I think political interference is a horrible thing for university education.

But that particular part - "laws requiring professors to publicly post their course outlines in searchable databases" - is great, and should be done everywhere. There are actually universities who _claim_ to have great math (or physics or other science) program, but actually just teach it at "advanced high school" level. So public syllabi - something that was very common in 2000's but going out of style today - are critical for anyone choosing the university to go to.

So, that sounds fine in theory.

What's happening in practice, though, is a group of people (like Campus Watch) are looking specifically for anyone teaching gender, trans issues, race, and religion, and analyzing the coursework through their ideologies and harassing professors on account of it. And they're going through past years as well as present.

Intent matters though. Malicious actors, who are very much in power, will use the information to target universities and ideas [1] they don't like. Don't build databases for your enemies. Censuses were a great tool too, until certain people took power, then destroying them became the moral thing to do [2].

[1] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_Amsterdam_civil_registry_...

"I think political interference is a horrible thing for university education."

The University of California is one of the largest universities in the US. It is governed by a Board of Regents. The majority of those Regents are appointed by the state Governor.

Do you consider that 'political interference'?

One of the things those Regents did was vote to end the use of SAT scores in admissions. They did during a meeting in which several spoke of the value of the SAT. And they acted against the recommendations of the Academic Council's Standardized Testing Task Force.

You might think that the staggered and long terms protect against political interference/influence. But if that's the case, how do we explain how so many votes are unanimous when, on the day of the vote, some regents express opposing views?

Nobody (roughly) is choosing the university to go to based on the syllabus. They choose it based on cost, exclusivity, and networking considerations.

> There are actually universities who _claim_ to have great math (or physics or other science) program, but actually just teach it at "advanced high school" level.

What do you mean by that? And could you give an example?

It's hard to imagine any university teaching science majors at 'advanced high school' level, as I understand it. I could see a US community college or almost any university teaching intro courses that way. I can't iamgine what a 4th year chemistry major would be studying that fits the scope of 'advanced high school'.

> But that particular part - "laws requiring professors to publicly post their course outlines in searchable databases" - is great, and should be done everywhere.

You have to think about the consequences.

It seems like a great thing until doors are smashed down and people are taken away for discussing topics the current regime doesn’t want discussed.