New ‘American Institutions’ requirement at UA raises concerns

Arizona will likely become the first state to add a core education requirement for this study area, according to Arizona Board of Regents Academic Affairs and Educational Attainment Committee Chair Lyndel Manson. Changes include instruction on the founding of the U.S. and “History, the Constitution, American institutions of self-governance and more,” and could go into effect as early as 2023.

Regents began reforming the general education curriculum at the state’s three largest public universities in 2019. According to Manson, the idea was spawned in response to the belief by board members that the public had seen a decline in the ability to civilly disagree.

“And that led to conversations about civil discourse and its place in the running of our country,” Manson said. “So that then led to civics education … and it became apparent that there was a stark lack of civic knowledge in the general populace.”

A task force composed of faculty at the UA has been meeting to discuss how to implement the policy, including possible courses and credit requirements. Dr. Jeremy Vetter, an associate professor of history, has been an active member of the Civics and American Institutions Committee since last spring and noted some of the contention around the policy.

“We’ve been very open to feedback from other faculty across the university because there are a lot of concerns,” Vetter said.

Dr. Anna O’Leary, department head of Mexican American Studies and a member of the Faculty Senate, expressed her concern at a Nov. 7 Faculty Senate meeting. O’Leary later elaborated, questioning why this particular subject was being emphasized.

“Okay, maybe we want them to be more civically engaged, voting, running for office or whatever,” O’Leary previously told the Arizona Daily Star. “But then the research that I found shows that there is no connection. There’s no evidence that with more civic education, you’re going to be more civically engaged.”

While noting the importance of teaching U.S. governance, O’Leary said some language of the policy seemed reminiscent of The Federalist Society, a national group of conservatives and libertarians focusing on constitutional originalism, and opposing “orthodox liberal ideology,” according to its website.

“If this was approved and if I were to propose a class to look at how many treaties that the federal government had with American Indian populations that were violated,” O’Leary said, “would that be something that we could teach and still fall into this category of civic education? Could I propose a class looking at all the Supreme Court rulings based on the arrests of Mexican-Americans, such as . . . the exception to the Fourth Amendment, which allows racial profiling? Could I do that?”

According to Manson, the intent is to teach students about American institutions and the reasons behind the founders’ decisions.

“They managed through civil discourse, compromise and cooperation to put together a set of founding documents that have pretty well stood the test of time,” Manson said. “And I think if we can get back to a basic knowledge of why we did what we did, and the ability to discuss things that we disagree on without denigrating the other person, life becomes better.”

Vetter said the intent is not to exclude any particular ideology, and that the committee is emphasizing faculty freedom and flexibility over the curriculum.

“I still see that as pretty open as far as what exactly you cover and the differing perspectives about its interpretation,” Vetter said. “It doesn’t necessarily, for example, prescribe that you have to teach or indoctrinate students into originalism, you know, in the Constitution.”

Concern over government overreach and politicizing of education is not new for Arizona. In 2010, a law targeting the Tucson Unified School District effectively banned the teaching of Mexican-American studies. While struck down as unconstitutional in 2017, the ban showcased the ability and willingness of politicians to dictate educational policies.

Also, billionaires Charles and David Koch, along with others, have invested millions in establishing “freedom schools” across the country, including at Arizona universities. These programs have been criticized for allowing political donors to shape academic policy, mainly the promotion of conservative ideologies. The current 2022 state budget includes $1.25 million in funding for the UA’s Center for the Philosophy of Freedom.

“I think it’s silly to ignore that there’s an ideological context to all this, that there’s fights over what should be taught in universities,” Vetter said. “And a lot of this kind of ‘get back to civics’ stuff is probably being championed by people who are more on the political right. But I don’t think it needs to be done that way.”

Much of O’Leary’s unease relates to this type of overreach, revolving around the motives for this policy, and whether it’s politically charged. This includes questions of whether topics will allow the freedom to be covered diversely, or if they’ll be steered towards the promotion of “American exceptionalism” or the belief that the United States has intrinsic superiority.

“You know, we always can point out to when those constitutional rights for the populations that we study have been violated many, many times,” O’Leary said.

When asked about potential concerns, Manson said that she doesn’t view it as partisan or political but as an answer to the general need for knowledgeable citizens and the ability for civil discourse.

“Do I personally think America is exceptional? Yes, I do, in many, many ways,” Manson said. “We have rights and freedoms in this country that are prescribed by some of those very documents we discussed earlier that people across the world don’t. And I think it’s important that our citizenry understands what we have and how to utilize it.”

The committee will continue collecting feedback from faculty before presenting details about the new curriculum to the ABOR Academic Affairs and Educational Attainment Committee on Jan. 26.