In an article published a week ago or so, the website Campus Reform had an article on the Qualm letter to regents to help determine how bad the free speech problem is on South Dakota’s campuses:
“As you are aware from your recent hearing, the past legislative session witnessed an extensive debate over HB 1073 and SB 198, bills which were designed to promote free speech and debate on South Dakota’s college campuses,” Qualm wrote. “I am strongly committed to the goals underlying these pieces of legislation and I fully expect, based on conversations with my fellow legislators, that similar and related bills will be filed again during the next legislative session and that they will have the support of the governor’s office.”
Qualm attached a list of 19 questions to the BOR, all designed to help members in the South Dakota House of Representatives create legislation fostering free speech and debate on South Dakota college campuses.
Some of the questions reviewed by Campus Reform involve Qualm inquiring the BOR on instances in which free speech rights may have been violated on the state’s college campuses.
Just two days after the BOR announced the proposed policy changes, South Dakota state Sen. Jim Stalzer and State Rep. Sue Peterson, both Republicans, penned another set of questions to the regents.
The two legislators say that they are supportive of the BOR’s efforts to support free speech and intellectual diversity, but state that they “are also concerned with reports that university faculties are already organizing against any attempts to promote intellectual diversity.”
Stalzer and Peterson ask many questions similar to those posed by Qualm, but also press the BOR on so-called “diversity hires” and ask why colleges cannot make “intellectual diversity hires.”
When liberal ideology is directly compared to conservative principles, liberalism generally loses. Which is why they try to ban free speech from campus.
Students deserve to make a choice from all ideas. Not just the narrow ideology their professors choose.