House Bill 837 (which can be viewed here) seeks to regulate what is taught in public unversities, and even to allow students to sue professors when they think their rights have been infringed upon.
The bill would require several things. One, a student can not be punished for professing beliefs that differ from the professor's. Two, professors are required to teach "serious academic theories" (read: creationism; I'll get to that in a moment). Three, when students believe their beliefs are being singled out for "public ridicule" (read: when the professor forces them to question their beliefs; I'll get to this shortly as well). So, in essence, it says the state gets to dictate university curricula.
Ok, to look at this point-by-point. On the first issue, that of preventing discrimination based on beliefs, that's all well and good, but redundant. One of the two on the committee who opposed the bill, Rep. Eleanor Sobel (D) argued that universities and the Board of Governors in Florida already have policies in place to deal with persecution.
Second, this part about teaching "serious academic theories." I imagine many of you are already thinking this means "creationism" and you would be right. Says Rep. Dennis Baxley (R), who sponsored the bill, regarding a case in which he thought a student should sue:
"Some professors say, 'Evolution is a fact. I don't want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don't like it, there's the door.'"
What this in essence means is that they have to teach what students already believe to be true in order to be able to avoid getting sued.
Third, the "public ridicule" issue. The example the article uses is one where a professor uses the Socratic method to force students to defend their beliefs. This is another example where Rep. Baxley thinks a lawsuit should ensue.
In a terribly ironic statement, Rep. Baxley deflected criticism by saying, "Freedom is a dangerous thing, and you might be exposed to things you don't want to hear." First of all, I find any politician saying "freedom is dangerous" rather disturbing. Second, he obviously misses the contradiction in his second statement. That's the purpose of education: to challenge your beliefs and make you think.
He goes on to rant about professorial "dictatorships" in classrooms, etc. Again, what this comes down to is that people are fighting against having their views of the world challenged. I understand that it can be a scary thing, but I have no respect for people who are so insecure in their views (be it religious, political, whatever) that they refuse to listen to criticism.
