's a long tradition, already 9 1 established of the university, the academy, 2 people in positions like mine, defining 3 themselves in terms of academic freedom and 4 an academic freedom that carries with it 5 duties and responsibilities. 6 So the question becomes for me, do we 7 define these things among ourselves? And 8 this is again why I think it's important to 9 have this conversation here and the ones 10 that come out of it. Or do we let it be 11 defined by government? 12 It's just a burning question here. 13 And if we do, if we object to the 14 government coming in and defining for us 15 how freedom should be defined, how academic 16 freedom should be defined, how speech in 17 the classroom should be defined, then we 18 need to do what we can to act against this 19 bill, because if it comes into law, my own 20 personal feeling, and again we can discuss 21 this, but my own personal feeling is it 22 will have a very chilling effect. 23 I was interviewed on KCUR, and again, 24 I said I put my views on the table, and 25 then we can talk about them and respond. I 10 1 spoke on KCUR on this matter a week ago, 2 and when asked what would be the effect of 3 this, basically the effect would be it 4 would be almost impossible to hire faculty 5 in Missouri because they wouldn't come to a 6 state that had -- which would be the first 7 state in the union to have this. They 8 wouldn't come to a state that had this kind 9 of legislation in place. 10 And never mind the people on campus 11 who would then -- you would be in a 12 classroom where the whole effort in the 13 classroom would be to be neutral. Can you 14 imagine how tedious that would become, if 15 all the language in the classroom was 16 simply spoken from a point of view of what 17 is acceptable to the Missouri legislature? 18 Okay. So that's my introduction. I'm 19 sorry to go on so long. I wanted this to 20 be a conversation. 21 My second thing I just have for you, 22 as a point a part of being on KCUR, I got 23 called by this group called the Free 24 Exchange on Campus dot org, and they are a 25 group that -- again they are a specific 11 1 group that's located in Washington D C. 2 They have an agenda, and this campus 3 voices comes from them. I'm not 4 necessarily advertising them or saying that 5 this is the best group to go after this 6 issue. But this is the resources that are 7 available, and they actually have a contest 8 that you can enter where you can say why 9 free speech is valuable to you, and they're 10 giving out prizes of $500 for students who 11 might write. 12 Okay, next, this is being recorded. I 13 don't mind being recorded. I'm perfectly 14 happy with that. What we would like to 15 happen as we have the conversation is that 16 you say your name, introduce yourself as 17 you speak, and then speak your comments. 18 If you don't want your comments to be 19 recorded in an official place which might 20 be published, then say please, this is off 21 the record. If we go through and do the 22 transcription and you forgot to say that or 23 you said some things that you then in 24 hindsight thought that might -- I might get 25 denied tenure based on that one, or my 12 1 teacher might not like me whatever, it is, 2 or I don't want to go to record with that, 3 then you can get in contact and say look, 4 please, can we make sure this doesn't 5 become part of the published record? 6 And anybody whose voice is potentially 7 going to be published, I'll send this 8 around to you, so it's really important 9 that I have your email address on the 10 sign-in sheet and that you say your name 11 when you speak, so that I can write to you 12 and show you the transcript that we're 13 using. 14 And what we're planning on doing is 15 publishing this as part of the Faculty 16 Center for Excellence in Teaching 17 newsletter that comes out twice a semester. 18 And so we would use the part of the 19 transcript of this conversation in there. 20 I assume that's okay with you. 21 So then how should we proceed next? 22 Democracy, great. I don't know whether you 23 do want to go around the room quickly and 24 everybody say their name. Let's just get 25 going, and when you speak say your name. 13 1 Okay? Say it clearly so that the 2 transcriptionist can hear it properly. 3 Okay. So the question is, I mean, I 4 wrote these four -- the real question -- 5 this is a planning session, right, so I'm 6 not supposed to be up here doing my 7 professor lecturing thing, but I just fall 8 comfortably and naturally into that 9 position. I apologize. 10 But what it is, is for you around the 11 table to suggest things that we might do 12 next semester in order to have productive 13 conversations, productive ways of working 14 with this issue of -- and I've listed these 15 four ways of thinking about this, and maybe 16 that's just one way we can start, is saying 17 should we be talking about this in terms of 18 intellectual diversity, intellectual 19 pluralism, academic freedom or social 20 justice. 21 How should we be talking about this? 22 How should we strategize? What kinds of 23 things should we do as we move into the 24 next semester? 25 MR. McANINCH: Stuart McAninch. 14 1 Just one other point of context is that we 2 did get an email this morning from the 3 president of the State AAUP Conference that 4 Jane Cunningham, who is the sponsor of HB 5 213, has filed another bill. 6 MR. DILKS: Is that a bill in 7 the Senate? 8 MR. McANINCH: No, in the House. 9 MR. DILKS: Oh, she's filed 10 another bill in the House. 11 MR. McANINCH: She was the one 12 who filed HB 213, and so we're off and 13 running again. 14 MR. DILKS: Thank you. 15 MS. HONIG: Sheila Honig, 16 English Department. I was curious if 17 anybody knows how other campuses are 18 responding to this. 19 MR. DILKS: If anyone else has 20 got a quick and ready answer. 21 MR. McANINCH: I can respond for 22 M.U. Columbia, is that there is a meeting 23 this Saturday at M.U. Columbia specifically 24 to talk about these issues, so it's a 25 counterpart of this meeting. 15 1 MR. DILKS: And there is a 2 system-wide, so University of Missouri 3 system did -- the way I got involved in 4 this three or four months ago was I got a 5 telephone call from somebody at the U.M. 6 system. For those of you who don't know 7 what that means, it means there is -- 8 there's the four campuses, and there's an 9 administrative structure that overlooks all 10 four campuses. 11 And that level of governance has put 12 out a requirement that we do come up with 13 some way of addressing the issue of 14 intellectual diversity, so as to anticipate 15 partly what might be required of us in the 16 future, so that we were already thinking 17 about this as we go forward. 18 MS. BERKSHIRE: Beth Berkshire, 19 Arts and Sciences Interdisciplinary. It 20 seems to me that -- I keep thinking about 21 this from a student's perspective. It 22 seems like Emily was made into a helpless 23 victim, and I think that's really important 24 for us to acknowledge, because that made it 25 possible for the legislature to have a 16 1 proxy in a student. 2 So the student in essence has become a 3 proxy for the legislative will. And I 4 think we need to resist in our efforts 5 reaffine that model of a helpless student, 6 because I think that's the slippery slope 7 we're heading down. 8 MR. DILKS: Do you mind 9 clarifying a little bit more what you mean 10 by helpless student? 11 MS. BERKSHIRE: I think that 12 well,this sounds kind of crass, but a 13 strained brain theory or "bwaine", as I 14 like to say, if we start thinking that 15 students are breakable, which is I think 16 the way that this kind of legislation was 17 able to move forward, I mean, there really 18 is a proxy issue here. 19 And to think that there's a tort 20 response to this victim, in quotes, 21 victimization, is where we're going, and 22 that's a problem. But in our efforts to 23 address that, I think we need to be careful 24 of setting up the student as a fragile -- 25 MR. DILKS: Right. Are there 17 1 any students who might want to respond to 2 that? You don't have to. I just wondered. 3 I think the point being made is that 4 sense that students are being treated as 5 though they're babies, and so it's very 6 patronizing. In a sense it is protecting 7 them from these ogre teachers. 8 MS. BERKSHIRE: But that's what 9 authorizes the legislation to move forward. 10 It's the same -- I'm a gender theorist, so 11 I'm very familiar with this model with 12 respect to women. 13 And it seems to me that it is akin to 14 that kind of -- as long as we can make an 15 empty sort of sack out of the student, then 16 we can legislate on their behalf. But it 17 just -- I'd hate for us to follow course in 18 our redress. 19 MR. DILKS: Our difficulty is 20 any response we give is somehow complicit 21 with the legislation, and what we have to 22 be very, very, very smart about, and that's 23 why we need all the heads around this table 24 to think this through, is about how we -- 25 how best to respond in ways that make this 18 1 our issue, if that's -- if that's -- again 2 that maybe is too simple a way of putting 3 it, but it needs to be that we are the ones 4 who are deciding what happens with this. 5 And anything we do that prevents us 6 from it just becoming a model of a helpless 7 student or a model of the victimized 8 faculty who are under threat for losing, 9 you know, their job or losing their 10 security, losing, I mean, as well. But 11 yes. So other points? 12 MR. DILKS: Kristi Ryujin? 13 MS. RYUJIN: Office of 14 Diversity, Access and Equity. One other 15 thing that I just want to throw into this 16 discussion, if you go back to the page 17 before, that -- sorry. As you are 18 including academic freedom, intellectual 19 diversity, I also think that what we're 20 seeing in Missouri is an interest in not 21 only telling you what you can teach, but 22 who you can teach. And I think we need to 23 address that here as well. 24 The anti-affirmative action 25 legislation that may be coming up next 19 1 November really will impact this 2 university. So I think as for this body 3 and for faculty to take up a response to 4 who they get to teach is important. 5 I mentioned, I think, in one of the 6 early meetings that Michigan, one of the 7 ways they were arguing was that they, as 8 part of academic freedom, they had the 9 choice in who they teach, that it must be a 10 broad classroom. 11 They wanted diversity of experience. 12 They wanted diversity in class, in gender 13 and race. And that was what made it 14 possible to have the kind of education they 15 wanted in their institution. 16 So for us to leave out that piece 17 about how -- this isn't just one sort of 18 telling you what to teach. It is literally 19 telling you who you can teach. And I think 20 that needs to be added to the discussion in 21 the room. 22 MR. DILKS: Yes. It's why we -- 23 and I think it came out of that meeting or 24 the next meeting, somewhere around there, 25 why we started talking in terms not just of 20 1 academic freedom but of academic freedom 2 and inclusion. And the inclusion part is 3 possibly what brings us closer to the 4 social justice part, which I think is the 5 direction Kristi is taking us in. 6 This is not just about, you know, 7 pretending this is sort of a black slate, 8 I'll call it, a blank slate, but it's about 9 us really, really actively deciding again 10 among ourselves at this institution who it 11 is and what it is that is taught. 12 All right. But again, then the 13 question becomes, how do we do that? How 14 best do we proceed? And again I -- 15 MS. BERKSHIRE: Me again. The 16 other piece of this -- Beth Berkshire. The 17 proxy issue is that it seems to me that in 18 the case -- in Emily's case, she was 19 made -- I mean, I'm going to use proxy 20 again -- a proxy of professor's will, and 21 because she was asked to sign something. 22 I think that that's an important part 23 of this. I mean, it's not as though we 24 can -- we can take Emily's case and just 25 throw it away. I think that there's 21 1 something really important about how 2 professors are in the classroom that needs 3 to be tended to there, because I think that 4 she was wronged when she was asked to sign 5 something that -- 6 MR. DILKS: Who is "she"? 7 MS. BERKSHIRE: It's one thing 8 to sort of propose thought that offends. I 9 actually think that offense is an 10 indication that you're introducing 11 difference and diversity in the classroom. 12 It's when -- it's when the being 13 offended intellectually goes beyond that 14 and becomes an actual offense against the 15 person's beliefs that are brought into the 16 classroom. 17 And so when we start thinking about 18 solutions, I think that we have to take 19 into account students' rights to carry with 20 them throughout the semester what they 21 believe, and not be expected to have 22 that -- you know, social justice to me is a 23 fascinating -- I mean, I consider myself 24 somebody who teaches towards social 25 justice, but I also recognize in that that 22 1 I am going to have students whose idea of 2 social justice is very different from mine, 3 and I want to make sure that they get to 4 maintain that in our conversations. 5 MR. DILKS: I had a conversation 6 with some of the students in the room here 7 from a class I'm teaching this semester 8 called Popular Literature. And the other 9 day I began the class by saying let's just 10 talk about this briefly, and it ended up 11 taking the entire class. 12 But one of the students came around to 13 a very, very smart statement. She said, 14 there is academic freedom for the faculty 15 to have their bias. The problem arises 16 when the faculty's bias is being privileged 17 over the student's bias. We all have bias. 18 MS. BERKSHIRE: Right. 19 MR. DILKS: And partly the thing 20 in a classroom, any intellectual setting 21 like this, we ought to be able to put those 22 biases on the table and talk about them. 23 Where did they come from? How were they 24 weighted? And we ought to be able to then 25 leave the room and, you know, not leave any 23 1 flesh behind, you know. 2 But I mean -- I normally move more 3 when I teach. I'm trying to avoid being in 4 the teaching mode. So yes, thank you, 5 Pamela. 6 So yes, so that idea of just sort of 7 balancing out of the faculty's privileges 8 as they are with the students' rights 9 and -- 10 Other issues that we need to be 11 addressing here that we aren't getting to 12 yet? I see a number of you have sitting 13 patiently, listening attentively. 14 MS. GUILFOIL: Muffy Guilfoil, 15 FaCET. Sort of in response, sort of, I 16 mean, I wonder, though, at what point do 17 our students sort of -- I don't want to say 18 they're trying to get out of something, but 19 a friend at a U.M. system school was 20 telling me that she had a student who 21 refused to watch a film because he said it 22 went against his beliefs, and it wasn't -- 23 I've had Mormon students who don't watch 24 rated R films. That's understandable. 25 But he -- basically it came down to 24 1 he's racist, and this film tries to make 2 sort of make people question race and race 3 identity and things like that. 4 And the student basically said, I'm 5 racist. I don't want to watch this. It 6 goes against my views being a racist. 7 And at what point do you say, well, 8 those are his beliefs, those are the 9 beliefs he was raised with, that's how his 10 family feels? At what point does the 11 student get to get -- you know, views that 12 as an excuse, or say they're not going to 13 talk about these ideas because those are 14 their personal beliefs? 15 MR. SCHUBERT: At what point 16 does describing it as an excuse become a 17 bias of the professor? 18 MR. DILKS: This doesn't have to 19 go back through me. Others can answer. 20 You can talk with each other. 21 MS. RYUJIN: Kristi Ryujin. I 22 was thinking that actually in your 23 syllabus, it sort of takes care of some of 24 that to a degree. Students, when they 25 choose to take a course, understand what is 25 1 within that course, the course 2 requirements, and they can opt to take that 3 course or take another course. 4 And within most universities, they 5 provide enough options to fulfill your 6 requirements that they can elect to do 7 something very different than take a class 8 that looks at race. 9 And so to me your syllabus should 10 function as sort of a -- it's sort of like 11 that, you know, that this is acknowledging 12 where you're going to go in a course. If 13 you're talking about gender or sexuality, 14 it's in there. 15 And so students can sort of say, well, 16 I need a different option, because lots of 17 times faculty are willing to work with 18 students to say, I understand you might not 19 want to see this. 20 Here is a film that doesn't have -- 21 you know, sometimes students will be very 22 explicit and say I am uncomfortable with 23 nudity. Okay, so here is a film that has 24 similar ideas. There's no nudity in here. 25 You will have to watch this film. And 26 1 there's no -- they're not penalized for any 2 of that. 3 But your syllabus should inform 4 students what your topics are, and I think 5 to a degree they should be able to go 6 somewhere else if they don't want to take 7 that class. 8 And maybe that's something that we 9 should be addressing too in here, is how -- 10 students' rights in that they can make 11 choices to leave courses, and that that 12 should be done prior to them having to pay 13 for it and prior to them having a 14 withdrawal on their records or anything 15 else. 16 MS. HONIG: Sheila Honig, 17 English Department. I kind of wanted to 18 respond to something that was brought up 19 about a student not wanting to watch a film 20 because I'm a racist and it might challenge 21 my beliefs. 22 I mean, really don't students -- 23 shouldn't students come to the university 24 with the idea that they are not finished 25 products? Why are they here if they think 27 1 they are finished products? And I think we 2 as teachers really try to model inquiry. 3 We're not finished products ourselves. 4 And this bill is appalling to that 5 whole notion that by the time you're 18 6 years old, everything is molded and you're 7 in place, and we'll have a neutral history 8 class or a neutral English class. 9 MS. SALMAN: My name is Aalace 10 Salman, and I'm an undergraduate English 11 student. And I just think that this bill 12 is extremely limiting on what we as a 13 society get to learn and what we get to 14 say, because I think that as students we 15 come to the university, and we come with 16 the ideas of freedom, but we also know that 17 with freedom come limitations and 18 responsibility. 19 So I think that just the government 20 putting restrictions on us from up above is 21 restricting with the rights that they've 22 already given us through our constitution. 23 And I just think that it just limits our 24 rights and our views of intellect, and it 25 limits the intellectual work that we might 28 1 come up with in classrooms. 2 So I just -- I don't really like the 3 bill. 4 MR. DILKS: Thank you. 5 MS. ROWE: Jamesia Rowe, 6 undergrad psychology. I was just want to 7 say that if you limit and have neutrality 8 in a classroom, that basically that just 9 limits everything within the classroom. 10 And if you have limitations, there 11 nothing to open up to for discussion, there 12 is always going to be underlying, unspoken 13 controversy that won't be talked about. 14 And I just feel that if you have unspoken 15 controversy, you can't have anything that's 16 ever going to be settles, and that's 17 basically what I want to say. 18 MR. DILKS: Let me just write. 19 You talk among yourselves. 20 So we're talking about the bill 21 itself. We're going right after the heart 22 of the matter, which is the bill itself 23 being limiting our rights, limiting 24 freedom, even though it sets out to -- even 25 though it claims to set out to protect 29 1 those rights. 2 And I think -- and that this is a 3 pretense of neutrality, is itself is just 4 going to just kill, truncate, stop 5 discussion. 6 MR. RIGGS: My name is Bob 7 Riggs. I'm from the Physics Department. 8 One of the things to address what 9 you're speaking of, my wife works at a 10 college north of the river that has a 11 history of being extremely conservative and 12 Baptist. But I -- I wonder which one that 13 is. 14 But anyway their capstone that they do 15 with their freshmen, their president is 16 adamant about is teaching the students as 17 incoming freshmen, that hey, we're here to 18 challenge you. You're little world view is 19 going to be turned upside down. And if we 20 don't do that, you're not getting your 21 money's worth. 22 And so that's something that we -- I 23 don't know if we can include that in our 24 ANS-type class, that's their focus or what, 25 just to teach our students that part. 30 1 MR. DILKS: So the language 2 you're using is that we -- that the 3 students are here to be challenged? 4 MR. RIGGS: Their little world 5 view -- we are always growing and learning 6 new things, and our world view is getting 7 challenged and shifted and molded. 8 MS. HONIG: And apparently 9 that's very scary for lawmakers. 10 MR. RIGGS: Well, it's a very 11 scary thing for a lot of us, because it's 12 uncomfortable, scary to be moved out of 13 your comfort zone. It's very scary for 14 lawmakers, because what are you doing? 15 You're always questioning status quo. And 16 when you question status quo, what are you 17 doing? You're questioning power. Where is 18 the power base coming from? And so yeah. 19 MS. NANDAN: I'm Monica Nandan 20 from School of Social Work. I think we 21 have to acknowledge that we are human 22 beings. We all come with glasses, whether 23 we like it or not, and which is our world 24 view of paradigm, history, upbringing, our 25 culture, our education, our training, so 31 1 when we present any material, whether it's 2 physics or whether it's psychology, we are 3 wearing glasses, and that is a given. 4 So given that, how can we -- how can 5 you ask us to be widgets and neutral and 6 clone everything? I mean, the thing is 7 being neutral. Be clones. We all are a 8 business. We can clone a robot to teach 9 physics and psychology in the same fashion 10 every day, day after day. You and I are 11 not needed. 12 And what we bring is a perspective, is 13 a paradigm that is constantly evolving, the 14 dialog. With neutrality, you will not 15 change. You will not evolve. And academia 16 is evolution. It's evolving. We are 17 constantly learning and relearning and 18 unlearning and relearning. And with 19 neutrality, we take that away. 20 MS. HUYETT: Pat Huyett, English 21 Department. I feel like one of my jobs as 22 a teacher is to unlearn a lot of the stupid 23 ideas my students pick up from popular 24 culture. Now, I'm very serious about this. 25 When the drum beat of war was 32 1 happening six years ago, I determined to 2 teach a course where we would look at 3 popular media. We read 1984. And I wanted 4 my students to look at alternative forms of 5 media to try to help them understand what 6 was being done to them. 7 Now, that is obviously not a neutral 8 position. I couldn't teach that class now 9 under the provisions of this bill. 10 MR. LEE: Fred Lee, Economics. 11 Yes, you could. Simply state in your 12 course outline this course is designed to 13 explore how alternative media deals with 14 the American economy or American society. 15 That's what we're going to look at. 16 MS. HUYETT: You mean the 17 propaganda. I mean, I have some doubts 18 about that. I was on -- I knew I was on 19 shaky ground there anyway. 20 MR. LEE: You can state it in 21 your course outline. You can give a course 22 outline of economics. You simply state 23 that you study the economy. You can study 24 it any number of ways. You simply learn 25 particular theories that are designed to 33 1 explore how the economy works. 2 You may have your vested interest in a 3 particular one, but it doesn't matter. The 4 students simply have to learn what the 5 political arguments are without any 6 invested interest in any particular one. 7 You could actually then teach the 8 course you want to teach and specify what 9 is expected of a student to learn, not to 10 believe, but simply learn. 11 MR. DILKS: I think that point 12 goes back to Kristi's point, which is that 13 this is for us to state on our syllabus. 14 If we're up front about it and we say this 15 is what we're teaching in the class, and 16 then we address the issue of content as 17 well, then, you know, which is Muffy's 18 point, you know, that we can address these 19 things by being right up front about them. 20 I mean, maybe one of the -- what I 21 would like to do now, I actually have to go 22 in a moment. I have to go and teach a 23 class at 1 o'clock. My students really 24 demanded that I taught the class today. 25 No, they did really. And so I have to run 34 1 and teach that class at 1 o'clock. 2 What I would like is for somebody else 3 to take over leading the conversation here. 4 This goes till 1:30. And I would also like 5 it if everybody in the room wrote down on 6 this pad of paper -- I know you've already 7 been making notes on it, so at least one 8 sheet and wrote on it a suggestion for what 9 we might do next or two suggestions or 10 three, but at least one suggestion about 11 what we might do next, and then hand them 12 up to the front before you leave. 13 And you can either put your name on it 14 or not. If you want it to be an anonymous 15 statement about what it is that we might do 16 next, please, that's fine, and that will 17 teach us something, too. But, you know, 18 what kind of -- and think about it in these 19 kinds of terms. What kind of seminar might 20 we have? What kinds of -- should we just 21 have more conversations like this for the 22 time being? How might we get other people 23 in the room, have a bigger room? 24 I mean, what kinds of questions should 25 we put on? Should we have more provocative 35 1 questions? Should we have very specific 2 events, like how to make your syllabus, 3 going out on Fred's point, and how to make 4 your syllabus more explicit in terms of 5 what it is that you're going to do in the 6 class? Hear me? 7 Then I also have -- this is the form 8 for -- this is the application for if you 9 wanted to do an essay of a thousand words 10 or a video of three minutes where you talk 11 about what free exchange of ideas means to 12 you, this is actually -- there's one for 13 students and one for faculty, so you can 14 hand that around if you would. 15 So one of these is for faculty to do 16 this and another one for students to do 17 this. Take the appropriate one. 18 MS. HONIG: I just wanted to 19 address the issue that the -- 20 MR. DILKS: Can I leave? Who 21 wants -- 22 MS. HONIG: It's the notion 23 that -- maybe we don't need one. 24 MR. DILKS: I am -- maybe you're 25 right. 36 1 MS. HONIG: I just wanted to 2 address the notion that just because you 3 put something in your syllabus means you're 4 off the hook. By what I understand by this 5 law, about this law, I don't think that 6 necessarily is the case. 7 I mean, wouldn't they just case your 8 course doesn't represent intellectual 9 diversity then? 10 MR. LEE: This is the problem 11 with the way the bill is written. The bill 12 simply stated that you can't introduce 13 extraneous material into the course, and 14 you can't in a sense have the course in 15 such a way that people have to believe the 16 course. 17 So you simply state in the course, I 18 deal with economics, you say we simply 19 learn these bodies of theory. I don't care 20 whether you believe them or not. You 21 simply learn the body of theory. 22 And so if you teach one viewpoint or 23 teach another viewpoint, it doesn't really 24 matter. The course is simply designed to 25 learn a body of theory or whatever else you 37 1 have in the course. So I think you can do 2 it. 3 But mind you, you should realize if 4 the bill goes out the way -- is passed the 5 way it's written, it would mean that about 6 30 percent, 40 percent of all economists 7 the University of Missouri system would be 8 fired, because virtually every economics 9 department at UMKC has only one viewpoint 10 that is taught in economics. 11 In order to have a multiplicity of 12 viewpoints taught in economics, they would 13 have to fire those departments and hire a 14 bunch of radical economists. 15 So as the bill is set up, if you 16 really want to run with it, we would then 17 have to restructure our department to make 18 sure that we have diversity of faculty, not 19 an ubiqual faculty, but diversity of 20 faculty to give diversity of viewpoints. 21 Economics means I have lots of job 22 opportunities now. So the bill is in a 23 sense very dangerous. Of course, that's 24 not what they want the bill to do, but 25 that's how they have written the bill up, 38 1 is you have to have a diversity of 2 viewpoints, which is not a bad thing per 3 se. 4 Then you have to have diversity of 5 faculty. And hence then you have to start 6 realigning your departments. 7 I don't like the bill at all. I don't 8 want the State to step in and tell how 9 faculty should hire the people that they 10 want. But if this got passed one could 11 actually push it. 12 (Many people talking at once). 13 MS. RYUJIN: I think what I'm 14 taking from your comments is really the 15 vulnerability that faculty are left with, 16 and I do think syllabus can help, but I 17 think the vulnerability of this bill for 18 faculty, because sorry for those people who 19 have been present through a lot of these 20 meetings. 21 I'm from the University of Utah, and 22 we had a student similar to Emily who sued 23 the Theater Department because she did not 24 want to utter language that was against her 25 LDS faith. And this was a play. It was a 39 1 written text of someone, and the Theater 2 Department said we cannot alter the 3 language of this play. 4 Well, the university ended up settling 5 with this young woman. Correct. And so 6 whether or not our syllabus saves us or 7 not, and whether or not we can actually -- 8 there's all these things that don't really 9 make sense. Why would we ever alter the 10 written word of a playwright to suit the 11 student's needs? 12 But this is when it gets really 13 dangerous, is when the law starts to -- or 14 when students' rights actually are 15 overcasting the playwright's rights, the 16 faculty's rights. And they was actually 17 offered an alternate role in a play that 18 had no language that was offensive to her 19 or her culture. 20 But I do -- I think what I'm getting 21 is just that I understand that this law, 22 however you look at it, makes faculty even 23 more vulnerable than they have been. And 24 one of the issues I think we need to talk 25 about is getting out in front of this and 40 1 having our leadership talking about this 2 and thinking about how we get going. 3 And an example of this is I was at the 4 University of Missouri Columbia recently 5 talking about the affirmative action issue. 6 And University of Columbia has already set 7 up two committees, two committees, for when 8 the affirmative action law passes. We 9 haven't even lost yet, and they're already 10 preparing for what we're going to do when 11 affirmative action no longer exists in the 12 state of Missouri. 13 So I raised this already saying, how 14 come we're getting -- we're failing to get 15 in front of this and at least present a 16 position? And I think that's one of the 17 things I want to say, is we should be out 18 presenting a position before this comes 19 back up, and our administration needs to 20 take a stance on protecting the rights of 21 faculty and students. 22 You know, as many students who are 23 conservative who feel like their views are 24 not seen, there are those who are liberal 25 or radical who feel like their histories, 41 1 their experiences aren't even in the room, 2 but no one is protecting them really. 3 So I guess I think one of the things, 4 we have to move somewhat quickly. I don't 5 want us to move without a lot of thought, 6 but we do have to move before we're just 7 making decisions based on a law that's 8 going to pass, if I'm making that clear. 9 We don't need -- we shouldn't be planning 10 for the end, but we should be fighting 11 against this earlier. And I really think 12 that we should ask our administration 13 system-wide for that. 14 MS. HONIG: Has the 15 administration responded at all to this? 16 Does anybody know? 17 MS. BERKSHIRE: Beth Berkshire. 18 I think it's fascinating that at a time in 19 history when we have more non-tenure track 20 folks teaching within the institution, 21 which means that they're not protected. 22 Tenure is for protection in just these 23 cases. It's not for job enhancement. It 24 is for protection, so that ideas can be put 25 on the table without fear of retribution, 42 1 persecution, et cetera. 2 And it seems fascinating to me that on 3 some level it's almost ironic that this is 4 happening, that there are more and more of 5 us who are teaching full time but aren't 6 anywhere near a tenure track position, some 7 of us by choice, but without any similar 8 protection for freedom of thought in the 9 classroom. 10 So, you know, that's an answer to the 11 administration question kind of 12 philosophically. 13 MS. RYUJIN: There were three, 14 four responses that were out publicly but 15 have been retracted. None of them would 16 have been -- we brought this up earlier in 17 these initial discussions. They have been 18 withdrawn from the websites. 19 But each of the institutions, 20 University of Missouri schools, have a 21 response, but I know that at UMKC it was 22 sent back to the faculty. It was sent 23 back, withdrawn. 24 But, you know, there was -- much of 25 the language was really problematic at 43 1 least to me in the sense that it gave up a 2 lot of freedom. It required -- 3 MR. SCHUBERT: Kristi? 4 MS. RYUJIN: I'm sorry. 5 MR. SCHUBERT: That's all right. 6 MS. RYUJIN: I just found 7 something. Even some of the comments here 8 about when you're speaking publicly, just 9 colleges and university faculty members are 10 citizens, members of an educational 11 institution and members of one of the 12 professions. When they speak or write as 13 citizens, they are free from institutional 14 censorship or discipline. 15 But their special position in the 16 community imposes special obligations. 17 They should anticipate that the public may 18 judge their profession and their 19 institution by their utterances and 20 actions. Hence, they should at all times 21 be accurate, exercise appropriate 22 restraint, show respect for the opinions of 23 others, and make every effort to indicate 24 that they do not speak for the institution. 25 So even that for me was an -- I'm not 44 1 faculty, but if I were faculty, I would be 2 asking, why does it have to say that? I'll 3 pass this around. This again was up on 4 websites, has been removed, and I believe 5 it's gone back to the faculty for response. 6 And I think that Professor Dilks was 7 asked to pursue this discussion further. 8 But there are many small things within -- 9 not small, big things within that document 10 that I think faculty, if they were all to 11 read it, would question, because it is 12 giving things up. 13 MR. McANINCH: Stuart McAninch. 14 What I was going to ask is whether or not 15 the intellectual diversity complaint 16 procedure has been withdrawn from the 17 website. 18 MS. RYUJIN: Yes. From what I 19 understand, all of it has been pulled down, 20 with the understanding that within each of 21 the colleges -- and I mean this has been 22 established for a very long time -- if 23 students have complaints about professors 24 or the courses, they can go through their 25 chair, what originally was professor, then 45 1 chair, then dean, so there is already. 2 But my understanding is the full 3 document which included that mechanism has 4 been pulled down. But I have not rechecked 5 it to see. 6 MS. SHANE-DILLARD: Pamela 7 Shane-Dillard. I checked it earlier this 8 week, and I could find none of this on 9 there. 10 MR. McGEE: DaRon McGee. I have 11 a question. Ms. Ryujin, you said there 12 were two committees set up in Columbia 13 after it passes, correct? 14 MS. RYUJIN: They already had 15 established two committees that were 16 basically responding to or asked to, 17 basically with the understanding that the 18 anti-affirmative action bill would pass in 19 Missouri, so they were just trying to 20 develop a plan of action as if they had 21 already passed it. 22 MR. McGEE: That was my 23 question. Actually I have two questions. 24 One is, are there any committees set up in 25 any other school in the U.M. system to 46 1 prevent this from happening that you know 2 of? 3 MS. RYUJIN: We are organizing 4 currently not just system, but also other 5 colleges within Missouri, to try to defeat 6 the anti-affirmative action. 7 MR. SCHUBERT: The UMKC faculty 8 Senate has a committee, too. 9 MR. McGEE: My second question 10 was, what steps can this university and 11 other universities within the system take? 12 What action can they take to sort of get in 13 front of the issue like you were talking 14 about? 15 MS. RYUJIN: That committee 16 specifically is talking about affirmative 17 action, the anti-affirmative action bill 18 and civil rights, as they call it, 19 initiative. 20 MS. SHANE-DILLARD: Civil rights 21 initiative. 22 MS. RYUJIN: They are largely 23 trying to do some grass roots organization, 24 making sure people understand the language 25 of that bill, talking about the ideas of 47 1 how it will affect academic freedom. So 2 they're doing some internal responses, 3 working with community organizations as 4 well, making sure that we are also talking 5 to leadership within our various 6 institutions. 7 That's what we're doing at this point. 8 MR. McGEE: Also, just for the 9 record, we have in the -- I'm also the 10 comptroller for the Student Government 11 Association, and I'm a member of the 12 Student Senate here. I wrote a bill to -- 13 coming out against this specific issue of 14 the civil rights initiative. Currently 15 it's being stalled, but we're trying to 16 change some language within the actual bill 17 to try to get it passed as a recommendation 18 to the chancellor and to the curators, 19 saying that we as students and the Student 20 Senate are opposed to this initiative, and 21 basically going to say two things in the 22 bill: That we are opposed to it and that 23 they as administrators and employees of the 24 university do whatever they can to continue 25 diversity at this university and with the 48 1 system-wide. 2 It's being stalled because again, some 3 students feel like our job is not to be 4 controversial, so we're trying to do what 5 we can to get this bill out so -- 6 MR. SCHUBERT: I wonder if one 7 of the pieces of the puzzle is, if you 8 looked in part at education as challenging 9 one's biases, that might include both 10 students and faculty. It also might 11 include legislators who decide that 12 education can be -- or legislated in the 13 way that they're deciding. It might be a 14 good approach to take. 15 MR. McGEE: I think that's a 16 good idea, but I'm very skeptical about 17 that, only because I have a lot of friends 18 who are in the legislature, and currently 19 right now the Democratic party is not in 20 control, so they don't have -- they can 21 yell and scream all they want, but I think 22 today the Republicans in Jefferson City 23 have the votes to do whatever they like. 24 And I know that there has been a lot 25 of talk about bringing up the school 49 1 voucher issue again, and that's been a big 2 piece from the Republicans in this 3 legislature. So I think until we see a new 4 change in power in Jefferson City, I don't 5 think much will change from a legislature 6 standpoint, because the lady 7 representative, Jones is her name, is that 8 the lady who introduced the bill, Cynthia 9 Jones? Is that her name? I'm not sure. 10 MS. SHANE-DILLARD: What bill? 11 MR. McGEE: Emily. 12 MS. SHANE-DILLARD: Cunningham. 13 MR. McGEE: Yeah, Cunningham. 14 I'm sorry, Jane Cunningham. I don't know 15 where I got Cynthia Jones. Jane 16 Cunningham, she is actually is a ranking 17 member on the Education Committee. So I 18 mean, you've got people who in a way -- in 19 my opinion are thinking they're helping 20 education are actually deterring it because 21 listening to a lot of people talking about 22 this issue, you know, somebody was talking 23 about how we should come here to challenge 24 students' views. 25 And I agree with that wholeheartedly, 50 1 and I think to challenge a student's views 2 is a good thing, because if you challenge 3 someone's views, it gets them to question 4 what they believe or either, you know, you 5 change their view to something that makes 6 sense with more evidence and facts, or you 7 reaffirm their views, because that's the 8 issue, either reaffirm it or you don't. 9 I mean, that's the issue that, you 10 know, students should go through this 11 metamorphosis with their religions, with 12 their moral beliefs, what they have been 13 taught since day one as a child. Is it 14 right or is it wrong, or should they come 15 up with their own beliefs? And I think you 16 get both perspectives. 17 I've actually had professors -- I 18 actually think a biased professor is a good 19 thing. I have had professors who are both 20 liberals and conservatives, and I have had 21 the professors who just teach and try to be 22 neutral. The neutral professors want you 23 to regurgitate information. I don't think 24 I pay all the this money to regurgitate 25 information. I can go back to a community 51 1 college to regurgitate information. 2 I mean, I think that your professor 3 should challenge your beliefs at the core 4 and get you to really think about what you 5 say, what you're doing and your actions. 6 And if professors aren't doing that, then I 7 think that's a failure to your students. 8 MS. SHANE-DILLARD: I'm Pamela 9 Shane-Dillard. I'd like to kind of go back 10 to what Bob Schubert said about challenging 11 the legislators. I firmly agree with Bob. 12 I rather disagree what was just said in 13 looking at Republican and Democrat, because 14 we're talking about initiatives right now 15 and the intellectual diversity, social 16 justice that applies to many folks, and 17 it's a grass roots type thing. 18 So I'm agreeing with Bob and I'm 19 agreeing with what Kristi said earlier. I 20 don't think that we should be waiting. 21 We're talking about, regardless of who's in 22 power now and regardless who has been in 23 power in the past, when we as citizens and 24 those that were looking for our rights and 25 whatever those were as so-called 52 1 minorities, as women, LGB, whatever it is, 2 it takes grass roots. 3 We cannot afford as people that are 4 looking to social justice and as people 5 that are looking to do the right thing 6 despite legislators wait. This is 7 potentially going to be on the vote in 8 November. 9 The Missouri Civil Rights Initiative, 10 the Emily Brooker, it's going to as we know 11 this world, and I haven't known the 12 academic world very long, but as I 13 understand it and as I process it in my pea 14 brain, this is going to totally knock out 15 all kinds of populations, and in terms of 16 being in upper education or post secondary 17 education. 18 So if I had to vote today, I would say 19 let's move on it and do -- let's challenge 20 the legislators. We can't afford to wait 21 and hope that the House changes or whatever 22 changes in the state of Missouri, because 23 really the entirety of the state and a vast 24 proportion of our population, regardless of 25 what demographic you fall into, is in 53 1 danger with these two pieces of 2 legislation. 3 MS. BERKSHIRE: Beth Berkshire 4 again. Going back to my original point, 5 which is that Emily has been made a proxy 6 for the legislative will right now, I 7 actually agree quite a bit with the 8 comments that you made. Taking into 9 account -- because I hear you as a student 10 and I hear you as somebody who is not 11 helpless. 12 And I think that the more -- the more 13 examples of that student body that we can 14 put into the forefront, then the less 15 likely a legislative bill is going to work, 16 because it only works if students remain in 17 the forefront imagined as literally empty 18 sacks, victims that can be filled with what 19 was the professor whims. 20 So I just want to applaud you for the 21 work you're doing, not just as a student, 22 but also as somebody who is involved in the 23 student government. Former Senate in my 24 undergraduate days, so I know how important 25 it is. 54 1 The other piece of it is that I still 2 think that there is something going on 3 within the system where I have noticed 4 over -- now, I've been teaching at UMKC for 5 over a decade, which just shocks me, and I 6 have noticed before this legislation even 7 came into being a decrease in the amount of 8 intellectual exchange between colleagues. 9 Now, that's a scary thing to say out 10 loud, but partly because I am -- I'm a 11 radical thinker as a gender theorist. I 12 think women's studies should be rethought, 13 maybe even -- whatever, because I think 14 men's lives are equally gendered. 15 Anyway -- that's on the book. 16 But what I'm saying is that I think 17 that this is -- we're really talking about 18 life. We're talking about humanity here. 19 We're not just talking about Republican or 20 Democrat. 21 But it's really fascinating how 22 humanity can get legislated or what counts 23 as legitimate knowledge can get legislated. 24 And so I have seen a tendency for 25 professors to not go out on a limb and put 55 1 their thought out there before this even 2 began. And I think that this is just the 3 icing on the cake in some folks' case, and 4 I think that the student in that sense is 5 a -- victim isn't the right word, but they 6 are not the recipient of what they're 7 paying for when that happens. I'll get off 8 my soapbox. 9 MR. McANINCH: I think we do 10 need to get this dialog to the state 11 legislature. It's a difficult thing to do. 12 I mean, one of my colleagues that 13 testified at the last round said it was 14 basically organizing your whole day around 15 when the state legislature -- and they give 16 you two minutes, because they weren't going 17 to give you a whole lot of time, but they 18 had to at least acknowledge that you were 19 there. 20 So it's tough. There are lobbying 21 days as well. But it's important to 22 remember that even though the Republicans 23 are in the ascendancy at least now in both 24 houses and the Governor's office. The 25 Republicans are not monolithic, and not all 56 1 of them are being supporters of Jane 2 Cunningham. 3 It may have been that this was a near 4 miss the last time it got out of the state 5 Senate but was not voted favorably on by 6 the whole Senate because of a lack of a 7 priority for many Republicans. In other 8 words, they didn't necessarily strongly 9 disagree, but it just was not a high 10 priority for them. Nevertheless, many 11 republicans can be swayed on this. 12 MS. KIRONDE: Catherine Kironde, 13 Multi-cultural Student Affairs. I think 14 with I think it was Pamela or Kristi that 15 talked about grassroots work. One of the 16 things that helped with the affirmative 17 action bill was rewording it to actually 18 say, what exactly is this bill talking 19 about? It's talking about protecting 20 rights, but is that really what it's doing? 21 For lay people it might help to see 22 what the bill is actually talking about, so 23 rewording it to state what it's really 24 saying. 25 MS. NANDAN: Monica. What the 57 1 intent is. To add to that -- go ahead. 2 You had your hand up. 3 MR. STRAIT: Michael Strait. 4 I'm Director of Academic Assessment here at 5 the university, a new person. I've only 6 been here since September, so I don't have 7 a lot of history with this, but I have not 8 been able to untangle from myself, and 9 maybe they can't be untangled, the need of 10 it a political response and an 11 academic/intellectual response. I guess we 12 need to have both. And maybe they can't be 13 separated. 14 The one place where I have been able 15 to see, and I'm trying to think more in 16 action terms than just expressing an 17 opinion, is that by -- if we can create 18 enough different forums, not just in 19 individual faculty members' classrooms, but 20 forums on campus or in the system where we 21 aren't getting -- expressing our opinions, 22 asking everyone to express their opinions, 23 students, faculty, staff, the like, then 24 there's the potential of influencing public 25 opinion through that, even if we cannot 58 1 directly influence legislation with the 2 legislature. 3 So I want to suggest that we think 4 along those lines of a plan to make this as 5 public an issue as possible, but in ways 6 that fit with who we are as -- who and what 7 we are as a university and our teaching and 8 learning mission. 9 MR. McANINCH: The question to 10 ask is, how well does the public understand 11 what we do in universities? 12 MR. STRAIT: That's part of the 13 problem. 14 MR. McGEE: I think also if you 15 look to the issue, if you're talking about 16 lobbying legislators, I know that the 17 students here pay a fee -- it's like 15, 20 18 cents a credit card -- to ASUM, which is 19 our official lobbying group in Jefferson 20 City. 21 And so the students get face time with 22 the legislators, whatever, three, four days 23 a week. So if they make that a legislative 24 priority when they go talk to the 25 legislators, that in my mind we already 59 1 paid for it; why not use it? 2 MR. SCHUBERT: What about the 3 possibility of bringing one or two 4 legislators here for a similar-type 5 discussion as this, especially maybe the 6 opponent of the bill, one proponent and one 7 opponent or something like that? 8 MS. SHANE-DILLARD: Write it 9 down. 10 MS. NANDAN: Monica. We have 11 done this grassroot organizing through my 12 social work classes where -- a very good 13 tool that we don't use, the student body. 14 The student body and all of us belong to 15 professions or organizations and pay state 16 membership, right, whether it's history 17 society, physics society, social work 18 society. And those are our lobbying arms 19 and they need to coalesce. And that's 20 where the political power is. 21 The history and philosophy and social 22 work bodies at a state level need to speak 23 with one voice to the legislators. Also 24 they'll hear the same song from all 25 different disciplines. So that's -- and 60 1 the student body is so important. 2 There was a bill that was passed -- I 3 think it's in 2004 -- the social work title 4 protection, and not many people lobbied 5 against it. A handful of social work 6 students from across the state lobbied for 7 it, and it went forward. It was just a 8 handful of students, 200, 300 students, 9 emailed the legislators. There were not 10 that many naysayers fortunately, and that 11 got it through. 12 MS. RYUJIN: Kristi Ryujin. 13 Sorry I keep talking. I just -- one of the 14 tools that people across the country at 15 universities have been utilizing, and we as 16 an institution just instituted last year 17 but probably need to do more with this, I 18 am in charge of it, so I better do a better 19 job with it, was they have this freshman 20 book program across the country where 21 faculty and freshmen students are engaged 22 in reading a text that challenges sort of 23 ideas that are commonly held. 24 So dominant discourses sort of thrown 25 up, and freshman students, as they enter, 61 1 are encouraged to understand that their 2 education is going to be all about this. 3 In their -- in many of the websites, if you 4 were to look at this program specifically, 5 they state it very directly that this is 6 the goal, is to let students know that this 7 is part of going to college. 8 And I think we -- and I say "we" and I 9 mean me -- I need to do a better job and 10 when we start our ANS 100 social justice 11 reading next fall, which we've already 12 chosen the text and we have the keynote 13 speaker, who is the author, of course, for 14 the book, but when we do this, we need to 15 articulate why we're doing it very clearly, 16 because I think then it sets a tone for the 17 entire institution. 18 But I think there's more than just 19 having one book and one author. But how 20 many ways can we say this is about, you 21 know -- we had Chris Kovach on a panel on 22 immigration recently. That was a very 23 painful situation for me to have to hear 24 his perspective. 25 But he was there, right? He 62 1 presented, and he challenged some of the -- 2 it was actually great because then I got to 3 thinking about okay, so that's how they're 4 making that argument. If you know the 5 enemy's argument better than they do, then 6 you can win. 7 MS. SHANE-DILLARD: Absolutely. 8 MS. RYUJIN: So it's not 9 comforting for me to have someone like that 10 on the panel, but we'll do it to make sense 11 of it. And it does provide us another 12 opportunity to learn how to fight against 13 sort of those philosophies. 14 But one of the things I always think, 15 as institutions we often sort of don't 16 think about whatever everybody else is 17 doing, but there's some language out there 18 that's clearly been written about what 19 schools are supposed to be doing, what 20 we're supposed to be training students to 21 do, and how as freshmen we can start 22 helping students anticipate what that might 23 look like. 24 That doesn't mean a one-sided 25 education. It's not as if faculty at UMKC 63 1 or anyone else or anywhere else have one 2 great liberal perspective. You have very 3 conservative faculty at UMKC, just as you 4 have maybe some radical. But most of the 5 faculty fall somewhere in between, which 6 isn't really radical. 7 So, but I think that we should try to 8 see what else is out there, think about how 9 we can start crafting language that is in 10 every part of our institution that says we 11 are going to further intellectual 12 understanding. 13 The whole point isn't just to keep it 14 stagnant, right? We're supposed to be 15 pushing it. Where can we go? What else 16 can be thought of? What else has been 17 missed? Students should enter with that 18 understanding, but I do think that's one 19 thing that I can do, is just sort of figure 20 how we make that very clear in what we're 21 doing in the social justice reading and 22 lecturing series. 23 MS. BERKSHIRE: What is the 24 book? 25 MS. RYUJIN: Sister Helen 64 1 Prejean's The Death of Innocents. So it's 2 looking at the death penalty. 3 MR. BLACK: Bill Black. One of 4 the things that you should take into 5 account is regardless of what happens in 6 Missouri, the Supreme Court composition has 7 changed. If you've read the Seattle 8 decision or even newspaper accounts about 9 the Seattle decision, affirmative action is 10 highly likely to be struck down by the 11 Supreme Court in the next major case. 12 And you should be ready for what 13 that's going to mean. It's going to mean a 14 different dynamic than has broken down 15 simply at the Missouri level, because there 16 will be less of a competitive disadvantage. 17 I was at the University of Texas when 18 the Court of Appeals decision came down 19 there striking down affirmative action. 20 And precisely because only that circuit was 21 subject to that ruling, the University of 22 Texas was at a particularly large 23 disadvantage in recruiting African-American 24 students, and it just got absolutely killed 25 in the law school, for example, for the 65 1 first couple of years after the decision. 2 As I say, you'll have a different 3 dynamic if the Missouri law passes before 4 the Supreme Court comes back and strikes 5 down affirmative action in education, but 6 that is -- if you read the Seattle 7 decision, it's essentially impossible for 8 affirmative action to survive under that 9 logic. 10 And there's no reason to believe that 11 there's going to be any near-term change in 12 the composition of the court that would be 13 favorable on any of that. So I would begin 14 my planning out. 15 Chris is one of my colleagues. I hope 16 that we would treat him as, if you have 17 this view as an opponent, and not use the 18 word enemy. 19 MR. FELLING: I haven't said 20 anything yet, Adam Felling, ANS undergrad. 21 I guess the opinion that I can share, I 22 came from a very small town north of here 23 by St. Joseph, and in my graduating class 24 there was one African-American family, one 25 South Korean family, and the rest were 66 1 pretty much WASP's. And so diversity was 2 never really an issue at the school I went 3 to. 4 And so I know personally that when my 5 friends and the people in my class went on 6 to college, they were immediately 7 challenged with things that they had never 8 been challenged with before. Some of them 9 were more comfortable. I guess there's 10 probably more diversity here than a lot of 11 the schools that they're at now. 12 And whether you believe in it or not, 13 whether you're racist or not, whether you 14 believe that it's okay to be gay, for 15 instance, or not, you're going to be 16 surrounded by it. 17 And I think that with the ANS 100 18 class especially, like you have to learn 19 how to deal with that. Whether you're okay 20 with it doesn't make it go away. And to be 21 in a college environment, you're going to 22 have to at least be tolerant of it. 23 And so for a teacher to say that it's 24 wrong for you to believe that it's okay to 25 be racist doesn't really matter because it 67 1 doesn't matter if you believe it or not. 2 You're still here. And unless you want to 3 go somewhere where you're not going to be 4 surrounded by that, then you have to deal 5 with it. 6 So it's -- if you're going to be 7 graded or if you're going to fail a class 8 because you're not okay with the LGBT 9 community, for instance, then I think it's 10 wrong for you to suffer academically, but 11 to explore and to challenge those ideas of 12 why you think it's wrong or how you can 13 build a tolerance to it even though you 14 think it's wrong is important. 15 And if this bill, because it's trying 16 to protect you from failing because of your 17 beliefs, will eliminate the possibility of 18 understanding those beliefs, understanding 19 the diversity, it's completely failing in 20 what it's trying to do. 21 MS. BERKSHIRE: You know, I'll 22 share an anecdote. I gave an openly 23 debated final on Monday night, and it was 24 really quite fascinating. My final 25 question to the -- it's a family life cycle 68 1 class, which is psychology course upper 2 level, and we had talked quite a bit about 3 race in the class. 4 And I had sort of noticed a tendency 5 for students to shy away from white, being 6 white. And it certainly was missing from 7 the textbook, but there was lots of 8 information about other kinds of diversity. 9 And in fact sort of monolithic idea of 10 white was an undertone throughout the 11 textbook, and it's an undertone in many 12 textbooks. And what's fascinating is that, 13 so this final question that they had to 14 debate was, I asked them explicitly, I want 15 you to talk about white. And I had one -- 16 they broke -- let's a large group they 17 broke into four groups. 18 I had one group who had so many 19 strategies in place to not say the word out 20 loud. I mean, it was really quite 21 stunning. It was an education for me 22 because I had never put my students to that 23 in such an intense kind of one-time thing. 24 This is connected to what you were 25 saying by the way. But anyway, I put a 69 1 caveat in my question, which was that if 2 you happen to identify or are identified as 3 white, it doesn't give you the right to 4 answer this question with any more veracity 5 than anybody else in the group. 6 And what was fascinating is that they 7 still wouldn't say it. And one group I 8 actually said one, two, three, say white, 9 and it worked. It actually broke the -- 10 broke the block. 11 But, you know, what's so interesting 12 is that if we can facilitate, if we can 13 learn strategies, and I think that's part 14 of what the diversity training program is 15 about. I think that we need to do more of 16 that on a regular basis, because I was 17 literally flying on an ocean with my sail 18 up hoping that it would go. And it turned 19 out to be an amazing experience and 20 wonderful conversations. 21 But you know, it takes having 22 conversations like this and hearing from 23 students and hearing about what they want 24 to have happen in the classroom. So I just 25 think that opportunities to continue this. 70 1 You know, FaCET has been about trying to 2 get professors to come together and talk 3 about their teaching. And, you know, it 4 would be really cool if there were some 5 student-driven exercises that would be to 6 talk about the classroom. Do you know? 7 Because there's a student body 8 government, but I'm not so sure that they 9 get to spend much time talking about what 10 goes on in the classroom. And I would love 11 to hear more feedback. We heard some 12 today, and I so appreciate it, and I want 13 more. 14 MS. SHANE-DILLARD: Okay. Thank 15 you for that. It's 1:30. What I would ask 16 everyone to do, please, is make sure that 17 you submit your one -- at least your one 18 suggestion on this size piece of paper. 19 This has been a wonderful discussion. 20 I'll make sure that Dr. Dilks gets 21 everything, and he's going to make sure 22 that you get everything. 23 I truly enjoyed everybody. Thank you 24 very much. See you next time. 25 (Meeting adjourned.) 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25