Political maneuvering

How politicians and policy makers choose to express liberal and conservative ideologies often confuses me. I am most often befuddled by conservative or libertarian views that assert states' rights and anti-big government perspectives yet devise governmental control mechanisms to support their political agenda. Such is the case with state initiatives seeking to influence public universities - two in Florida, one allowing students to video professors' lectures and discussions and another controlling international initiatives, and the other is Idaho where "social justice" initiatives are being targeted.

The Florida case has met with less acrimony thus far but could result in a chilling effect in classrooms as professors monitor their comments to keep from being recorded and then reported out of context for their liberal positions. Not only would professors be impacted but other students in classrooms would feel less free to ask questions or make comments if they knew they could be recorded by classmates. This chilling effect became more ominous when Florida passed a post tenure-review law and Governor DeSantis signed the bill declaring, "It's all about trying to make these institutions more in line with what the state's priorities are, and quite frankly of the priorities of parents throughout the state of Florida." DeSantis intent to take greater control is clearly outlined in draft legislation.

”In the other example, the University of Idaho's President spoke out publicly against state funding being held up because Republican lawmakers' objected to Boise State's "social justice" agenda. The targeting of Boise State resulted from the claim of a white male student that he was "degraded" for being white.

These two cases are clearly micromanaging higher education's purpose and programs in ways that look a lot like ideological control by a state entity.

While these interventions are underway, private institutions in South Carolina are suing the state for having denied funding to them. South Carolina has previously sought to protect religious freedom by disallowing state funding of religious colleges and universities, a provision that "protects religious freedom and protects taxpayers from being forced to fund instruction in religious beliefs to which they do not subscribe." The law suit seeks to reverse the prohibition on state funding to private institutions but what will these same institutions do if accepting state funding also resulted in strings attached to that funding? Strings attached such as allowing students to video classroom lectures/discussions or prohibitions of certain topics or views?