A bill that could abolish tenure and threaten academic freedom at state college campuses has been introduced in the Oklahoma Legislature.

State Rep. Corey Holland, a Republican from Marlow, has introduced House Bill 2598, an approximately four-page measure that, if approved, would put professors and administrative staff on an annual contract system. The bill states that “ . . . on or after July 1, 2013, no administrative or instructional personnel may be awarded tenure, a multiyear contract, or a continuing contract . . .” College presidents would be exempted from the measure.

The bill also states:

Tenure, a multiyear contract, or a continuing contract in effect prior to July 1, 2013, may not be renewed, extended, or readopted. Administrative and instructional personnel without an annual contract are eligible to be awarded an annual contract pursuant to paragraph 3 of this subsection . . .

The language about those who currently hold tenure is somewhat nebulous. Would a post-tenure performance appraisal be construed as a renewal of tenure? Could the word “extended” in the above language mean tenure will expire for every current tenure holder?

Under the system created by the bill, an annual contract “shall not create an expectancy of employment beyond the term of the contract. Nonrenewal of a contract shall not entitle the employee to an explanation or statement of the reasons for nonrenewal or to a hearing . . . “

In other words, a professor could be essentially fired (i.e., no contract renewal) for an unstated reason.

It’s unclear right now how much support the bill will receive or whether it will even make it through the committee process. The academic community is certain to oppose the measure.

The measure can be seen as part of a small yet vocal national movement to abolish tenure, the cornerstone of academic freedom. In their rhetoric, opponents of tenure often try to stereotype professors as lazy and unproductive, but such labeling ignores reality.

Let’s be clear: Tenure is a system that supports academic free speech in the classroom. Tenured professors CAN be fired for just cause. Tenure merely guarantees due process and an open dialogue between administrators and faculty.

Academic free speech is as vitally important to freedom and democracy as free markets. It ensures critical inquiry will not be politicized and that professors can present ideas in classrooms that might not have current cultural support. An academic medical researcher, for example, might be searching for a cancer cure while working on what some might view as a controversial cloning project. A political science professor might want to argue an affirmative stance for Marxism to generate discussion. A history professor might want to teach American slave narratives that challenge standard views about the nation’s Civil War.

Meanwhile, the mythical depiction of the lazy, tenured professor with a cushy job for life just isn’t true. Here’s the truth at most public colleges: Professors spend years in college past their undergraduate years writing and researching. They often accrue massive amounts of student loan debt and end up in highly sought-after and competitive jobs that don’t necessarily pay that well because they have a calling to teach and study. After five years or so of performance reviews and student evaluations, professors go through an intensive tenure process that includes rigorous review by fellow professors and administrators. If they make it through the process they are normally given a small raise and move up the ranks from assistant to associate professor. (Remember, many of these professors are still paying off student loan debt.) In five more years, they will go through a similar process to become a full professor and are then granted another raise. It can take an academic sixteen or more years from the start of graduate school to become a full professor. Full professors are then subject to varying levels of constant performance reviews and student evaluations through their entire career. That’s the reality.

It’s one of the most rigorous employee review processes in the public or private sector, and the vast majority of professors—though the process can produce a great deal of anxiety—accept that such an intensive review is ultimately a vital component of higher education. They are proud to be part of such a demanding review system.

Abolishing tenure would end this rigorous review process and politicized the hiring and firing process. Professors would be afraid to express unpopular ideas in the classroom in fear of losing their jobs. Our state universities would then become dumb-downed institutions operated on autocratic principles dictated by ever-changing political realities.

The next session of the Oklahoma Legislature begins Feb. 6.

At the end of William Faulkner’s brilliant 1936 novel Absalom, Absalom!, Quentin Compson is asked why he hates the South, which leads to one of the most famous last paragraphs in American literature:

“I don’t hate it,” Quentin said, quickly, at once, immediately; “I don’t hate it,” he said. I don’t hate it, he thought, panting in the cold air, the iron New England dark: I don’t. I don’t! I don’t hate it! I don’t hate it!

Of course, as readers we know it’s quite clear Quentin’s repeated protests leave open the interpretation that he does, in fact, hate the South.

I was reminded of the novel’s famous paragraph after reading through an introduced bill by state Sen. Josh Brecheen’s that “does not propose that schools teach creationism or intelligent design” and “shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine or set of religious beliefs.” The bill also notes, “This act is modeled on a Louisiana law which has not been invalidated by the highest court of the State of Louisiana or a federal district court. “ Does not. Shall not. Has not.

Just like Compson, Brecheen leaves the reader with an open interpretation: Why the repetition? Why refer to a law “that has not been invalidated” as a framework for a new law that is definitely not about something—intelligent design--that actually HAS been judicially invalidated. This is not about promoting intelligent design or creationism. It’s not. It’s not. It’s not! It’s not!

What Senate Bill 1742 proposes is this: The State Board of Education can help teachers promote “critical thinking, logical analysis, open and objective discussion of scientific theories including, but not limited to, evolution, the origin of life, global warming, and human cloning.” In other words, it’s absolutely not, and I mean absolutely absolutely not, about introducing discredited ideas such as intelligent design in the classroom as an alternative to the theory of evolution, which is one of the bedrocks of biological science.

Again, the bill is absolutely absolutely not about challenging the theory of evolution even though Brecheen, a Republican, is on record arguing, “Ideologues teaching evolution as undisputed fact are not teaching truth.”

Those ideologues and purveyors of lies include high school teachers, college professors and the vast majority of scientists in the world.

Still, the bill is not (it’s not! it’s not!) a backdoor attempt to attack the theory of evolution or promote creationism.

I don’t oppose bills like this one. I really don’t. I don’t! I don’t! I don’t!

I’ve been trying to respond to each of The Oklahoman editorials, published on NewsOK.com, that criticize that Occupy Wall Street movement to highlight the sheer inanity and cluelessness of perhaps the most conservative newspaper in the country.

The newspaper, which is now owned by Colorado billionaire Philip Anschutz, doesn’t “get” the Occupy movement, and it has undoubtedly spent thousands of words proving it. But what the newspaper lacks in basic cultural understanding it makes up for in ad hominem, demeaning attacks on people who basically want a decent economic future for themselves.

The newspaper’s lastest inane offering (“Occupy protests to the contrary, bigger isn’t always badder,” Jan. 17, 2012) essentially argues that monopoly companies such as Walmart are good for the country, and it’s only a “naive and sometimes stupid strain of populism,” i.e. the Occupy Movement, that would dare criticize them.

Here’s the telling paragraph in the commentary:

A local gadfly, speaking at an Occupy OKC rally late last year, evoked this idiocy in urging his audience to shop only at small, locally owned businesses “and stay out of big box stores that feed the 1 percent and wreck local economies.”

Note the words “gadfly” and “idiocy” and the previously cited “stupid strain of populism,” which shows the editorial must rely on name-calling and demeaning language in an effort to make a point, which is obviously strained. In the end, the editorial’s argument is archaic in its simplicity: Walmart good, protesters bad. The words in italic are a mimic of the editorial’s ending, which goes “Two stores good, 400 better.”

The criticism of Walmart has a long history, and I won’t spend much time rehashing the complaints, which center around the monopoly’s impact on communities around the country. The basic narrative, given by the company’s detractors, is that Walmart pushes out independent businesses in communities and pays extremely low wages. A good source of information for this type of criticism, which has cultural validity and is remarkable for its contemporary importance, is Walmart Watch. Here’s an example of the arguments presented on the site:

From small businesses to major chains, all grocery and retail establishments that compete with Walmart are impacted by the company. Competitors are often forced to lower wages and standards. By using a model based on low-wages, high-efficiency transportation, and imported goods, Walmart has a history of destroying once thriving downtowns across rural America.

That the local editorial didn’t refer significantly to the huge, historical body of Walmart criticism is fairly typical because the fallacy of omission is one of the newspaper’s best weapons in protecting the wealthiest 1 percent from any critique. But, once again, the newspaper misses the most salient point of the Occupy Movement, which is 99 percent of the country is essentially enslaved politically and economically by the top 1 percent. That’s an argument that’s been made here and across the country, and not just among Occupy protesters. The great wealth disparity in this country threatens democracy, and, paradoxically, capitalism itself.

So, given what the movement is really about, here’s some information unlikely to be found on The Oklahoman editorial page when it criticizes the “idiocy” of the “naïve” protesters and their “stupid strain of populism.” According to Wikipedia, the three children of Sam Walton, the founder of Walmart, using 2011 numbers, are worth the following: Alice Walton, $20.9 billion, S. Robson Walton, $21 billion and Jim Walton, $21.3 billion.

As of 2010, Anschutz, the new owner of The Oklahoman, is worth $7 billion, according to the site.