Mailbag

From a reader in Pierre:

Just wanted to let SDP's readers know that very late today the intellectual diversity bill died in the Senate 15-18.  It was the last day to consider bills and many legislators wanted to get done and were worn out by battles over issues such as abortion so the bill didn't get much time.  But I observed several of the proceedings about the bill and wanted to pass along what I heard.  Not surprisingly, the bill became partisan, with the Democrats almost unanimously opposing it, mostly at the behest of the teachers' unions, but some also listend to the ACLU, which also opposed it.  The Democrats also know that the universities are their political allies, so it was no surprise they wanted to protect them from even the most minimal legislative oversight.  The executive director of the Board of Regents, Tad Perry, was also hysterical in his attacks on the bill, even though he said he was happy to provide reports to the legislature (which he clearly is not).  Several Republican legislators were furious with Perry for his grandstanding and he burned a lot of bridges.  The universities also put a huge amount of pressure on the legislators who had universities in their districts to vote against the bill.  The universities also hired all-star lobbyist Bob Riter, who is president of the state bar association, to lobby against the bill.  Despite the tenacious opposition, as your readers know, the bill passed with strong majorities, almost all Republicans, in the House Education Committee, the House, and the Senate State Affairs Committee.  On the Senate floor, with time running out, it failed by a few votes.  All the conservative Republicans voted for it, but all the Democrats voted no, along with the "moderate" Republicans in the "Mainstream Coalition," so the bill didn't have quite enough votes.  What was amazing was all the buzz which started in Republican circles about what the universities are hiding.  Some legislators made it very clear that in the future they will really dig into what goes on at the Board of Regents and at the universities.  Some Republicans said Perry should have just let the bill pass and handed in a report and it all would have been forgotten, but now he has created some permanent enemies and some legislators have vowed to doggedly pursue intellectual diversity on South Dakota campuses.  In other words, Perry may have lucked out by a few votes in the Senate, but he has created an organized network of critics who will be analyzing his every move for years.  Without question, at least in the power circles in Pierre, the biggest loser in this whole deal was Perry and the regents, who look like they are hiding the absence of intellectual diversity on campus.  Some legislators have vowed to seek all the information that the legislation was asking for anyway, so Perry burned several bridges for very little gain.  Other legislators apparently have copies of several racial and gender diversity reports that the universities have done and they are planning to demand the same kind of report on the intellectual diversity front and they want to know how much the universities spend on racial and gender diversity programs.  Anyway, that's the news from Pierre.  You guys did a good job of tracking the issue.  As you've said before, what's most revealing is who opposed this bill: the ACLU, the unions, the Argus Leader, the universities, and the Democrats.  You guys should stay tuned because there seems to be more brewing on the intellectual diversity front and this is just the opening bid on this issue.