Arkansas ACCESS Law Prompts Student Response

Logan J. Martin, student guest contributor

The Arkansas ACCESS Law, enacted this spring, marked a substantial shift in the landscape of K12 and higher education in the state. “ACCESS”, an acronym for the principles of the legislation, Acceleration, Common Sense, Cost, Eligibility, Scholarships, and Standardization, is a follow-up the governor’s signature LEARNS Act of the 2023 session.

A press release from the Governor’s office as documented by Chris Banks of THV11, covers the proposed higher-education overhaul through its pillars.

“Acceleration” refers to ensuring high school students are adequately prepared for higher education or transitioning into the workforce.

“Common Sense” aims to create an unbiased learning environment through curtailing “indoctrination” and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).

“Cost” encourages a “productivity funding model” which allows non-degree credentials to allow schools to adopt those programs.

“Eligibility” seeks to make the process of receiving admission to higher education institutions more uniform and efficient.

“Scholarships” looks to eliminate barriers to scholarships and expand certain offerings like the Challenge and Governor’s scholarships.

“Standardization” creates identical course numbering across all state-supported higher education institutions.

The omnibus reform attracted responses from high school and college students over concerns about a handful of provisions. The sections of the legislation, 47 and 48, concerning excused absences for civic engagement and degree accreditation, and sections addressing DEI standards received the majority of criticism from students.

According to the text, filed jointly as HB1512 and SB246, section 47 prohibits students of a state-supported institution of higher education from receiving an excused absence for “political protest; social or public policy advocacy; or attempts to influence legislation or governmental policymaking at the local, state, of federal level,” Gennie Diaz, writing for AR for the People, details the dueling perspectives on the sections. Supporters of ACCESS claim that the law ensures students stay in class to focus on learning, while critics counter that the legislation silences student voices.

Additionally, section 48 prevents state-supported institutions of higher education from complying with degree accreditation requirements that include DEI elements on pain of losing eligibility for state funding for at least one fiscal year according to Steve Brawner of Talk Business and Politics. For DEI requirements, Diaz notes the concern from higher education professionals that the legislation could chill academic freedom by restricting teaching or research on DEI topics.

Students at the UA Fayetteville and UA Little Rock have responded to sections 47 and 48. At UA Fayetteville, Associated Student Government (ASG) shared concerns through passing a resolution through the undergraduate Senate. The resolution, titled “A Resolution Expressing Student Concern Regarding ACCESS”, argues that students will lose educational opportunities as a consequence of the law. The author, freshman student Kevin Durden, said in an interview “ACCESS was a blatant attack on our fundamental 1st amendment rights and our ability to learn about and participate in local, state, and federal government processes. I felt I had an obligation to the students of the University of Arkansas to do something to combat it.” The Senate adopted the resolution 33-1-3 on March 11. Additionally, three students, including Laney Kellybrew, the Student Body Vice President-Elect and Director of Razorback Action Group, a non-partisan student advocacy group, voiced concern about section 47, per ASG Senate meeting minutes. The Senate debated the legislation for multiple hours, during which some students argued that ACCESS would inhibit their free speech right to engage with government.

UA Little Rock Students also publicly opposed the law though a public statement via their Student Government Association (SGA) Instagram. Their statement, signed by Student Body President An Le, Trojan Action Group President, Owen Haynes, and other members, urges legislators to oppose ACCESS, viewing the bill as a restriction on “the rights of students [to engage] in civil society, as is protected by the First Amendment…”

Students at Little Rock High Schools voiced their views by testifying to lawmakers in education committee. Their advocacy, including testimony from Little Rock Central’s Ava Kate White, according to Steve Brawner, in a separate piece, stated that she offered her testimony because it was the last chance she would have before being labeled a “truant” for doing so. White alluded to the Little Rock Nine in urging legislators to amend ACCESS to protect students’ rights to free expression. Brawner’s piece also showcases the debate spurred by the students’ testimony, where lawmakers agreed to amend the legislation removing the restriction against high school students’ receiving absences for political advocacy but choosing to retain it for college students. Senator Jonathan Dismang, R-Searcy, said according to Brawner that college students were making “adult decisions” about whether it is worth missing class. According to Benjamin Hardy in Arkansas Times, the joint education committee advanced the legislation by voice vote after hearing testimony from dozens of students that prompted sharp exchanges over more than just excused absences for students.