So many academic fields have become saturated with leftist indoctrination, with professors presenting questionable if not downright ridiculous notions as truth that some states have countered with legislation to prevent them from going into divisive concepts.

This is understandable. Many politicians don’t want their constituents to have to pay for propaganda that’s meant to undermine belief in American traditions. But could such legislation go too far?

That’s the question raised in today’s Martin Center article by writer Erin Shaw.

She writes:

The recent enumeration of divisive concepts clarifies little. Take one example: the bill bans the promotion of the idea that “particular character traits, values, moral or ethical codes, privileges, or beliefs should be ascribed to a race or sex or to an individual because of the individual’s race or sex.” Sure, let’s not unfairly ascribe things to individuals just because of their race or sex. But can we in broad strokes recognize group-level differences in society, such as differences in risk-taking behavior between men and women, and racial differences in religiosity?

Shaw observes that such vague laws could inhibit the discussion of reasonable topics, since faculty members may come to fear backlash from politicians and administrators.

Shaw continues:

Personally, I am both compelled and fatigued by many so-called “divisive” concepts. They add depth to how I understand the world, but their seemingly wholesale embrace by vocal segments of the academy has come at an intellectual cost for all of us. I don’t want divisive concepts eliminated from teaching and research, but I do want them subject to a fair intellectual fight — no rigged scoring from social justice referees, and no sucker punches from policymakers.

In our highly politicized educational system, it’d doubtful that we can ever find a point of balance between actual teaching and pure indoctrination, but we’ll have to keep trying to find one.