A federal lawsuit filed Tuesday challenges a contentious new Indiana law that seeks to push speech and course content in college classrooms toward 鈥渋ntellectual diversity.鈥�

The litigation lodged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Indiana asserts that violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The measure was adopted by the General Assembly and signed into law by Gov. Eric Holcomb in March.

The law requires all Indiana public colleges and universities institute policies that chill the speech of or compel speech from faculty members, a news release alleged.

The suit was filed on behalf of two professors at Purdue University Fort Wayne. Steven A. Carr is a professor of communication and the director of the Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies. David G. Schuster is an associate professor in the history department.

The Purdue University is the named defendant because the state institution is mandated to enforce the allegedly unconstitutional provisions of the law.

鈥淎lthough Professors Carr and Schuster both already seek to foster a culture of free inquiry in their classrooms, this does not mean that they believe it is appropriate to provide equal time or attention to all lines of questioning,鈥� the lawsuit said. 鈥淭hey exercise their judgment and academic freedom to determine when further inquiry on a subject is no longer desirable or appropriate, and they have no way of knowing whether this type of in-the-moment-decision-making will subject them to discipline or other employment consequences.鈥�

Professors 鈥榝earful鈥� of the law鈥檚 penalties

The law in question states professors must be disciplined if they fail to 鈥渇oster a culture of free inquiry, free expression, and intellectual diversity鈥� and 鈥渆xpose students to scholarly works from a variety of political or ideological frameworks.鈥�

Both plaintiffs assert in the lawsuit that they could be 鈥渃ompelled to speak or prohibited from speaking,鈥� in violation of their First Amendment rights, or risk adverse employment actions 鈥� including not being promoted, having their tenure revoked, or facing discipline up to and including termination.

The ACLU of Indiana indicated the professors are concerned the law could require public college and university faculty to give 鈥渄ebunked鈥� theories equal time in their classrooms alongside 鈥渞igorously studied academic analysis.鈥�

The lawsuit provides specific examples of course content of concern to the two professors.

As part of his courses examining United States history in the post-civil war period, Schuster teaches about the 鈥渃ulture wars鈥� surrounding the LGBTQ rights movement in the 1990s, according to the lawsuit.

鈥�(Schuster) is aware that some academics teach about this movement as embodying the rise of a 鈥榟omosexual agenda,鈥� during which, according to them, LGBTQ people were attempting to indoctrinate students and others with ideas about homosexuality,鈥� the complaint said. Schuster does not believe that 鈥渄ivergent perspective鈥� is accurate, however, and instead maintains that teaching such a perspective 鈥渨ould be harmful to his students.鈥�

鈥淗e thus does not believe he should be required to teach this perspective, and while he has in the past invited students to discuss this perspective during office hours, he does not devote class time to it,鈥� the lawsuit continued.

Schuster additionally teaches about slavery and its legacy. The lawsuit claims the professor does not believe he should be required to teach any number of 鈥渄ivergent鈥� scholarly perspectives on that subject, either 鈥� including that slavery 鈥渦ltimately benefited African American people,鈥� which was once a dominant view among academics in that field.

Carr separately teaches about the Holocaust through his work at the Institute.

The lawsuit emphasizes that 鈥渄ivergent perspectives regarding the existence and scope of the Holocaust exist,鈥� ranging from denial that the Holocaust occurred, to 鈥渞evisionist鈥� accounts challenging the scope and causes of the genocide.

鈥淧rofessor Carr would not teach those 鈥榩erspectives,鈥� but the language of the statute would appear to require him to do so,鈥� the complaint reads.

Another example referenced in the lawsuit describes a course recently taught by Carr about the eugenics movement 鈥� including study of legislation involving forced sterilization passed in Indiana in 1907.

鈥淗e does not believe that he should be required to teach, for example, the 鈥榙ivergent鈥� scholarly perspective that racially based forced sterilization could ever be appropriate or even defensible,鈥� the lawsuit said.

The suit seeks to block the 鈥渦nconstitutional鈥� portions of the statute to protect the free speech rights of the two professors before the law is set to take effect on July 1.

鈥淪EA 202 puts Indiana鈥檚 professors in an untenable position. Through vague language and the threat of harsh sanctions, including termination, the law strips professors of the academic freedom that the Supreme Court has long recognized they have the right to exercise,鈥� said ACLU of Indiana attorney Stevie Pactor in a written statement. 鈥淣o professor should have to choose between their employment and their First Amendment rights.鈥�

What鈥檚 in the new law?

, one of this year鈥檚 鈥� was touted by GOP lawmakers as a way to increase 鈥渋ntellectual diversity鈥� in publicly funded college classrooms.

Although faculty and students overwhelmingly contended the proposal would micromanage their institutions and have a 鈥渃hilling effect鈥� on free expression, the governor , saying it 鈥渞equires free inquiry and civil discourse programming for new students, strongly encourages academic freedom and protects faculty to express differing viewpoints from their colleagues and university leadership.鈥�

The law makes changes to the institutions鈥� diversity-oriented positions and their policies for tenure, contract renewals, performance reviews and more. It also establishes new reporting and survey requirements based on 鈥渇ree inquiry, free expression, and intellectual diversity.鈥�

Now, Indiana is additionally one of a handful of states that requires boards of trustees to establish diversity committees on campuses.

Under the new law, those diversity committees must make recommendations promoting recruitment and retention of 鈥渦nderrepresented鈥� students rather than the 鈥渕inority students鈥� specified in current law.

Senate Enrolled Act 202 requires a five-year review process for Hoosier education institutions, as well. Even so, for tenure of faculty members.

The law further requires institutions to establish complaint procedures in which school students and staff can accuse faculty members and contractors of not meeting free-expression criteria. Institutions will have to refer those complaints to human resource professionals and supervisors 鈥渇or consideration in employee reviews and tenure and promotion decisions,鈥� according to the law. In limited circumstances, complaints could be advanced to the Indiana Commission for Higher Education.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Indiana Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Niki Kelly for questions: info@indianacapitalchronicle.com. Follow Indiana Capital Chronicle on and .