Thought
diversity
usually
gets
brought
up
on
this
site
as
a
gag
example
of
the
diversity
that
really
matters.
For
the
sake
of
school
applications
and
scholarships,
that
“thought
diversity”
usually
boils
down
to
“I
grew
up
on
a
farm
which
means
I
think
differently”
or
“Being
a
collector
of
novelty
Labubus
will
prepare
me
to
be
a
more
ethical
prosecutor
in
these
ways.”
But
there
are
occasions
where
our
constitution
for
diverse
points
of
view
is
actually
tested,
like
when
a
Trump
judge
gives
a
Nazi-adjacent
student
an
A
after
submitting
a
paper
on
why
immigrants
should
be
killed
or
when
Amy
Wax
decides
to
invite
a
White
Nationalist
guest
to
her
classroom
again.
While
they
happen
with
relative
frequency,
they
are
generally
one-off
events
that
flow
from
the
quirkiness
of
the
parties
involved.
This
time,
a
“thought
diversity”
requirement
could
force
teachers
in
Indiana
to
change
their
lesson
plans
in
ways
that
aren’t
just
vague,
but
could
include
dangerous
viewpoints.
The
Indiana
Lawyer
has
coverage:
A
federal
judge
has
dismissed
a
lawsuit
filed
by
the
American
Civil
Liberties
Union
on
behalf
of
several
Indiana
professors
against
Indiana
University
and
Purdue
University
over
the
state’s
intellectual
diversity
law,
with
a
lack
of
jurisdiction
cited
as
the
reason
for
the
case’s
dismissal.
…
The
law
states
that
faculty
are
required
to
teach
scholarly
works
“from
a
variety
of
political
or
ideological
frameworks”
within
their
purview
of
instruction…The
professors
raised
concerns
that
the
unclear
language
of
the
law
could
open
coursework
requirements
to
include
potentially
dangerous
viewpoints.
For
context,
teaching
both
sides
—
much
like
taking
the
sunlight
is
the
best
disinfectant
rationale
to
its
logical
ends
—
often
has
the
consequence
of
platforming
fascists:
It’s
a
lesson
Medhi
Hasan
should
have
been
well
aware
of;
here
he
is
just
four
years
later
helping
fascist
talking
points
be
platformed
in
the
spirit
of
open
discussion:
Let’s
take
the
conversation
back
to
the
classroom.
What
would
this
law
require
teachers
to
do?
Counter
each
module
on
the
moral
significance
of
liberté,
égalité,
fraternité
as
they
relate
to
the
Enlightenment
with
an
equally
in-depth
survey
of
Dark
Enlightenment
thinkers
arguing
about
how
exclusionary
ethnostates
that
deploy
slavery
and
rigid
social
stratification
are
the
future
of
humanity?
What
if
the
teachers
are
willing
to
teach
“both
sides”
but
lack
the
conceptual
familiarity
or
background
to
do
so?
Take
the
Dark
Enlightenment
example
from
above;
I
seriously
doubt
that
every
English
or
Philosophy
professor
that
is
brushed
up
on
Kant
and
Voltaire’s
notions
on
“freedom”
are
as
equally
prepared
(or
willing)
to
cover
those
concepts
as
understood
by
Nick
Land
or
Aleksandr
Dugin.
If
they
aren’t
willing,
does
the
law
compel
them
to
do
so?
Now
do
this
rationale
for
every
discipline.
The
case
may
have
been
dismissed
but
the
theory
behind
it,
that
the
law
is
unclear
and
violates
the
First
Amendment,
appears
to
be
very
strong.
Let’s
hope
that
the
next
steps
in
this
case
will
be
successful
—
and
Godspeed
to
whatever
History
professor
will
have
to
add
a
“What
if
Hitler
was
right?”
addendum
to
their
WW2
section
of
the
syllabus
to
keep
things
“diverse.”
For
updates,
keep
your
eye
on
McDonald
v.
Trustees
of
Indiana
University,
Trustees
of
Purdue
University,
1:24-cv-1575.
Federal
Judge
Dismisses
Professors’
Lawsuit
Against
IU,
Purdue
Over
New
Intellectual
Diversity
Law
[The
Indiana
Lawyer]
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.