A Higher Purge

At a time when Massachusetts is contemplating teaching the "evils and fallacies of Communism" in its public schools, it is disturbing--if not alarming--to find the Commonwealth attempting as well to extend strong but vaguely defined controls over its institutions of higher learning.

Two bills now pending before the General Court would radically extend the state's traditional power to grant, but not withdraw, charters to all institutions. The Doherty Bill' would give the state the authority to retract the charter of any educational institution, public or private, whose "curriculum, faculty, and facilities," do not meet with the state's approval. The 'Bulger-Doherty Bill' would enpower the state government to deny an institution the right to grant degrees. Both bills fail to stipulate upon what grounds the state shall disapprove of an institution's faculty or curriculum. One of the bills does not require a hearing at which the accused institution can present its defense. Neither rules out ideological or political reasons as a basis for taking action. In the absence of such 'restrictions, the bills are not only possible abridgements of academic freedom but violations of the Constitution as well.

Both of the bills are apparently motivated by a laudable intention: a purge of the "diploma mills" currently operating in Massachusetts. But abuse of the bills' powers could bring action against an institution for reasons not intended by the bills. The General Court must insure that its enthusiasm for dechartering inferior institutions does not destroy the worthwhile ones at the same time.

Whatever the extent of corruption "diploma mills" have already brought to education in Massachusetts, the state must proceed with extreme caution in attempting to remove them. Such caution should have been exercized when the charters were originally granted to the institutions. Now that they have been granted, the legislature can not be frivolous with its power: it must find solutions which will not be potentially damaging to the innocent. These bills would not provide such protection. In the future the Massachusetts Department of Education should pursue a more frugal policy in dispensing charters to institutions of dubious intent. In any case, it now has an obligation to reveal the mistakes it has made in the past and expose the fraudulent institutions which it, in effect, has created.