AAUP, student orgs speak out against IU administration, Trump higher education compact – Indiana Daily Student

Report on Academic Freedom and Institutional Challenges at Indiana University in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction

This report details recent events at Indiana University (IU) where faculty, students, and staff have raised significant concerns regarding actions by the university administration and external political pressures. These events are analyzed through the lens of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

2.0 Threats to Quality Education and Academic Freedom (SDG 4)

Recent developments pose a direct challenge to the principles of inclusive and equitable quality education (SDG 4) by undermining academic freedom and institutional autonomy.

2.1 The Trump Compact for Academic Excellence

The Indiana University chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has formally denounced the Trump Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education. Key concerns include:

• The compact’s demand for “institutional neutrality” is viewed as a mandate for adherence to a specific ideology.
• It threatens to restrict federal funding for institutions that do not comply, thereby compromising academic freedom.
• The AAUP chapter asserts that the compact would effectively end free speech and academic inquiry on college campuses.

In response, the Bloomington Faculty Council passed a resolution on November 4 urging the university to reject the compact and any similar agreement that conditions federal funding on ideology or compromises institutional autonomy.

2.2 Legislative and Administrative Actions Impacting Educational Integrity

State legislation and subsequent university actions have further impacted the quality and diversity of education offered at IU.

1. Indiana Law SEA 202: This law permits students to report professors for perceived failures in fostering intellectual diversity. A lecturer in the IU School of Social Work was removed from her “Diversity, Human Rights and Social Justice” class following a complaint under this law.
2. Degree Program Reductions: To comply with a new state law requiring minimum graduate numbers, IU announced the elimination, suspension, or merger of nearly 250 degree programs. This consolidation limits educational diversity and specialized knowledge, conflicting with the aims of SDG 4.

3.0 Setbacks for Reduced Inequalities (SDG 10) and Inclusive Institutions (SDG 16)

Actions taken by the university administration have been criticized for undermining efforts to reduce inequalities (SDG 10) and build inclusive institutions (SDG 16).

3.1 Dismantling of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Initiatives

A significant concern is the perceived erosion of institutional commitment to diversity and equity.

• On May 22, IU closed the Office of the Vice President for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.
• The AAUP executive committee denounced the “termination and erasure of diversity, equity and inclusion programs currently occurring at Indiana University.”
• These actions are seen as a regression from the goal of ensuring equal opportunity and reducing systemic inequalities within the educational system.

4.0 Challenges to Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions (SDG 16)

Events surrounding student activism and institutional governance have raised questions about the university’s commitment to fostering peaceful assembly, ensuring justice, and maintaining accountable institutions.

4.1 Suppression of Student Activism and Free Expression

The university’s response to student activism has been a focal point of criticism.

• The Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC) was issued a cease and desist order in August without a formal explanation.
• During a pro-Palestinian encampment, Indiana State Police and the IU Police Department arrested 57 individuals, including students.
• These actions are viewed as a crackdown on freedom of speech and assembly, which are fundamental components of just and inclusive institutions as outlined in SDG 16.

4.2 Institutional Accountability and Governance

Concerns have been raised regarding the university’s financial transparency and governance structure, with calls for greater alignment with principles of social justice.

• Documents confirmed that an entity within IU held bonds issued by Israel in 2022 and 2023, prompting calls for divestment from student groups like the IU Divestment Coalition.
• In response to administrative actions, a coalition of faculty, students, and staff developed “The People’s 2030 Plan,” advocating for a university mission centered on dignity, diversity, and collective input rather than a “low labor cost, high margin business” model. This aligns with SDG 16’s emphasis on participatory and representative decision-making.

5.0 Conclusion: A Call for Upholding Sustainable Development Principles

The collective actions and policies at Indiana University represent a critical juncture. Stakeholders have questioned the administration’s commitment to core principles that align with the Sustainable Development Goals. The central questions posed by student representatives reflect the broader concerns:

• Will the university leadership defend academic freedom and protect faculty and students?
• Can the institution be trusted to uphold the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion?
• Will the university community act to ensure its future is aligned with principles of quality education (SDG 4), reduced inequalities (SDG 10), and the promotion of peace, justice, and strong institutions (SDG 16)?

Analysis of the Article in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • The article discusses threats to the quality and nature of higher education. This includes the proposed “Trump Compact for Academic Excellence,” which could compromise academic freedom, and the elimination of nearly 250 degree programs at Indiana University (IU). These actions directly impact the accessibility, diversity, and quality of education provided.
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The closure of IU’s Office of the Vice President for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion is a significant issue highlighted in the article. This action, along with the removal of a lecturer from a “Diversity, Human Rights and Social Justice” class, points to a rollback of institutional efforts to address inequality and promote an inclusive environment for all students and faculty, irrespective of their background.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article extensively covers threats to fundamental freedoms and the accountability of institutions. The denouncement of the Trump Compact, which is said to “end academic freedom and free speech,” the implementation of Indiana law SEA 202, the suspension of the Palestine Solidarity Committee, and the arrest of 57 protesters all relate to the protection of fundamental freedoms (Target 16.10) and the need for accountable and inclusive institutions (Target 16.7).
4. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • The concerns raised by the Indiana Graduate Workers Coalition and the creation of “The People’s 2030 Plan” address the university as a workplace. The article quotes a representative who states IU should not be managed like a “low labor cost, high margin business” and that workers “deserve dignity.” This connects to the goal of protecting labor rights and promoting secure working environments for all, including academic and graduate workers.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 4 (Quality Education):
   • Target 4.7: “By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for… human rights… promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity…” The removal of a lecturer from a “Diversity, Human Rights and Social Justice” class and the closure of the DEI office directly undermine the university’s ability to provide education that promotes these values.
   • Target 4.3: “By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality… tertiary education, including university.” The elimination of “almost 250 degree programs” can be seen as a reduction in access to diverse and quality tertiary education options for students.
2. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all…” The article highlights the “termination and erasure of diversity, equity and inclusion programs,” which is a direct contradiction to the goal of promoting inclusion within the university.
   • Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory… policies and practices…” The Indiana law SEA 202, which allows students to report professors for not fostering “intellectual diversity” and led to a lecturer’s removal for discussing white supremacy, can be interpreted as a policy that stifles discussions on inequality and potentially creates unequal outcomes for faculty teaching these subjects.
3. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.10: “Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.” The core conflict in the article revolves around threats to academic freedom and free speech, as exemplified by the Trump Compact, the suspension of the Palestine Solidarity Committee, and the arrests of protesters.
   • Target 16.7: “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.” The formation of “The People’s 2030 Plan” by faculty, students, and staff is a direct response to a perceived lack of inclusive and participatory decision-making by the IU administration, which has made unilateral decisions like closing the DEI office.
4. Under SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth):
   • Target 8.8: “Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers…” The Indiana Graduate Workers Coalition’s stance against treating the university as a “low labor cost, high margin business” and their demand for dignity and support directly aligns with protecting the labor rights and working environment of academic employees.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions several specific events and figures that can serve as indicators to measure progress (or regression) towards the identified targets:

• Indicator for SDG 4 & 10: The closure of the Office of the Vice President for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion serves as a negative indicator for promoting education on cultural diversity (Target 4.7) and institutional inclusion (Target 10.2).
• Indicator for SDG 4: The number of degree programs eliminated or suspended (“almost 250”) is a quantitative indicator of reduced access to diverse tertiary education (Target 4.3).
• Indicator for SDG 16: The number of student organizations suspended or sanctioned for political expression (the Palestine Solidarity Committee placed on “cease and desist”) is an indicator for the protection of fundamental freedoms (Target 16.10).
• Indicator for SDG 16: The number of individuals arrested during peaceful campus protests (57 people) is a direct measure of the state of freedom of assembly and expression on campus (Target 16.10).
• Indicator for SDG 10 & 16: The existence and application of policies like Indiana’s SEA 202, and the number of faculty members removed from courses as a result (one lecturer mentioned), serve as an indicator of threats to academic freedom and the promotion of equal opportunity in education (Targets 10.3 and 16.10).
• Indicator for SDG 8 & 16: The creation of alternative governance and workplace proposals like “The People’s 2030 Plan” indicates a perceived lack of inclusive decision-making (Target 16.7) and a need to protect labor rights (Target 8.8).

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: idsnews.com