Dangerous Flirtation with Fascism

 A Follow-Up to Our Recent Post on Resisting Right-Wing Attacks on Academic Freedom 

by Jonathan Westover, one of our UVU colleagues

Utah House Bill 261 and the Dangerous Flirtation with Fascism

As an educator committed to advancing justice, equality, and truth, recent political events and legislation have given me grave concern. Utah House Bill 261 is the latest in a string of legislation in many states across the country that dangerously flirt with fascist tendencies to shut down open inquiry and debate. While supporters claim the goal is to reduce controversy and promote unity, the bill's vague language and underlying assumptions threaten core academic values.

Defining Fascism and Its Threats to Education

Scholars generally agree fascism is an extreme nationalist, authoritarian political ideology characterized by forcible suppression of opposition. A key fascist tactic is controlling information flow and censoring ideas that criticize or question the political status quo. Education becomes a prime target, as fascists believe it can shape minds and cultures. Fascist regimes typically purge academia of intellectuals and ideas deemed "un-national" or "subversive", while promoting a more narrow curriculum. This "re-education" aims to foster social, economic, and political ideological loyalty to the state above all else. Independent thought, debate, and critique of social hierarchies are seen as threats.

HB 261's Alignment with Fascist Tactics

From this framework, HB 261 exhibits troubling alignments with fascist approaches to education. While not equivalent to full-blown fascism, policies like this can normalize its underpinnings. Most concerning, the bill's language prohibits concepts connected to "discrimination or different treatment" based on identity-based attributes like race or sex (HB 261). However, it defines such concepts overly broadly and leaves core terms undefined. This creates a chilling effect where educators afraid of risking their career or facing baseless accusations may avoid important discussions on diversity, inequality or historical oppression. By restricting open inquiry into complex social issues, ideological conformity is encouraged over critical thinking.

Promoting an "Ideologically Saturated" Environment

Supporters claim the goal is neutrality, but the bill promotes an "ideologically saturated" environment favoring those who ignore injustices facing marginalized groups. Its assumptions reflect a version of history that frames the U.S. as having achieved full equality, ignoring ongoing structural discrimination. An inclusive curriculum embracing multiple perspectives leads to a richer understanding of both successes and failures in our ongoing pursuit of justice and belonging for all. Ignoring key issues does no favors to "unity." By considering how concepts like white privilege still shape society, we can work to remedy inequities, not dismiss them.

The Importance of Academic Freedom

Intellectual freedom and open debate are crucial to the discovery of truth, progress, and a just society, and this is all threatened under encroaching authoritarianism. Educators should feel empowered, not threatened, to grapple with societal problems. While controversy exists, restricting certain discussions risks conformity, not solutions. A democratic polity requires recognizing perspectives beyond one's own experience.

Mitigating Threats to Academic Freedom

To curb legislation endangering open debate, several steps must be taken: (1) lobbying lawmakers through reasoned perspective-sharing; (2) maintaining respectful but firm stances defending core principles; (3) collaborating across ideologies where possible on mutual goals like enabling all students' success. As an educator, it’s my duty to prepare the next generation for an increasingly diverse democracy, not indoctrination. However, continued vigilance is needed if more concerning policies arise. In light of HB 261 and its aftermath, we all must carefully monitor and document the impacts on our students and our campus communities, as well as on academic freedom and intellectual thought more broadly.

Conclusion

Policies threatening academic freedom and open intellectual inquiry are a concerning trend to monitor, especially as fascist tendencies reemerge in many democratic nations, including our own. However, through respectful civic participation, coalition-building across differences, and appeals to our highest democratic ideals, such legislation's negative impacts can be mitigated. As an educator committed to truth, justice and empowering all to reach their potential, I must stand up for inclusive, equitable education that considers society's full diversity of experiences. Only then can we pass on a democratic legacy protecting open debate, multicultural understanding and progress towards a shared humanity.