Are universities indispensable to democracy?

The answer to the question of universities' relationship to the preservation of democracy was answered very directly by the President of Johns Hopkins, Ron Daniels, in an interview about his book, What Universities Owe Democracy. He said:

...this is a perilous moment for democracy. And it is interesting that if one looks back over the years in the United States, whenever there has been a sense that democracy has been in peril -- you know, whether it was during the Civil War, or the two world wars -- the universities, with support from government, have really understood their role as bulwark institutions of democracy. And I fear in this moment, as much as we do to support democracy, there is an opportunity here to do more. And doing more with some urgency is really essential right now. We're not bystanders. We are indispensable institutions to democracy flourishing.

In his interview, Daniels highlighted the importance of creating more inclusive institutions, reincorporating conservative voices into faculty ranks, and abandoning legacy admissions at elite universities. Daniels' book will stimulate debate on a variety of issues, the most notable probably being his insistence that preferential admission be stopped. Reinforcing Daniels' core assertion that more should be done, William Tierney believes that higher education is shirking its responsibility to challenge the emergence of fascism and appealed for action to protect voting rights (to which Matt Reed adds the relevance of rule of law and standing) as a critical area of concern. He proposed that "Trustees can set the tone. Presidents can employ the bully pulpit to make the case for fact-based decision making and the import of democracy. Faculty members can engage in respectful, difficult dialogues to model how tough topics might be discussed. Henry Reichman warns that faculty need to more deeply understand what academic freedom is and remain diligent in protecting it. Students can come to grips with the responsibility they have as activist citizens in a democracy."

Russia's invasion of Ukraine in late February, 2022, drew the world's attention to the tension between democratic and authoritarian states. The President of the Lumina Foundation referenced this revival of military action to impose political order as a wake-up call in relation to the responsibility to expand access and foster social progress through higher education.

While the role of universities in supporting democratic practices is perceived as increasing in importance, there are troubling indications that political interventions are seeking to undermine it. The move to keep critical theory out of K-12 is evident in the 38 higher education focused legislative bills now being considered at the state level. These legislative actions are essentially "gag orders" and "would have a disastrous effect on the tenets of free inquiry, free expression and critical thinking."

Carol Geary Schneider, former President of the American Council on Education, called all of higher education, but particularly those serving previously underserved populations, to revisit the guidance of the 1947 Truman Commission, which advocated:

• Education for a fuller realization of democracy
• Education directly and explicitly for international understanding and cooperation
• Education for the application of creative imagination and trained intelligence

In a time where democratic processes are being challenged, Schneider called for a return to making civic education central in all students' experiences, not just an elective or for students of select backgrounds. Hong Kong Baptist University's focus on citizenship and social responsibility is a fascinating example of infusion of key learning outcomes across students' experiences. Complementing Schneider's perspective, the President of the American Association of Colleges and Universities, Lynn Pasquerella, explored public health, questions of life and death, issues of campus controversy, and rebuilding public trust in her book, We Value: Public Health, Social Justice and Educating for Democracy.

One of the greatest challenges of higher education is cultivating democratic practice and participation is creating environments where all voices are welcome. Several campuses have achieved positive outcomes with dialogues across difference such as the Deliberation Testbed and National Issue Forums.  Cambridge University proposed a "mutual respect" policy as a way to support all voices but faculty quickly criticized the approach.

Unfortunately, a significant proportion of students who feel that their campus climate stifles free expression and don't feel free to speak out. Law student disruption of speakers at Yale and UC Hastings feed into the view that conservative ideas are silenced. In an age where increased sensitivity to language and history is on so many educators' minds, and where accusations of "cancel culture" are used to defend offensive acts, holding the line on open expression is difficult. Yale's determination that protester's behavior was "unacceptable" but fell short of conduct warranting disciplinary offense won't satisfy conservatives' accusation of stifling their free speech but it does protect the speech of those who felt it was their free speech right to protest.

Free speech could be imperiled if institutions are unsuccessful in framing the importance of, and civil approaches to, free expression which includes recognizing some claims as no more than attempts to impose intellectual conformity. MIT has been dealing with the repercussions of cancelling Dorian Abbot's lecture. Abbot, a University of Chicago scholar, has openly criticized  and drawn equivalency between "academe's diversity 'regime' to Nazism." Princeton subsequently scheduled Abbot's lecture on its campus. Alumni groups are now growing in number as an alliance to take on "cancel culture," a move that asserts a view that alumni should not only be a source of donations but should help preserve the qualities of the institutions that nurtured them in their academic study.

A critical issue embedded in the question of advancing democracy is how to assess the difference between legitimate intellectual criticism versus canceling others' views and presence. Discourse that involves sharp and direct communication is essential to advancing knowledge and mischaracterizing it as "cancel culture" is a very significant danger to the academy. Essentially, balancing civility with free speech requires "the broadest possible tolerance... while also attending to the potentially harmful effects of accusatory or hate speech." Free speech for all should also be distinguished from academic freedom that faculty are assumed to have. Academic freedom for faculty has specific parameters related to their intellectual expertise and protections related to public, rather than private, issues. Some educators warn that academic leaders' pronouncements may compromise their stance as advocates for free speech.

Stanford University's academic freedom conference provided the opportunity for faculty who have been censured by their institutions to examine ways forward among those with more conservative views. One attendee reflected that, even though he did not share the same views as most in attendance, he found it useful to attend as a dean who regularly has to navigate the terrain of academic freedom. Students who are conservative report greater reticence about speaking out on campus. Those students who are reluctant to share their candid views fear their peers' criticism outside of class. Academic discourse needs to be challenging and the complaints of self-censorship and cancel culture may actually cross the line to a more restrictive culture. Campus administrators can address the rise of incivility on campus by reminding everyone on campus of the commonly accepted classroom norms that support discourse and by institutional leaders modeling positive discourse. Effort should also be undertaken to fuse the expectations of in and out-of-class conduct, especially in the face of an "increasingly hostile and toxic work environment" that results from escalating tensions between staff and students over pandemic and other policy directives.

Accusations of cancel culture, fostering campus environments that are inclusive of diverse perspectives, and campus speech are three tensions that must be managed by higher education leaders. An essential factor to inclusive discourse is welcoming activism but in order to be successful in fostering it, infusing civic and public purpose has to be an overarching goal. Survey results found that most university presidents believe that race relations are either good or excellent on their campuses, demonstrating surprising naiveté about campus discourse. Managing Political Tensions, a collection of articles offered by Inside Higher Education, promotes deescalating tensions and cultivating the cognitive tools in students to resist manipulation. The Bipartisan Policy Committee's Campus Free Expression: A New Roadmap "seeks to bridge the campus speech divide, arguing that talking through contentious issues is a skill set that students can and should be taught - and also that academic freedom and inclusion complement each other instead of conflict" as described in the Inside Higher Education announcement about its release.