It’s kind of ironic when people advocate a bill of rights that infringes on the rights of… It’s kind of ironic when people advocate a bill of rights that infringes on the rights of others.

But that’s exactly what some lawmakers in Ohio want. Under a so-called “Students’ Bill of Rights,” professors at both public and private universities in our red-state neighbor would have their autonomy limited by the state. They would be forced to “introduce diverse opinions,” and wouldn’t be allowed to penalize students based on their opinions or to introduce controversial material unrelated to the course.

Doesn’t sound too bad, right? Diversity, students being given fair grades, keeping class discussions on topic — these are all good things, that is, until we translate what the bill is actually about.

The Associated Press reported that the bill’s sponsor, Republican state Sen. Larry Mumper, is worried about students coming out of college with a thorough “indoctrination of a lot of left-wing issues.” Like, you know, evolution and stuff.

Mumper also questioned why lawmakers should fund universities that teach ideas contrary to those that the lawmakers espouse, making it clear that he only supports his brand of thinking in the marketplace of ideas.

The problem with the government mandating what can and cannot be taught in a classroom is that it infringes on what college is supposed to be about — an exchange of opinions. Under this bill, students who’re penalized for expressing unsupported opinions can claim that the professor discriminated against them on the basis of their opinion, and did not judge them on how well they argued their points.

Contrary to popular belief, there is such a thing as a wrong opinion, or rather, an unfounded one. Opinions can be weighed and found lacking. It’s just like Intro to Logic taught us — if premises are unsound or inferences invalid, the opinion isn’t particularly worthwhile.

More than that, though, if this bill passes it would take away a key aspect of college: listening to opinions with which you don’t agree. This can have one of two outcomes: reaffirming the students’ beliefs or — gasp — changing their minds. Perhaps it’s the professor’s persuasive powers that Mumper so desperately wants to legislate against. Remember, these may be young, impressionable minds, but they are minds that society deems old enough to vote and fight in the military.

And students are not without recourse. If students disagree with their professors, they should speak out, not get the professor censured. And if professors shoot them down, students should appeal to the head of the department or to the dean.

Democracy is based on people being allowed to voice opinions, regardless of who doesn’t want to hear them. While, superficially, Mumper’s bill appears to support this, it in fact works toward the opposite aim. By limiting what professors can say, it puts strictures on college classrooms, which should be free forums.

For their part, it’s the professors’ duty to maintain open discussion, especially about controversial topics. It’s free discussion, not government-mandated curriculums, that leads to better students and better citizens.