more bad legislation for the university of tennessee

At the end of January I posted here about a legislative attempts to defund diversity staff and programming in the University of Tennessee system. Unfortunately, the attack on diversity is just one of a number of pending bills that are very bad for higher education in the state of Tennessee. Here are four more bills, including one  (HB2559) that will completely politicize the appointment of the Board of Trustees.


  1. SB2515 fixes tuition and fees at all UT campuses at their current rate until 2021. I know that many will see this as a welcome relief. But mind you, state support has collapsed in recent years. TN is still better than some, in that the legislature appropriates $474 million, or 23% of the $2 billion budget of the university (counting both restricted and unrestricted education and general funds). Looking at just unrestricted E&G revenues, totaling around $1.2 billion, state appropriations now constitute 38 percent of the budget. At the end of the last century, state appropriations accounted for 66 percent of unrestricted E&G revenues. So, while the state continues to reduce its appropriations in real dollars, legislators want to freeze tuition with no plan for making up the differences. 

2. HB1736 introduces the first stage of handgun carry on campus, permitting employees with handgun permits to carry on the job. If you’ve ever spent any time around faculty meetings, you’ll know why this is a bad idea.

3. SB1762 changes the language around the Board of Trustees hiring and firing of the President of the UT System, and of the campus chancellors. The new language states that the BOT shall hire a Chief Executive Officer of the system who shall also be the president, and that based on his/her recommendations, shall also hire Chief Executive Officers of the campuses. This shift in language will be consequential in empowering administrative authority. Nowhere else in the Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 49 is such explicitly business terminology used.

4. HB2559, worst of all, would reformulate the BOT. Currently the Governor appoints the BOT, as well as members specified from the faculty and the student body. This bill would give the head of the state Senate, the head of the House, and the Governor’s office each 5 seats to appoint on the Board. This will undoubtedly undo the fiduciary role of the BOT, and turn it into the worst kind of politically driven body. This will enable the undoing of the university. I would imagine that the Governor would veto a bill that takes away executive privilege. But, who knows if there would be enough votes to override.

Posted in Uncategorized

A Legislative Attack on Diversity at the University of Tennessee

The Office of Diversity and Inclusion at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville has been the center of a number of controversies this academic year. In September, it was forced to take down a guide to gender neutral pronouns under order by the system president, Joe DiPietro. This order came despite the fact that the Office of Diversity was handing down no mandate, only encouraging the campus community to consider how pronouns interact with gender identity. The backlash in conservative east Tennessee was quick, and harsh.

This controversy only primed the pump for another at the end of the Fall semester. Heading into holiday party season, the Office of Diversity posted a set of suggestions (just suggestions!) for how to have inclusive seasonal parties on our religiously- and ethnically-diverse campus. The burden of pluralism proved too much for Tennessee’s politicians, and a row arose with GOP opportunists going as far as to call for the resignation of Chancellor Jimmy Cheek and Vice Chancellor for Equity and Diversity Rickey Hall. The Chancellor came out relatively unscathed, though the same can’t be said for Vice Chancellor Hall. In response to this second controversy, Cheek office released a statement saying that Hall had been “counseled,” and that the website of the Office of Diversity and Inclusion had been placed under the editorial control of the Office of Communications. This indignity, in which a Vice Chancellor of the University has lost control of the campus voice on the very real and important issues under his authority is apparently not enough for some in the Tennessee General Assembly. In the midst of the controversy, state representative Micah Van Huss called for defunding diversity efforts in the UT system, and using that money to paint “In God We Trust” on all state and local law enforcement vehicles. That didn’t happen, but a new pair of bills introduced for this legislative session is taking what may well be a more pernicious approach.

SB 1902 (pdf) and HB 2066 were introduced in the past week by Senator Frank Nicely and Representative Martin Daniel respectively. Both of them serve the Knox County area, home to the main campus of the University of Tennessee. This bill seeks to do four things: 1. Restrict spending on diversity staff, administration, and programming at all University of Tennessee campuses to a total of $2.5M; 2. Implement onerous reporting requirements on all expenditures on staff, administration, and programming in support of “diversity, multiculturalism, and sustainability”; and, 3. Prevent all employees of the University system not hired explicitly for diversity work from engaging diversity programming during work hours; and  4. Restricting all diversity staff and administration to minority student and faculty recruitment, but not actual hiring processes. The Knoxville campus would be restricted to 60% of the $2.5M, or $1.5M, leaving a paltry $1m for the other campuses and entities (UT Chattanooga, UT Martin, the UT Space Institute, the UT Health Sciences Center, the Institute of Agriculture, and the Institute of Public Service).

To put this in explicit fiscal context, current the UT system spends more than $20M on diversity staff and programming on all campuses combined. Of that, some $16M goes towards scholarships for minority and first generation college students, while the rest is spent on federal and state reporting requirements, administration, and programming. Programming here includes all kinds of diversity-related intellectual and cultural content. If anything, this is way to little for a system with a total budget of around $1.3 billion.

I teach Latin American History at UT, and looking closely at the bill one could interpret the content of my courses, which are without question multicultural by the standards of the state of Tennessee, as violating Section I Part b.2:

An employee of the University of Tennessee system or one (1) of its institutions whose primary responsibilities and duties are in areas unrelated to diversity, multicultural, or sustainability programs shall not participate in diversity, multicultural, or sustainability programs during the times when the employee is to perform work duties.

This is astoundingly invasive into the daily operations and intellectual pursuits of the university, in part because it is so poorly and generally written. It also would appear to violate the bylaws of the Board of Trustees, which establish the financial, operational, and intellectual authorities in the system. As noted in Section I of the bylaws, by statutory authority the Board of Trustees,

which is the governing body of The University of Tennessee, shall have full and complete control over its organization and administration, also over its constituent parts and its financial affairs.

The authority over budgetary line items does not, in fact, reside with the Legislature. And, on curricular questions, which I would argue include diversity programming, the authority doesn’t even reside with the Board of Trustees but with the faculty. Section 2 Part A of the bylaws states that the Board shall,

Establish policies controlling the scope of the educational opportunities to be offered by the University and also policies determining its operation in general; however, the planning and development of curricula shall be the function of the faculties;

Finally on the bill itself, Section I Part D would put significant restrictions on diversity officials at all of the campuses, reducing their jobs to little more than an advisory role in recruitment:

Employees of the University of Tennessee system or one (1) of its institutions whose duties are related to diversity, multicultural, or sustainability programs, shall only work and have duties in areas related to:

(A) Nondiscrimination; (B) Recruitment of minority students; and (C) Recruitment of minority faculty or administrators.

(2) Although employees whose duties are related to diversity, multicultural, or sustainability programs may work on recruitment of minority faculty or administrators, they may not otherwise be involved in the hiring of faculty or administrators for the University of Tennessee system or any of its institutions.

It’s worth noting here that the University of Tennessee, Knoxville campus and the whole higher education system in the state of Tennessee has a long and troubled history with employment discrimination as documented by the Geier vs. State of Tennessee case, which was filed in 1968 and lasted something like 32 years, ending with a consent decree under which the State of Tennessee agreed to allocate $77M in state funds for diversity initiatives across Tennessee higher ed. Racial discrimination did not trigger this current backlash against diversity at UTK, but the net affect of this bill will set Tennessee higher ed back from the advances made in the wake of Geier. Furthermore, the backlash is rooted in a political intolerance of religious and sexual pluralism.

The very existence of bills like this which are a reaction to movements toward greater university inclusivity demonstrate the need for doubling down on our diversity efforts.


I say above that racial discrimination was not a trigger for this particular assault on diversity in the University of Tennessee system, but is undoubtedly still at the root of this proposal. A colleague pointed me to a 2013 report on Senator Niceley that I had totally forgotten. In November 2013, Niceley was a Featured Speaker at the Southern National Convention, an offshoot of the League of the South. Both of these groups are considered neo-confederate hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Quoting the announcement of his participation by the SNC:

[Niceley] will provide several proposals for legislation which Delegates can take back to their respective State legislatures. One of Senator Niceley’s proposals is to have the State legislature nominate US Senatorial candidates. This would change the electoral dynamics of the US Senate as the Senators would have to be more responsive to the States rather than that nebulous concept of “the people.”

Every attention will be given to ideas which promote the Sovereignty of the several Southern States.

That last bit is coded speech for secession, which the League of the South advocates and Niceley has gone on record in the Tennessean supporting.


Posted in Uncategorized

surly world troller build

I recently acquired, after Surly’s many, many delays, a Surly World Troller frame set. Finally getting the chance to build it up is very exciting, in part because of the anticipation I have of bikepacking trips to come.

To document the build, I’m going to start this post. It will be a work in progress. First up, the basics I’ve worked out so far.

Frame and Contact Points:  

  • Surly World Troller frame and fork, size M (18″) in Milque Toast White
  • Seatpost: Ritchey aluminum
  • Saddle: Brooks B17
  • Stem: Ritchey WCS OS, 100mm
  • Bars: Jones Loop Bar
  • Grips:
  • Pedals: Performance Bike 10-pin Platform

Drivetrain and Brakes:  

  • Crankset: Shimano Deore 2×10 (40-28T)
  • Front Mech: Shimano XT
  • Rear Mech: Shimano XT
  • Chain: SRAM 10-speed
  • Cassette: Shimano XT 11-36T
  • Shifters: Microshift Thumb
  • Levers: Avid Speed 7
  • Brakest: Avid BB7 MTB mechanical discs, 160mm rotors


  • Rear: Shimano XT hub, 36-hole, Velocity Cliffhanger rim
  • Front regular: Shimano Deore hub, 32-hole, Sun-Ringle Rhynolite rim
  • Front dyno: SP PD8 disc dyno hub, 36-hole, Velocity Cliffhanger rim
  • Tires: Vitorria GEAX Saguaro 26×2.2


Posted in Uncategorized

Hacer juicio ú dictamen acerca de alguna cosa... significando que el objeto excita el juicio ú dictamen en la persona que le hace.

Deducir ante el Juez la accion ú derecho que se tiene, ó las excepciones que excluyen la accion contrária.

RAE 1737 Academia autoridades
Buy my book!

Chad Black

I, your humble contributor, am Chad Black. You can also find me on the web here.