Indiana University Refuses to Renew Instructor over a Graphic
Jessica Adams was an instructor in the School of Social Work at Indiana University at Bloomington (IU). She taught a graduate course called “Diversity, Human Rights, and Social Justice.” In that course, she shared with students a graphic associating the slogan “Make America Great Again” with white supremacy.
As recounted by Zoe Reed in the Indiana Daily Student, one of the students in Ms. Adams class complained to Senator Jim Banks. Somehow (the avenues of communication are not clear in the reporting) that resulted in a complaint being brought against Ms. Adams. It appears that the graphic Ms. Adams shared with students put her in violation of a new law in Indiana that is supposed to encourage intellectual and cultural diversity. Ms. Adams was removed from her class for six weeks and placed under supervision upon her return. An organization representing IU students, faculty and staff, the University Alliance for Racial Justice, jumped in to support Ms. Adams.
Ms Adams was placed on an “improvement plan.” IU cited “time management and course organization” as grounds for discipline. At the end of the school year, IU announced that Ms. Adams’ contract would not be renewed. I’m not saying that the proffered grounds (time management and course organization) were pretextual, but if I were coming up with pretextual grounds, those would do very nicely: vague, non-falsifiable, seemingly substantive, but hopelessly subjective. Ms. Adams says that she will appeal the decision and may bring legal action.
According to Vimal Patel, writing for The New York Times, Ms. Adams had been using the graphic without incident since 2020. I would guess that her time management and course organization have also remained relatively constant since that time.
These are perilous times for instructors, especially those who are not protected by tenure. The shocking detail in the Times’ account is that the complaint against Ms. Adams was brought not by the student who was offended by the graphic but by the Dean of the School of Social Work who only learned of it second or third hand. In addition, additional reporting byOdafe Ohgen at The Grio provides an additional wrinkle. The Dean who brought the complaint also served as a “content expert” during the investigation into Ms. Adams, suggesting a significant conflict of interest.
One would expect the Dean’s role in such matters to be facilitating dialogue. Students who are made uncomfortable by materials presented in class have a right to complain about that discomfort, but it should not be assumed that no student should ever be made uncomfortable in a graduate course on Diversity, Human Rights, and Social Justice. Education ought to challenge students to identify and question their priors. If an instructor challenges students in ways that are not productive, that is grounds for a conversation, and then things might escalate from there if the instructor persists in teaching methods that are not pedagogically sound. Of course, we don’t have the full record here, but instructors ought not to be dismissed because of one complaint about inappropriate materials after years of using those materials without incident, especially as the graphic at issue was 100% relevant to the subject-matter of the course.
We have been down this path before. A pattern is emerging. Most university instructors in the humanities lean left. Some students lean right and take offense at the ideological bias in course materials or assignments or grading, sometimes with justification. Overall, however, it is worth noting that, while there is strong evidence that faculty lean left, there is no strong evidence that they punish conservative students with bad grades. The real problem that needs to be addressed is the concern that conservative students may feel their speech is chilled in a hostile learning environment.
Laws like the one weaponized against Ms. Adams are not an ideal solution. Rather than availing themselves of university procedures for complaints, the students invite the use of political power to compel university administrations to act against instructors, usually vulnerable instructors. It looks like IU’s administration, facing the specter of state-mandated compliance review, corrupted its internal processes in order to placate a U.S. senator’s office. There may be grounds justifying IU’s refusal to renew Ms. Adams contract, but none have been provided. Citing the need for confidentiality with respect to personnel matters, the university declines to explain its reasoning throughout. Not a great look when your school motto is lux et veritas.
We are heading towards a world in which no student is forced to confront challenging ideas or ways of thinking that make them uncomfortable. Things are going to get pretty boring in American classrooms as institutional risk-aversion in the face of political pressure leads university administrators to protect their institutions and their own job security. Our children will attend university so that they can enjoy a space where they can passionately agree about the things that are already safe and settled.