Academic Freedom Under Fire at Kansas: Will the AAUP Be Consistent?
By David French
When it comes to threatening core liberty interests, activists can be nothing if not industrious — sometimes using even well-intentioned laws as sledgehammers against disfavored views and disfavored speakers.
Witness the emerging use of state open-records laws to harass dissenting professors. The tactics are simple: Take advantage of the fact that most major research universities are public institutions to engage in wide-ranging fishing expeditions of individual scholars’ e-mail accounts and other records — including of personal e-mails — in the hopes of finding something, anything to shame or embarrass the scholar into silence. The threat to academic freedom is obvious: Scholars often engage colleagues, interested members of the public, and others to test ideas and theories before they’re ready for prime time, and the thought that every written thought can now be splashed across the Internet will lead to timidity and self-censorship. High-quality research depends on a free-wheeling exchange of ideas. Compelled disclosure of all communications will inevitably suppress academic discourse.
This is particularly true for minority viewpoints on campus. Or for those engaged in controversial speech. If you think conservative professors have enough challenges on campus, imagine a world where they navigate the minefield of hiring committees only to enter a world where their every email — no matter how tenuously it relates to their work as a “public official” — is read by a gang of hostile, angry third parties who are ready to twist every utterance to shame and humiliate them. How many people would want to work in that environment? How many people would find that environment conducive to scholarship and research?
My decision to fight for academic freedom
By Art Hall
For more than 25 years, I have dedicated myself to teaching economics and generating original economic research focused on public policy issues. Like all scholars nationwide, I have operated under the bedrock principle of academic freedom.
Academic freedom is the unfettered ability to research and teach, and a natural extension of rights protected under the First Amendment — without the fear of interference or persecution.
Dr. Art HallSince 2004, I have had the esteemed privilege of directing the Center for Applied Economics at the KU School of Business. (I also teach economics classes.) The Center’s purpose is to offer economic analysis and economic education relevant for policy makers, community leaders, and other interested citizens. This purpose often involves providing legislative testimony and conducting public policy research on subjects that may be controversial but are nonetheless important.
A student group at KU that disagreed with testimony I delivered on a specific piece of legislation used the Kansas Open Records Act (KORA) to request copies of my private e-mail correspondence for the past 10 years. This is a misuse of open-records law, a type of misuse that seems to be spreading nationwide. The policy intent of open-records laws is to aid the transparency of government operations and deliberations, not to suppress debate and free academic inquiry.
The students’ misuse of KORA explains why I recently took legal action against KU; not out of hostility or secrecy, but to take a stand for the principle of academic freedom. While my attorney and I believe that the private records the students asked for are exempt from release under certain provisions of the KORA, KU planned to comply with the students’ request. My legal action will allow a judge to adjudicate the different interpretations of KU’s legal obligations under the KORA.
If my private, personal communications are released, I will not be the only one whose academic freedom is jeopardized. The issue is much larger, and could ultimately jeopardize the academic freedom of any scholar at a public institution of higher education.
My views about academic freedom in this matter are consistent with those advocated by the nation’s premier organization for higher education faculty: the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has stated that a crucial component of academic freedom is the ability of faculty to engage with a variety of experts as they pursue their research. With the odd exception of the Kansas chapter (which reportedly provided funding to the student group seeking my private documents), the AAUP has consistently stood by professors and researchers in shielding their private correspondence from over-reaching records requests, acknowledging the threat that this kind of activity poses to academic freedom.
Both the Kansas Board of Regents and the University of Kansas Faculty Council strongly support the principle of academic freedom. In a unanimously passed resolution, the Faculty Council wrote, “academic freedom … is essential to the mission of the University: to educate students and to engage in scholarly inquiry.”
Furthermore, there is an emerging body of legal precedent that allows researchers the latitude they require to correspond broadly with experts with diverse viewpoints without fearing their thoughts will be misconstrued, published and used against them in order to silence them.
The Supreme Court has written that “scholarship cannot flourish in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust.” In the Sweezy decision, the majority wrote, “merely to summon a witness and compel him, against his will, to disclose the nature of his past expressions and associations is a measure of governmental interference in [academic] matters.”
In this landmark academic freedom case, the Court ultimately ruled that “these are rights which are safeguarded by the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment.”
For anyone questioning why I would take legal action against KU, let me be clear. I am taking legal action for my students, for the University, for Kansas, and to preserve the integrity of all forms of academic and scholarly research for my peers.
When I decided to take legal action, I knew it would create controversy and suspicion. But my commitment to academic freedom compelled me to do it.
Art Hall directs the Center for Applied Economics at the KU School of Business, where he is also a lecturer in economics.
A request for correspondence belonging to a Kansas University faculty member is a blatant attempt to squelch academic freedom and free speech.
When conservative groups seek records of correspondence of liberal university professors, the American Association of University Professors defends its withholding based on academic freedom. That is, until the subject of a records request is a Kansas University professor who believes in free markets and receives funding from the Left’s favorite target, Charles and David Koch. Then, the local chapter of AAUP flips its position. It will even contribute money against the ideal of academic freedom.
In 2011 Republicans in Wisconsin requested the correspondence of a professor who was critical of American Legislative Exchange Council, a free market advocacy group. AAUP argued against releasing the records, writing:
We believe that disclosure of Professor Cronon’s e-mail correspondence will inevitably produce a chilling effect not only on Professor Cronon’s academic freedom but also on the academic freedom of his faculty colleagues and of faculty members throughout the University of Wisconsin system, with potentially deleterious effects on the quality of research and teaching. We urge you to do what you can to resist complying with this outrageous request. (source here)
In defense of a professor at the University of Virginia whose correspondence was sought by a conservative group, AAUP also defended academic freedom:
The AAUP and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) filed a joint amicus brief in support of UVA and Professor Mann, urging that “in evaluating disclosure under FOIA, the public’s right to know must be balanced against the significant risk of chilling academic freedom that FOIA requests may pose.” ATI’s request, the brief stated, “strikes at the heart of academic freedom and debate.” … The AAUPUCS brief argued, however, that “in the FOIA context, the public’s right to information is not absolute and courts can and do employ a balancing test to weigh the interest of the public’s right to know against the equally important interests of academic freedom.” (source here)
When a student group requested correspondence of a Kansas University professor, the local chapter of AAUP flipped its stance regarding academic freedom. It even contributed money towards the costs of the records request.
The political motivation of AAUP and the student group that filed the request cannot be overlooked. The primary subject of the request for correspondence is Dr. Arthur P. Hall. He is a lecturer in the KU School of Business and Director of its Center for Applied Economics. He believes in free markets and economic freedom. He won an award for his teaching of MBA students this year. He testifies to the Kansas Legislature against rent-seeking and crony capitalism. Hall and the Center also receive funding from the Fred and Mary Koch Foundation.
It’s the latter that probably stirs up suspicion and opposition. It doesn’t matter that around the world we’ve found that free markets and economic freedom create better living conditions for everyone. It doesn’t matter that disclosure of e-mail correspondence “will inevitably produce a chilling effect” on academic freedom. As long as a political attack on Koch Industries can be advanced, anything is fair game. Principles no longer apply.
A political attack
The request for Hall’s correspondence was made by Schuyler Kraus, who is president of the student group Students for a Sustainable Future. Members of SSF have ties to groups like Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and PowerShift. SSF advertises that members will have networking opportunities with these groups and “Forecast the Future, Kansas Interfaith Power & Light, etc.” These groups have mounted political attacks on Charles and David Koch for years.
SFF also listed as an advisor Manny Abarca, who is Recycling Operations Coordinator for KU as well as Community Affairs Liaison for Emanuel Cleaver, the Democratic Congressman from Kansas City, Missouri. Prior to that he worked for U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill.
On August 3, the Kansas chapter of AAUP contributed $1,000 to SFF. Click for larger version.When KU said the request for Hall’s records would cost $1,800, SFF was able to raise that amount quickly, aided by $1,000 from the Kansas chapter of AAUP. That’s the local chapter of the national group that opposes release of the correspondence of liberal professors. (For a student group, SSF seems to have access to funds, offering to pay students $12.50 per hour for political work.)
Students for a Sustainable Future Facebook post. Click for larger version.Why would the Kansas chapter of AAUP attack academic freedom in the case of Hall’s correspondence, while at the national level AAUP defends academic freedom? As Hall wrote in an op-ed, “With the odd exception of the Kansas chapter (which reportedly provided funding to the student group seeking my private documents), the AAUP has consistently stood by professors and researchers in shielding their private correspondence from over-reaching records requests, acknowledging the threat that this kind of activity poses to academic freedom.”
This episode shows that the Left views “academic freedom” much like it does “free speech.” The Left will defend free speech and academic freedom at any cost — as long as they agree with what is being said and taught. The Left can’t tolerate the marketplace of ideas that Charles and David Koch support, even when it’s just one faculty member of a large university school.
That, quite simply, is the reason for the requests made to KU for Hall’s correspondence. By harassing certain faculty and the university, the Left thinks it can shut down speech. While promoting free speech and open scientific and economic inquiry, the Left mounts attacks like this on those who don’t conform to the liberal orthodoxy present at most universities.
In a message to fellow School of Business faculty, Hall explained that he has nothing to hide regarding his correspondence. He expressed concern, however, that political opponents might “cherry-pick language from hundreds of emails to weave a story.” That sword cuts both ways. The university should not acquiesce quietly to this attempt to silence one of its faculty. It should not set a precedent that conservatives might justifiably cite when requesting correspondence of liberal faculty members.
As in the past, a survey finds Kansans are uninformed or misinformed on the level of school spending, and also on the direction of its change.
This month Kansas Policy Institute produced a survey asking registered voters in Kansas questions on the topic of school spending. The first two questions measured the level of knowledge of Kansas school spending.
From Kansas Policy Institute public opinion survey, November 2014.From Kansas Policy Institute public opinion survey, November 2014.Question 1 asked: “How much state funding do you think Kansas school districts currently receive per pupil each year from JUST the state of Kansas?” As can be seen in the nearby table and chart, the most frequent response was less than $4,000 per year. 63 percent — nearly two-thirds — thought funding from the state was less than $5,000 per year.
The correct answer is that for the most recent school year (2013 — 2014) Kansas state funding per student was $7,088. This is estimated to rise to $8,604 for the current school year.
(The source of data for past school years is Kansas State Department of Education. Estimates for the current school year were obtained from Dale Dennis, who is Deputy Commissioner, Fiscal and Administrative Services.)
In the last school year base state aid per pupil was $3,838. How, then, does the state spend $7,088 per pupil? The answer is that various weightings are applied for things like bilingual education and at-risk pupils.
From Kansas Policy Institute public opinion survey, November 2014.From Kansas Policy Institute public opinion survey, November 2014.Question 2 asked about funding from all sources: “How much funding per pupil do you think Kansas school districts currently receive from ALL taxpayer sources per year, including State, Federal and Local taxpayers? The most common answer was less than $7,000. Two-thirds answered less than $10,000.
The correct answer is per-pupil spending from all sources for the 2013 — 2014 school year was $12,960. The estimate for the current school year is $13,268.
From Kansas Policy Institute public opinion survey, November 2014.From Kansas Policy Institute public opinion survey, November 2014.Question 3 asked about the change in school funding: “Over the last 4 years, how much do you think total per-pupil funding has changed?” 65 percent — nearly two-thirds — thought spending had fallen over this period. Only 14 percent thought spending had risen, and only seven percent by more than five percent. That last category holds the correct answer, which is 8.02 percent.
The findings of these three questions, which are that people are generally uninformed as to the level of school spending, are not able produce estimates that are in the same ballpark of actual values, and are wrong on the direction of change of spending, are not surprising. Past versions of similar surveys in Kansas have produced similar results. It’s not just a Kansas problem, as similar findings are found across the nation.
Commenting on the survey, KPI president Dave Trabert remarked:
It is impossible for citizens to develop informed opinions on education funding and state budget issues without accurate information. We continue to see that citizens who are accurately informed on K-12 funding have significantly different opinions than those who believe school funding is much lower than reality.” The number of Kansans who can correctly answer this question remains disturbingly low, but knowing how frequently funding is misrepresented by education officials and special interests, it’s not surprising. Instead of trying to low-ball school funding to justify increased aid, the focus should be on improving outcomes.
Kansans are providing record funding levels that exceed adjustments for enrollment and inflation over the last ten years, but outcomes on independent national assessments are relatively unchanged. It will always cost a lot of money to provide public education but the data shows that it’s how the money is spent that matters — not how much. “Just spend more” is about funding institutions. The focus needs to shift to getting more of the record-setting funding into classrooms where it will best help students.
Legislators and citizens cannot make good decisions about the challenges facing the state without good information. This survey confirms what we’ve known previously: Kansans are being misinformed and that cannot lead to good decision making. We encourage legislators and others to honestly examine facts without political bias. No finger pointing … no attempts to score political points … and no shading the facts … just civil discussion of the issues and facts.
Of interest is that when people make major — or even minor — purchases, many will expend considerable effort researching the possibilities. Spending their own money, automobile purchasers want to get a good deal on a car that meets their preferences. That’s human nature.
But every two years, taxpayers spend on each student the amount that will buy a nice new car. In four years, taxpayers spend enough on each student to buy a new luxury car. The average taxpayer doesn’t pay that much tax for schools. But collectively, we all do.
The lack of knowledge of government spending reminds me of a passage from Free to Choose: A Personal Statement, written by Rose and Milton Friedman. It explains why government spending is wasteful, how it leads to corruption, how it often does not benefit the people it was intended, and how the pressure for more spending is always present. Spending on public schools falls in either category III — spending someone else’s money on yourself (or your children) — or category IV — spending someone else’s money on someone else. It’s no wonder it hasn’t worked very well.
Here’s a passage from Free to Choose.
A simple classification of spending shows why that process leads to undesirable results. When you spend, you may spend your own money or someone else’s; and you may spend for the benefit of yourself or someone else. Combining these two pairs of alternatives gives four possibilities summarized in the following simple table:
Category I in the table refers to your spending your own money on yourself. You shop in a supermarket, for example. You clearly have a strong incentive both to economize and to get as much value as you can for each dollar you do spend.
Category II refers to your spending your own money on someone else. You shop for Christmas or birthday presents. You have the same incentive to economize as in Category I but not the same incentive to get full value for your money, at least as judged by the tastes of the recipient. You will, of course, want to get something the recipient will like — provided that it also makes the right impression and does not take too much time and effort. (If, indeed, your main objective were to enable the recipient to get as much value as possible per dollar, you would give him cash, converting your Category II spending to Category I spending by him.)
Category III refers to your spending someone else’s money on yourself — lunching on an expense account, for instance. You have no strong incentive to keep down the cost of the lunch, but you do have a strong incentive to get your money’s worth.
Category IV refers to your spending someone else’s money on still another person. You are paying for someone else’s lunch out of an expense account. You have little incentive either to economize or to try to get your guest the lunch that he will value most highly. However, if you are having lunch with him, so that the lunch is a mixture of Category III and Category IV, you do have a strong incentive to satisfy your own tastes at the sacrifice of his, if necessary.
All welfare programs fall into either Category III — for example, Social Security which involves cash payments that the recipient is free to spend as he may wish; or Category IV — for example, public housing; except that even Category IV programs share one feature of Category III, namely, that the bureaucrats administering the program partake of the lunch; and all Category III programs have bureaucrats among their recipients.
In our opinion these characteristics of welfare spending are the main source of their defects.
Legislators vote to spend someone else’s money. The voters who elect the legislators are in one sense voting to spend their own money on themselves, but not in the direct sense of Category I spending. The connection between the taxes any individual pays and the spending he votes for is exceedingly loose. In practice, voters, like legislators, are inclined to regard someone else as paying for the programs the legislator votes for directly and the voter votes for indirectly. Bureaucrats who administer the programs are also spending someone else’s money. Little wonder that the amount spent explodes.
The bureaucrats spend someone else’s money on someone else. Only human kindness, not the much stronger and more dependable spur of self-interest, assures that they will spend the money in the way most beneficial to the recipients. Hence the wastefulness and ineffectiveness of the spending.
But that is not all. The lure of getting someone else’s money is strong. Many, including the bureaucrats administering the programs, will try to get it for themselves rather than have it go to someone else. The temptation to engage in corruption, to cheat, is strong and will not always be resisted or frustrated. People who resist the temptation to cheat will use legitimate means to direct the money to themselves. They will lobby for legislation favorable to themselves, for rules from which they can benefit. The bureaucrats administering the programs will press for better pay and perquisites for themselves — an outcome that larger programs will facilitate.
The attempt by people to divert government expenditures to themselves has two consequences that may not be obvious. First, it explains why so many programs tend to benefit middle- and upper-income groups rather than the poor for whom they are supposedly intended. The poor tend to lack not only the skills valued in the market, but also the skills required to be successful in the political scramble for funds. Indeed, their disadvantage in the political market is likely to be greater than in the economic. Once well-meaning reformers who may have helped to get a welfare measure enacted have gone on to their next reform, the poor are left to fend for themselves and they will almost always he overpowered by the groups that have already demonstrated a greater capacity to take advantage of available opportunities.
The second consequence is that the net gain to the recipients of the transfer will be less than the total amount transferred. If $100 of somebody else’s money is up for grabs, it pays to spend up to $100 of your own money to get it. The costs incurred to lobby legislators and regulatory authorities, for contributions to political campaigns, and for myriad other items are a pure waste — harming the taxpayer who pays and benefiting no one. They must be subtracted from the gross transfer to get the net gain — and may, of course, at times exceed the gross transfer, leaving a net loss, not gain.
These consequences of subsidy seeking also help to explain the pressure for more and more spending, more and more programs. The initial measures fail to achieve the objectives of the well-meaning reformers who sponsored them. They conclude that not enough has been done and seek additional programs. They gain as allies both people who envision careers as bureaucrats administering the programs and people who believe that they can tap the money to be spent.
Category IV spending tends also to corrupt the people involved. All such programs put some people in a position to decide what is good for other people. The effect is to instill in the one group a feeling of almost God-like power; in the other, a feeling of childlike dependence. The capacity of the beneficiaries for independence, for making their own decisions, atrophies through disuse. In addition to the waste of money, in addition to the failure to achieve the intended objectives, the end result is to rot the moral fabric that holds a decent society together.
Another by-product of Category III or IV spending has the same effect. Voluntary gifts aside, you can spend someone else’s money only by taking it away as government does. The use of force is therefore at the very heart of the welfare state — a bad means that tends to corrupt the good ends. That is also the reason why the welfare state threatens our freedom so seriously.
What has been the trend in Kansas school employment and pupil-teacher ratio?
“More students, but fewer teachers — Since 2009, Kansas schools have gained more than 19,000 students but have 665 fewer teachers.” (Quality at Risk: Impact of Education Cuts, Kansas Center for Economic Growth)
This is typical of the sentiment in Kansas — that there are fewer teachers since Sam Brownback became governor, and that class sizes have exploded.
Here’s the data, fresh from Kansas State Department of Education. Can you show me where there has been a reduction in teachers, or a rise in the ratio of pupils to teachers? (Class size is not the same as pupil-teacher ratio. But if there are proportionally more teachers than students, we have to wonder why class sizes are growing — if, in fact, they are.)
The story is not the same in each school district. So I’ve created an interactive visualization that lets you examine the employment levels and ratios in Kansas school districts. Click here to open the visualization in a new window.
Kansas School Enrollment and EmploymentKansas School EmploymentKansas School Pupil-Teacher Ratio
For the fourth consecutive year, the number of teachers in Kansas public schools has risen faster than enrollment, leading to declining pupil-teacher ratios.
Listening to Kansas school officials and legislators — not to mention politicians campaigning for office — you’d think that Kansas schools had very few teachers left, and that students were struggling in huge classes. But statistics from Kansas State Department of Education show that school employment has rebounded, both in terms of absolute numbers of teachers and certified employees, and the ratios of pupils to these employees.
The story is not the same in every district. But considering the entire state, two trends emerge. For the past four years, the number of teachers employed in Kansas public schools has risen. Since the number of teachers has risen proportionally faster than enrollment, the pupil-teacher ratio has fallen.
The trend for certified employees is a year behind that of teachers, but the number of certified employees has also risen, and the ratio to pupils has mostly fallen.
(In the chart, “fiscal year” refers to the calendar year in which the school year ends. So fiscal year 2015 refers to the 2015-15 school year.)
Public school advocates complain that class sizes in Kansas schools are rising. I understand that the ratio of teachers to pupils is not the same statistic as class size. They measure different things. But if Kansas schools, considered as a whole, have rising teacher and certified employment levels that leads to decreasing pupil to teacher ratios, and at the same time class sizes are increasing — we have to wonder about the management of schools.
I’ve created an interactive visualization that lets you examine the employment levels and ratios in Kansas school districts. Click here to open the visualization in a new window. Data is from Kansas State Department of Education. Visualization created by myself using Tableau Public.
Kansas school enrollment and employment data. Click for larger version.
There’s new data available from Kansas State Department of Education on school spending. I’ve gathered the data, adjusted it for the consumer price index, and now present it in this interactive visualization.
Click here to open the visualization in a new window.
Kansas school spending, per pupilKansas school spending, per pupil
In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Dave Trabert of Kansas Policy Institute talks about KPI’s recent policy brief “A Five-Year Budget Plan for the State of Kansas: How to balance the budget and have healthy ending balances without tax increases or service reductions.” View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 64, broadcast November 2, 2014.
Following, from Dr. Walt Chappell, a discussion of Kansas school spending. Chappell served on the Kansas State Board of Education from 2009 to 2012.
The truth is, Governor Brownback and most Kansas legislators have worked hard to get more money into K-12 classrooms and have increased funding to educate our children each of the last four years. Claims that funds for schools have been cut, supposedly causing test scores to drop, schools to close, class sizes to go up and college tuition to increase are totally false.
Yes, there was a large reduction of $419 million to fund Kansas schools in 2009 when Mark Parkinson was Governor. The 2008 Great Recession hit Americans hard and state tax revenues dropped like a rock. Then, in 2011, the Federal government stopped sending emergency TARP funds to all states.
The Kansas Legislature made up the $219 million in Federal cuts by raising the amount spent from state tax revenues by $223 million. Brownback signed that budget bill.
