"Dear Karl Rove:

What should I teach this semester? . . ."

I imagine wriiting this fictitious letter on the verge of the Florida Senate passing SB 2126, which in effect ties the arms of instructors in Florida post-secondary institutions to teach what they know. The bill targets that professors who "introduce controversial matter[s] into the classroom or coursework," and allows students to sue for learning such things as the endorsement of evolution (and perhaps criticism of the Bush administration?) without providing alternative 'serious academic theories' that may disagree with their own reasoned academic understanding. But there is no definition of what constitutes these alternative theories.

"I believe there are spots in the universities - I call them totalitarian niches - where, in the cover of the classroom dictator, professors are completely in charge of what is taught," said bill sponsor Dennis Baxley (R-Ocala) reported by the Tampa Tribune. Baxley was prasied recently in the Florida Baptist Witness for his "mission," viz., support of Christian values in Florida government. "I'm here for Him [God]," Baxley said. "What I do must glorify and please Him. I see this job as a calling and believe my opportunity to serve here was providentially arranged." I wonder if this mission is about 'freedom' or about partisan inclusion through legislation.

I understand the need to have a fair and open envoronment with which to learn, but is this to say that instructors must teach creationism in the context of biology, or the opinion that the Holocaust did not occur in the context of teaching the history of WWII, or even of teaching the geocentric solar system in the context of physics? The understanding that myself and my colleagues have of our respective disciplines come from years of hard work, by struggling with these ideas, through thinking through positions for and against, and finally coming to an examined conclusion. Am I to replace teaching Mill, and instead teach Limbaugh? Or to replace Locke with Goldwater? Do the government and the people Florida really believe that the way to create a fair and open learning envoronment is through legislation? Once again, Florida believes in 'freedom,' but just selected freedoms and only in selected contexts.

S 256, the "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005" is before the Senate now. And although the title is snappy, the reality of the bill is quite different. This is the second piece of legislation--in as many months the Congress is in session--that attempts to shield those whom run corporations, and punish consumers. This new bill makes it easier for credit card companies, banks, etc., to collect assets after bankruptcy. Recall the other "abuse" legislation passed recently, the "Class Action Fairness Act of 2005." Again, the rhetoric of 'fairness' applies only to corporations.

Consumer protection? How about consolidating the entire Bush doctrine in one bill; let's call it the "Reach-Around for the Corporations and Anal Rape for Consumers Act of 2005."