by Luke Fowler & Jen Schneider
In our recent article published in Policy & Politics, entitled “Critical Race Theory, Policy Ambiguity, & Implementation: A Multiple Streams Framework Analysis,” we examine how the United States’ first state-level ban on Critical Race Theory in public education (HB 377 passed in April 2020 by the Idaho state legislature) rose to the agenda, was passed into law, and then impacted universities during implementation. This analysis looks at both the negative but often intangible impacts of this type of legislation on institutions of higher education, as well as at the policy process and how problem framing early on impacts implementation later.
We argue that HB 377 was motivated by a perceived and likely fabricated “indoctrination” problem, which is an outcropping of American culture wars that have placed higher education in the center of a debate about how cultural values and beliefs are propagated in society and the responsibilities of institutions in shaping them. Critics of higher education manufactured a moral panic around liberal “indoctrination” that relied on spurious evidence, such as unverified anecdotes and a hoax event. This was enough to push a ban on Critical Race Theory on to the legislation agenda in Idaho with enough momentum for it to become law. However, that problem framing began to unravel by the time university faculty were set to implement it, especially as it became clear that the alleged evidence of indoctrination did not actually exist. This, coupled with the fact that faculty never really accepted that indoctrination was occurring on campuses to begin with, ultimately left them without a clear understanding of what the purpose of the new law was or how to respond to it. Unsurprisingly, divergent interpretations and divergent behaviors emerged as individuals were left to “figure it out” on their own. The fallout from the law’s passing also led to the sowing of distrust among faculty and administrators as many faculty felt they were left on the front-lines of a frightening culture war without adequate support from leadership.
We argue that the failure of policies that seek to restrict academic freedom lie, at least in part, in the fact that the problems are not well-defined or supported with evidence that holds up to scrutiny, and therefore frequently fall apart when it comes to implementation. However, this does not mean that this type of legislation does not do real damage to universities, as faculty and staff struggle to manage the anxiety, fear, and frustration that it brings along. The impacts on organizational morale have been significant. In fact, HB 377 had a clear chilling effect for faculty who found themselves afraid of the unknown consequences underlying an ambiguous new law. The damage to Idaho universities will be long-lasting as faculty have chosen to leave the state, change their approaches to teaching, or maintain a posture of distrust vis-à-vis campus leadership.
These insights add to the substantive debate around the restrictions on academic freedom on university campuses, and provide a model for understanding how policy implementation connects to agenda setting and policy adoption.
You can read the original research in Policy & Politics at
Schneider, J., & Fowler, L. (2024). Critical race theory, policy ambiguity and implementation: a multiple streams framework analysis. Policy & Politics (published online ahead of print 2024). Retrieved Feb 28, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000023
If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested to read:
Calderaro, C. (2023). The racialisation of sexism: how race frames shape anti-street harassment policies in Britain and France. Policy & Politics, 51(3), 413-438. Retrieved Feb 28, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16832763188290}
McCabe, L. (2023). An intersectional analysis of contestations within women’s movements: the case of Scottish domestic abuse policymaking. Policy & Politics (published online ahead of print 2023). Retrieved Feb 28, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000021
Kim, J. H., Kuk, J., & Kweon, Y. (2024). Did low-income essential workers during COVID-19 increase public support for redistribution?. Policy & Politics (published online ahead of print 2024). Retrieved Feb 28, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000008
