Is Indiana’s New Faculty Tenure Law a Threat to Academic Freedom?
In 2024, Indiana lawmakers passed a controversial piece of legislation—Senate Enrolled Act 202 (SEA 202)—that directly affects the tenure process and ongoing employment of faculty at public colleges and universities. As an attorney who regularly represents employees in complex workplace issues, I’ve been closely monitoring this new law and its potential consequences. SEA 202 has already sparked a legal challenge, raising important questions about constitutional rights, academic freedom, and employment security in the public education sector.
In this post, I’ll explain what the law does, why it’s being challenged in federal court, and how this development could impact Indiana’s reputation as a place to attract and retain top-tier academic talent.
What Does SEA 202 Do?
SEA 202 requires that all tenured faculty at Indiana’s public colleges and universities undergo performance reviews every five years. That in itself may not sound controversial—accountability and performance standards are common in most professions. But the law goes further. It mandates that tenure or promotion may be denied to faculty who are “unlikely to promote free inquiry, free expression, and intellectual diversity.”
In addition, it introduces a mechanism for students, colleagues, or others to file complaints if they believe a faculty member is not upholding these vague and politically charged principles. This complaint process may trigger administrative reviews that could influence a professor’s job security, compensation, and academic standing.
Supporters of the law, primarily Republican legislators, argue that SEA 202 is needed to curb what they perceive as ideological homogeneity in higher education. Their stated goal is to ensure that Indiana campuses are places where a diversity of viewpoints can be expressed and debated. But critics—including many professors and legal scholars—see this as legislative overreach that infringes on academic independence.
The Legal Challenge: Professors Push Back
Not long after the law was signed by Governor Eric Holcomb, two professors from Purdue University Fort Wayne filed a federal lawsuit against the state. The plaintiffs, Steven A. Carr and David G. Schuster, allege that SEA 202 violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. They are represented by the ACLU of Indiana.
According to the complaint, the law essentially forces professors to include fringe or debunked theories in their curricula out of fear that not doing so could be interpreted as suppressing “intellectual diversity.” This, they argue, compels them to engage in speech they would otherwise avoid as academic professionals. That’s where the First Amendment challenge comes in.
The Fourteenth Amendment claim centers on vagueness. What exactly constitutes a failure to promote free expression or diversity of thought? The professors argue that these undefined terms give university administrators overly broad discretion, making faculty vulnerable to arbitrary or politically motivated disciplinary action.
The State’s Response: “No First Amendment in the Classroom”?
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita’s office responded to the lawsuit with an argument that is deeply troubling to many in the academic community: that public university faculty do not have First Amendment protections when teaching in the classroom. The state claims that instruction delivered at public institutions constitutes “government speech” and therefore can be regulated by the state without violating constitutional protections.
This claim cuts to the heart of the debate over academic freedom. If upheld, it could give legislatures broad authority to shape curriculum and penalize faculty whose teaching doesn’t align with the prevailing political winds.
What This Means for Indiana’s Higher Education System
As an Indiana employment lawyer, I worry that SEA 202 could have a chilling effect on higher education in our state. Academic talent is mobile. Professors, particularly those with specialized skills or national reputations, can—and do—choose where they work based on job security, research freedom, and institutional support for intellectual independence.
If this law is upheld and aggressively enforced, Indiana may find it more difficult to attract or retain the kind of high-caliber faculty that contributes to our state’s academic excellence. Public institutions could also face increased litigation risk, administrative costs, and reputational damage.
For those of us who assist clients navigating employment disputes, these types of laws create uncertainty. Professors facing tenure denials or disciplinary actions under SEA 202 will almost certainly seek legal advice. At the same time, universities and college administrators will need clear, lawful procedures to implement performance reviews that comply with constitutional protections.
Conclusion: Watch This Case Closely
As of this writing, the federal court has not yet ruled on the merits of the lawsuit filed by the Purdue professors. But regardless of the outcome, SEA 202 represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing national debate about the role of politics in education, employee rights in the public sector, and the boundaries of academic freedom.
At Goodin Abernathy LLP, we are committed to staying at the forefront of these evolving legal issues. If you are a faculty member, university administrator, or public employee with concerns about SEA 202 or your rights under Indiana and federal law, I invite you to speak with us. Visit our website’s Indiana Employment Lawyer page for more information or to schedule a consultation.