In Texas, professors at public colleges and universities are now required by law to post faculty syllabi, curriculum vitae, lists of publications, and even salary. I’m thinking that’s a grand idea–I used to put all that stuff (except for my salary) online at Penn, updating every term as new courses and new syllabi rolled around. I loved it. It was a clean, paperless, transparent way of saying to students–and anyone else who cared to look–this is who I am, this is what I teach, this is what I do, and it’s all aboveboard and you can take it or leave it. It was also, secondarily, a great recruiting tool for students, who self-selected when signing up for classes, plus it totally resolved that perennial problem of students who lose the syllabus or your course policies. Everyone got one paper copy on day one of class — but they knew it was all posted online as well. So I wasn’t having to continually print new hard copies of things, and they weren’t able (as a very few students will inevitably do) to declare that they couldn’t be held responsible for X or Y because they had lost my handouts.

So I like the idea of posting it all online, and think there is something to be said for posting the salaries, too. I wouldn’t have minded the world seeing the punitive 1 percent “raises”–anything less would have required formal permission from the university–that I received annually after my department decided I was a conservative nutjob. And I would have loved to see how others were doing–where the favors were going, and what the imbalances were. Those things would probably have stopped, of course, if all the information were publicly available. Sunlight does have a way of disinfecting.

But the good professors of Texas don’t like this new rule. The Dallas Morning News summarizes their objections thus:

The Texas Conference of the American Association of University Professors requested a repeal of the law in its June newsletter. The group said the law is an unfunded mandate that would have a chilling effect on classroom discussion of controversial subjects.

If professors are required to post detailed descriptions of class material online, those opposed to the discussion topics would be able to target specific classes and professors, the association said.

“As far as any of us can tell, this is an attempt by cultural conservatives to identify course content they might view as undesirable, and is thus clearly an attack upon academic freedom,” a previous newsletter said.

Murray Leaf, speaker of the Faculty Senate at the University of Texas at Dallas, said that despite the bill’s portrayal as a measure promoting transparency, it displays “an insulting mistrust of higher education faculty.”

“Faculty in the United States decide the curriculum,” Leaf said. “We are largely autonomous. The people behind this bill are opposed to that and are trying to undermine it.”

A law requiring professors to post their résumés online suggests that they’re not qualified to teach their classes. And the higher education system depends on peer review by other educators, which is a better method for judging professors’ qualifications than review by the general public, Leaf said.

“The law really isn’t primarily about giving students better information, but about giving people who want to attack higher education better information,” he said. “We’re not against transparency. We’re against being attacked by our enemies.”

I’d say that’s paranoid and laughably self-serving–except that it’s so par for the academic course that it’s normal. What does that tell you about academic culture? Could such targeting ever happen? Sure it could. But here’s the thing: Many things can happen. That doesn’t mean they will, nor does it mean that you do nothing for fear of remote contingency. The perfect is the enemy of the good. It’s also, in this case, a rationalization for maintaining a status quo that is very far from good in a great many ways.

And besides, there is the little matter of accountability to the folks who pay the bills:

Sponsors of the new law, however, say transparency is the legislation’s only aim.

“Some fear that this is a ‘gotcha’ system, and it’s really not at all,” said state Rep. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham. “I think that this will be a great tool to help the consumer.”

Today’s students choose colleges based on how good its football team is, its reputation and how far it is from home, Kolkhorst said. But after the law goes into effect, detailed course information could also factor into the decision.

“The motivation behind the bill was to really empower the students and the parents to choose classes that really fit their goals,” she said. “As college tuition has gone up sharply … dollars are very tight and students are leaving universities with thousands of dollars in debt, I think it’s very important that we have transparency.”

Justin Keener, vice president of policy and communications at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, said it is essential for public colleges and universities to post professors’ salaries online.

“This is a public institution, it’s public dollars being used, and the public deserves to know how it’s being used,” Keener said. “The taxpayer deserves to see what they’re paying you.”

If professors don’t want their salary information to be open to the public, they should work at private institutions, Kenner said.

“This isn’t an issue of trust … this is not personal,” he said. “The public is paying for it. They deserve to see every single penny.”

I know many academics have nothing but the finest, most cultivated contempt for a great American unwashed–not to mention all conservatives, washed or not. If it doesn’t come naturally, it’s learned on the job. But that doesn’t change the reality–that academia exists to serve the public good, and that academic freedom does not mean freedom from accountability. The tantrums in moments like this do not serve professors well, and only lend credence to the notion that they should not be left to their own professional devices.

Prof Mondo–who is a practicing medievalist under another name–has more.