Sen. Robert Bird, D-West Virginia, recently inserted a provision into a $388 billion spending bill that would require all educational institutions receiving federal aid to provide their students a program teaching the U.S. Constitution.

While the provision does not explicitly target colleges, public and private universities receiving federal funds would have to comply. The program would take place each Sept. 17 to commemorate its signing.

The program, however, is yet to have a strict direction.

Howard Schweber, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin who teaches a Constitutional law class, said it is important for Americans to be educated on the Constitution.

“We are a democracy. We therefore depend on our citizens to make decisions to guide the nation,” he said. “When … large numbers of Americans have little or no knowledge of the content and meaning of the Constitution, there is no political check on unconstitutional actions by government.”

Despite Schweber’s belief of the importance of Americans learning the Constitution, he holds mixed feelings on the rider.
“I think this is a harmless but rather silly piece of legislation,” he said. “No college in America does not offer courses on the Constitution, and no public high school does not include the study of the Constitution in its social studies curriculum.”

Eric Nycz, a Constitutional law teacher’s assistant and third-year law student said the provision is “well intentioned,” but noted it raises several questions.

“What kind of instructional program is he talking about? How is federal aid defined?” he asked. “[If] this is the only language then Byrd is just trying to make a statement.”

Schweber and Nycz doubted the legislation would affect UW students, as the university already offers a course on Constitutional law. Schweber suggested that Byrd intended for “something more like a daylong university-sponsored “teach-in open to all students, and perhaps to the public at large.”

“I would be delighted to participate in such an event in addition to teaching courses on Constitutional law,” Schweber said, offering his support.

While few expect the legislation would significantly alter curriculum, some are concerned about the federal government dictating what is taught in universities.

“I think that there are reasons to support and encourage education about our Constitution and nation’s history,” Tom O’Day, a TA in the university’s course on the First Amendment and third-year law student, said. “I do not, however, think that a mandate from Congress is the appropriate method of instilling this civic education.”

O’Day emphasized local control, suggesting that such legislation may be appropriate for elementary or secondary schools, but not universities.

“[Mandatory teaching of the Constitution] is more appropriate at the elementary or secondary level, if the state or school board decides,” he said. “I believe Congress should encourage education about the Constitution and our nation’s history, but not mandate it.”

Schweber took this concern a step further.

“I can’t help but wonder whether Byrd realizes that a Sept. 17 teaching event is as likely to turn into an occasion for presenting the U.S. Constitution as an instrument of class oppression … as it is to become an occasion of celebration.”