In grad school, back in the 90s full of postmodernism, floating points had a time. The idea behind the floating display is that it is a referent that has separated from its referent and taken on a life of its own, appearing in places that make no sense in the original description. The idea escaped its theoretical underpinnings, appropriately enough, and became a kind of shorthand for a seemingly out-of-place cultural artifact.
I often notice them in the context of popular music. For example, at TB’s college graduation, while the crowd waited for the graduates to walk, the venue played “Girl In A Coma,” a little song from the Smiths in the mid-’80s. The song came out before most of the graduates were born, and the lyrics … um … let’s go along we don’t deserve that event. I think it was supposed to be a nice sounding background image, but the juxtaposition of the lyrics and the event was weird.
In Utah, now, the concept of conscientious objection has become a floating symbol. Its Legislature passed a law that allows college students to seek conscientious objection status when offered any course or class assignment they say violates their religious beliefs.
The concept has lost any connection with its origin.
The state of conscientious objection comes from the military. The idea was that conscripted soldiers—the main point—were placed in positions that required them to break their religion. (Recent court decisions have expanded the concept to include deeply held beliefs that are not based on theology.) A person whose conscience or religion does not allow them to kill someone may be given an ambulance job. They could not escape service, but they could be given roles that did not involve causing violence.
In the context of the military draft, the concept makes sense. Soldiers don’t choose to be there and they don’t have the choice to just leave.
In the context of K–12 education, parents have been given the same options for their children. When attendance is mandated by law and students have no choice but to leave, some conscientious accommodation makes sense. The resemblance is not perfect, of course; children have a different legal status than adults, for example, and parents have the option of taking their children out of the local public school altogether. They can transfer to a private or religious school, move to another state, or educate their children themselves. Those options aren’t available to everyone equally, but people who change schools aren’t doomed to drop out, either.
College is not mandatory. Students can choose between colleges, or choose to skip college. If they decide after enrolling that college is not for them, they can leave. There is no law against leaving one college for another, or dropping out altogether. Opting out is an option. And because the college is built on the idea that students are adults, they don’t need parental consent.
No college draft. Since college is truly voluntary, the concept of conscientious objection does not apply. Students can ask professors about assignments, and try to persuade them. If that doesn’t work, students can protest by dropping a class, changing majors or dropping out of school. They can vote with their feet. And as any college administrator can tell you, they do. I have seen them vote with their feet to choose one professor over others teaching the same subject. It happens all the time.
Doing something like conscientious objection on a high level would be a nightmare. Let’s say a student says, let’s say, their Christian beliefs forbid them to accept homosexuality, and therefore say that they should not be exempted from any information that refers to them. Then imagine that the manager in question refuses the request, noting correctly that Jesus never said a single word about homosexuality. Now we have taxpayer funded religious wars. Can it go wrong?
No. The concept of conscientious objection has no basis in higher education. People are here because they choose to be here. The goal of higher education is the pursuit of truth, even when people find that truth repulsive, distasteful or unsettling. If you don’t like the facts, dig deeper and find better ones. Make your case. Well, as any lawyer can tell you, the best way to prosecute is to understand the other side. Allowing people to opt out of any aspect of the discipline they don’t like, while still giving them implied assurance (!) and ability, is lying. If you can’t play by the rules, choose a different game.
Institutions that speak the truth should not lie. If we reduce degrees to floating points, we lose their reason for being. We could go the way of postmodernism, floating inconsequential. Colleges may be full of noise and fury, but they’re not stupid, and they mean something. This law is a direct threat.
