Welcome to an unsettling chapter in the struggle between science and politics. It’s not a page out of dystopian literature, but the reality that many educators and students are grappling with in Ohio. Keely Fisher, a bright-eyed Ph.D. student at Ohio State University, sought to gain a deep understanding of climate change under the guidance of eminent professors. But instead, she’s left wondering if she still has a place in her chosen institution.
The villain of this piece is not the university but the Ohio General Assembly. They’ve proposed a sweeping bill that could impact the very core of higher education, labeling climate policy as a “controversial belief or policy.” Moreover, it dictates that faculty members cannot guide students toward any social, political, or religious viewpoint, instead urging students to form their own conclusions.
It’s worth questioning if this bill if enacted, would pressure Keely and other like-minded students into seeking greener pastures elsewhere. Is this legislation not hampering the academic institutions’ ability to attract and retain talented individuals, given the uncertainty it brings about discussing climate change? What’s more, it might have entirely deterred Keely from enrolling had it been in place before.
It’s crucial to note that this bill reflects a nationwide trend among Republican-majority states attempting to curb what they perceive as liberal politics taking higher education by storm. This sentiment poses a serious threat to the quality and accuracy of education regarding one of the greatest challenges facing our environment and economy – climate change.
As Katharine Hayhoe, a renowned climate change communicator, and atmospheric scientist, aptly says, “You can say gravity isn’t true, but if you step off the cliff, you’re going down.” Spreading misinformation can lead to disastrous consequences, making the purveyors of such disinformation morally responsible for any adverse outcomes.
According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, there are 35 similar proposals nationwide intending to limit the use of diversity programs at academic institutions. Only Florida and North Dakota have seen these bills become laws, but none include provisions about curriculum handling climate policies as the Ohio bill does.
Ironically named “intellectual diversity” by Sen. Jerry Cirino, a lead sponsor of the bill, it does more to limit diversity than promote it. The bill has sparked fierce opposition from the general public and those associated with Ohio colleges, with silent protests symbolizing the potential loss of academic freedom in classrooms.
Despite the Ohio State’s Board of Trustees expressing its opposition, citing the bill’s potential threat to academic rigor, the bill’s supporters remain unswayed. Amendments have been made to clarify that the legislation targets endorsements of policy responses to climate change rather than discussions around climate change itself.
However, this does little to address concerns like those expressed by Robyn Wilson, a professor at Ohio State’s School of Environment and Natural Resources. She fears the bill could have a long-term negative impact on the quality of individuals willing to study or work in Ohio. Moreover, she questions how educators can properly cover the science, politics, and social implications of climate change if the bill passes.
Ph.D. student Keely Fisher’s appeal to lawmakers reminds us of the broader implications of such legislation. The alienation of environmentalists and those concerned about climate change does a disservice to some of the state’s greatest assets: it’s academic institutions.
As young progressives, it’s essential for us to raise our voices and protect our educational institutions from being politically hijacked. We must ensure that our places of learning remain arenas for fostering critical thinking, not echo chambers for political convenience.
