Should public universities allow individuals to see what they are teaching? Of course they should, and many states have laws mandating syllabus transparency.
But when Daniel Buck asked UCLA for its education school syllabi, he was told no. In today’s Martin Center article, he looks at the reasons given for the refusal and finds them wanting.
Buck writes:
The University of California, Los Angeles, . . . declined to fulfill this basic public records request. In a letter justifying their decision, they wrote that the public interest in not disclosing the requested documents “outweighs the public interest served by disclosure.” The letter explains that doing so:
“would devalue a State asset, undercut the ability to attract and retain faculty, lecturers and instructors, chill academic inquiry, intrude on academic freedom, and impermissibly interfere with the University’s ability to carry out its statutory duties. Further, the public interest in knowing about the University’s business is already served by the publicly available course directory.”
It sounds like UCLA is hiding behind these weak excuses to avoid the criticism that administrators know its ed school curriculum would draw.
As Buck notes:
Academic freedom doesn’t mean freedom from either criticism or transparency. The public has every right to question conclusions, test scholarship, and interrogate educational decisions. Correspondingly, the university has structures such as tenure to defend and protect against the retaliation that may come from scrutiny. More simply, an administrative spine can run cover for professors and refuse the cow to public pressure.
Many education schools do little or nothing to prepare future teachers to succeed in classrooms but instead try to turn teachers into progressive activists. Bravo to Buck for his investigation into this and calling out UCLA for its refusal to cooperate.