Anti-racism on campus

I've previously attempted to capture the most important issues related to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in higher education. Fred Hayward's reflections on his and others' work at the University of Wisconsin in the 1960s and 1970s provides an important opportunity to see what has worked or not worked over the previous decades. The UW experience that Hayward recounts portrays an institution that acknowledged serious student concerns and leveraged that to make changes, even in the face of significant resistance among the general faculty.

Citing the 2020 Black Lives Matter movement, the rise of white nationalism, and tensions over critical race theory, Hayward expresses disappointment in the lack of real progress since the 1960s. However, he remains hopeful that real change is achievable, asserting that Wilkerson's Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents contains essential truths to consider. Paired with Wilkerson's analysis, McGhee's The Sum of Us offers insight on the cost of persistent racism and how it might be addressed. 

The use of the term anti-racism has been picked up by many educators, leading to some institutions incorporating it into their purposes and goals. UMass Boston incorporated anti-racism in its vision and mission statements but immediately faced questions of the rhetoric versus reality of the institution's commitment. Affirmative action has been present in higher education and other sectors for much longer and has been viewed as a critical element for correcting the historical exclusion of cultural groups. However, with large numbers of Americans opposing affirmative action, using it to address systemic racism is likely short-lived.

The anti-racism perspective calls whites to actively oppose incidents and systems of discrimination. Administrators in higher education have a special responsibility to let go of risk avoidance as they speak up about racism on campus.

One of the fascinating things is that Hayward summarized only what occurred with students and faculty at UW, without reference to the role that student affairs educators might have played. My own experience as an undergraduate student at Colorado State University was that the Dean of Students was fired because he chose to engage with students in real conversation about their concerns, instead of hiding in his office during the student protests of the late 1960s. Student affairs staff are often unrecognized partners in learning for faculty and all institutions would be better off if the silos of the classroom and out of class life were dismantled.

Expatriate work in higher education

Having experienced it, I am an enthusiastic advocate for international work in higher education. It was transformative for me. Bruce Taylor, an academic who worked abroad for almost 40 years recounts many of the things I valued about expatriate work. He also offers advice on the conditions or circumstances that can improve success in both short or long term work outside one's passport country. Taylor closes his essay with the warning that returning to one's passport country can be daunting, a dynamic I've observed among colleagues and felt myself.

Flipping the expatriate conversation to faculty from other countries that come to the U.S.A., the associate dean of faculty affairs at Sacramento State University described the difficulties that engineering faculty have in adjusting to the culture and expectations they face. Especially when it comes to students' casual approach to classroom encounters with their professors and encountering diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, faculty from other countries may lack the contextual understanding of why the expectations are so different. Providing faculty development in "equity literacy, coupled with pedagogical training on effective and empathetic teach methods" would be a good place to start in helping expatriate faculty in U.S.A. settings.

Has higher education lost its way?

The Real World of College: What Higher Education Is and What It Can Be by Wendy Fischman and Howard Gardner has attracted considerable attention by other academics, who reinforce some but oppose other assertions the authors made. The summary of comments made by the authors certainly stimulated my curiosity. Their finding was that "higher education has become a largely 'transactional' endeavor, focused entirely too much on jobs and bogged down in well-intentioned institutes, centers and programs that distract from its main purpose." Fischman and Gardner's book is based on 2,000 interviews of students, parents, faculty, administrators, trustees, alumni and others over 10 years at 10 institutions.

Some of the questions raised included:

• Are institutional faculty and administrators aligned with student and family expectations?
• Is the prevailing transactional student focus on career-related outcomes out of whack with other, and more transformational, purposes?
• Has the proliferation of services and learning opportunities eclipsed the core of building intellectual capital?
• Are student experiences at elite institutions different or more like those offered in less-selective settings?
• Why do students struggle with finding a place and feeling included, which results in poorer mental health?

I reserve judgment related to the premise of the Fischman & Gardner book since I have not read it. However, other authors have posed alternatives for education leaders to consider.

One alternative takes on the rankings that influence students' choices and set up a hierarchy of elitism for academics climbing the prestige ladder. Colin Diver's Breaking Ranks compares the rating system for higher education to that of refrigerators and concludes that systems like that used in the US News & World Report can and should be resisted. The oddity is that elitism is commonly defended as an extension of free market competition with "the best" having access to the highest quality of education. This view relies heavily on the individual privilege of learning versus the public benefit of high quality and accessible education for all. An alternative approach to rankings uses the U.N.'s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) to measure the impact of institutions.

A long-asserted view of the future of higher education is that it should relate more purposefully to workforce development. Focusing on content mastery and skill development aligned with employment opportunity has potential appeal to prospects entering college immediately after high school graduation as well as for the those seeking lifelong retooling that is offered in adult learning. Vocational preparation can be more expensive than programs in the humanities and social sciences, which has lead some institutions deliberately discounting them. Related to workforce objectives, tools are now available to measure institutions' contribution to the economic mobility of their graduates, which is one of the most important criteria related to public good. With previous rankings having been based on reputation, resources, and other elitist criteria, focusing on real impact for broader student populations may help to dislodge the stranglehold of elite and Ivy institutions, a persistent problem being challenged by Malcolm Gladwell in his "I Hate the Ivy League" initiative.

"New" models for U.S. higher education have been proposed, such as Paul LeBlanc's "Students First." The LeBlanc proposal relies on changing the currency of educational outcomes from credit hours accumulated to competency based learning. LeBlanc characterizes the competency focus as an idea that has emerged over time and should be utilized to examine broader institutional changes related to policy, funding, and accreditation. LeBlanc also advocated a balance between bureaucracy and love in institutional functioning, raising question about the tyranny of credit hours and fear of law suits. Matt Reed's reflections on LeBlanc's book raise important questions about candor in the academy and how to avoid favoritism if institutions move to a more humane or love-centered place. Ray Schroeder proposes that there are two academic communities, one is the declining traditional residential campus and the second includes the thriving professional education focused institutions. The model advocated by LeBlanc and further described in his other book "Broken" is based on the second kind of institution, achieving savings by moving instruction to virtual, cheaper, and larger scale.

Should or can higher education change looms behind both the Fischman & Gardner and LeBlanc books. Any need for innovation should begin with determining if students' interests are being served. That higher education was viewed as serving elites and was biased toward a liberal agenda appeared in some reports over the last several years. While this belief was adopted by some conservatives, it was generally not endorsed by independents or liberals. More recent research indicates that the general public view of the value of higher education has returned and most students' trust of the institutions they attend did not suffer from the COVID pandemic. The American Council on Education research indicates that, although there is improvement in public perceptions, differences in point of view by politics are dramatic. What is most consistent in the public's growing concern that the cost of higher education is too high but another vulnerability looms in scandals that undermine the credibility of institutions.

Jason Wingard, President of Temple, warned that "Higher Education Must Change or Die." Responses to the essay reflect greater optimism. Bright spots include how pandemic induced changes informed presidents with new approaches and refreshed perspectives. Most important in their view are improving affordability through greater entrepreneurial activity which results in improved accessibility and flexibility. A Forbes Magazine six-part series included recommendations for "Leading in a Time of Change."

While lofty visions of transformative education are commonly voiced by many educators, simply being served efficiently is a priority for many students. Some believe that imagining a completely new university could be a way to get to the core issues of innovation and that the fundamentals aren't that complicated. The core elements would include focusing on learners, refining technology, active pedagogy, blurring disciplinary boundaries, attending to stakeholder interests, and honing the research emphasis of institutions to the nature of the campus and the communities it serves. Active engagement in purposeful learning is central to these core elements and internships offer a particularly effective way for students to acquire a variety of outcomes from these experiences.

Finding summative optimistic, yet practical, print resources is helpful when reflecting on the future of higher education. Inside Higher Education republished select articles into "Educating and Supporting the Whole Student." While the idea of developing the whole student likely has multiple points of origin, one is the German idea of "Bildung," that "considers moral, social, and emotional maturation as inseparable from intellectual growth." Reinforcing what higher education does well, Light & Pfrozheimer identified 10 core challenges of being "Great Universities." Their book offers suggestions on things that can be done that are not too expensive or complex, thus offering a path for any institution rather than those that are resource rich.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine - education and arts

With Russia's invasion of Ukraine in its second month, signaling that Russia's strategies underestimated resistance, the devastation of Ukraine is graphically demonstrated in pictures of damaged buildings, injured and killed civilians. Meanwhile, Putin continued the repression of any messages he doesn't want Russian citizens to hear and channeled his 'inner-Trump' including name calling (e.g. Ukraine governments are Nazis), claims of fake news coverage, and staged demonstrations to spark nationalistic fervor in support of his invasion of an sovereign country.

One of the most frightening aspects of Putin's invasion of Ukraine is that, coupled with tacit support from China's Xi, it has challenged the world order that presumed continued connections and cooperation across the globe. The idea that democracy and capitalism provided a quality of life unsurpassed by other governments and economies is now under question. In addition, Russian clerics declared their support of Putin's invasion by ignoring the record of history and declaring the Ukrainians are Russian. One can only pray that rising interfaith cooperation in Ukraine will counter the destructive impact of clerics who unquestioningly line up to support Putin's agenda. The emergence of new political, ideological, and religious chasms separating Russia/China from the U.S.A. and other Western countries will echo for years and perhaps decades beyond the Ukraine crisis.

As the picture unfolded, higher education began to adjust and looked into the future. Repercussions were felt as some international students were stranded in Ukraine, desperate to get out. Indian medical students who were studying in Ukraine had their dreams dashed and may never be able to complete their degrees. Study abroad programs scrambled as cancellations mounted across Russia and other eastern European countries. Both Ukrainian and Russian students struggled to continue pursuit of education as a result of the financial repercussions of the war and sanctions imposed on Russia.

To their credit numerous higher education institutions have intervened. Institutions such as the University of Helsinki reached out to Ukrainian students to invite them to continue their studies in Finland without testing or fees and the University of Chicago offered to pay tuition for students affected by the Russian invasion. University of the People provided scholarships for 1,000 Ukrainian refugee students to continue their studies online. As some Russian scholars fled from what they saw as an impossible future, other academics tried to sort out what role they could, or were willing to play. The Biden administration requested that Congress approve modified visa rules for Russian scholars to move to U.S.A. institutions over the next four years.

The Russian Rectors' Union chose to defend the war against Ukraine and said, "It is very important to support our country, our army, which defends our security, to support our president, who has made perhaps the most difficult decision of his life, a hard-won but necessary one." This statement included reference to valuing research cooperation with Ukraine. The end of the statement asserts, "Together we are a great power." Knowing what is portrayed in western media, it's hard to stomach that academics could make such a statement and the European University Association suspended the 12 institutions whose Rectors now stand in favor of the invasion of Ukraine. In addition to the Russian Rector's complicity, some Russian institutions have begun to target anti-war expressions among students through intimidation and explusions. QS, an international academic ranking system, vowed to remove Russian institutions from their rankings yet an April 4 update included them.

On the other hand, westerners who are criticizing the attack on Ukraine don't live in a country where media is controlled by the state and where opposition to the state could result in terrifying consequences. The "Z" first noticed on Russian military vehicles seemed mystical but turned into a disinformation campaign for a segment of Russians who are promoting the Ukrainian invasion.  Considering the pro and anti-war divide emerging among Russians, perhaps the Russian Rectors were responding to public division, maybe they didn't have enough detailed information, or maybe they were just acting under Russian state direction.

The age of social media has changed the public's awareness of war tactics, including the brutal tactics that have victimized so many innocent Ukrainian children, elderly, and others. However, even as the Russian invasion of Ukraine persisted, some countries did not fall in line with the condemnation of the U.S.A., Europe, and other Western-aligned countries. The reasons for not joining in the broad criticism of Russia are complicated and must be considered in the historical context of other conflicts between the West and its adversaries. Steven Mintz noted John Mearsheimer's (University of Chicago) assessment that NATO's expansion toward Russia triggered Putin's fears of border encroachment as relevant and important for academic scholars and students to consider.

The devastation of Ukraine will render 'research cooperation' impossible among higher education entities because little will be left should Russia be victorious in overtaking Ukraine. Universities have been targeted in hacking and others have sustained extensive damage, including buildings that support Jewish students, such as the Hillel building in Kharkiv. As conscientious citizens in Russia, many of whom do not have access to information beyond state propaganda, dig deeper into what they are being told, the hope among Ukraine's defenders is that Russians will increasingly go to the streets to protest the invasion of Ukraine.

While the political condemnation has been broad, with economic sanctions on Russia levied by many countries, arts and culture responded with numerous cancellations. Concerts around the world, including the Chicago Symphony Orchestra dedicated performances to Ukraine and highlighted content to remind patrons of the history of war and to condemn those who have used it to subjugate others. Musicians such as Valery Gergiev and Denis Matsuev, as well as the Bolshoi Ballet, were canceled due to their alignment with Putin. Risking retaliation from the Russian government, 17,000 Russian artists denounced Putin's war against Ukraine. Reflecting the growing number of businesses like McDonald's and Starbuck's ceased operations in Russia, U.S. higher education institutions cut financial ties as well. As an example, Stanford University determined to discontinue online access to its professional development courses. Faith-based institutions in the U.S.A. launched numerous gatherings and initiatives to raise awareness about, and stand in solidarity with, Ukraine. President Zelensky spoke with representatives of the Association of American Universities, saying that Ukraine would prevail and recover and that it needed the restoration of higher education opportunity.

One of the most damaging statements against Putin's war made by anyone in the world was that of Arnold Schwarzenegger. His video recounted his love of Russia and the Russian people, conveyed his admiration for the Russian weight lifter who inspired him, and concluded with a call for Russian citizens to stand against Putin's war on Ukraine. We are in a modern age where celebrity and social media can be dangerous yet, at other times come together for good by informing the public by way of respected figures that politicians' actions may be very different than their actions.

Political and economic sanctions against Russia have been widely embraced by democracies, resulting in Putin claiming that they are equivalent to acts of war. The breadth of nations supporting economic sanctions includes some countries that notoriously oppose such action, including Switzerland, Monaco, and the Cayman Islands. Unfortunately, Russian oligarchs are flocking to Dubai aboard their yachts, arriving to bask in the sun on the beaches that front their mansions. Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, a Russian oligarch moved his 2nd luxury yacht to one of the UAE's poorest emirate, Ras al-Khaimah. The UAE is seeing a boom in high-end real estate and the influx of Russian-speakers in expensive restaurants and other venues is undeniable. Holdouts such as Dubai, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt have the potential to undermine the sanctions of the rest of the world.

Putin's response to sanctions appears to be part of a pre-determined smear campaign that labeled the Ukraine government as led by neo-Nazis and drug dealers. Russian citizens have been fed so much propaganda that Ukrainians appealing to Russian family members are told that Russia has come to bring them food and clothing. For information on conditions in Russia, Valerie Hopkins of the NYT provides excellent insights.

President of Urkraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, has been revered worldwide for his courage in standing up to Putin and leading the Ukrainian resistance. As a former media personality turned public leader, Zelensky has exploited his popularity to garner local and international support. The power of arts is very clear in Zelensky's example; by being public and visible, silencing him and attempting to take him down has become extremely problematic for Putin.

Ideological feuds continue

I previously posted on the debate over diversity, equity, and inclusion as a focus in higher education, a focus that has sometimes been misused.  The attempts to eradicate DEI and the accompanying the attacks on academic freedom led 93 academic groups to issue a statement saying, "All members of the campus community must be able to speak their minds freely, even if some hold opinions that others find objectionable, factually unsupportable, or abhorrent. The answer to speech with which one disagrees is more speech, not enforced silence." Students who actively express their opposition to speakers do so based on the harm they perceive speakers can do. While some academics may not believe that long-standing commitments to academic freedom and the privilege of tenure are threatened, Mississippi demonstrates that both can be undermined.

Ron DeSantis, Governor of Florida, continues to demonstrate hostility about DEI initiatives. He started by investigating how much higher education institutions spend on diversity initiatives and doubled down by appointing anti-CRT trustees for the New College of Florida as a commitment to making it the "Hillsdale of the South." Florida Community College Presidents contributed momentum to the DeSantis initiative by issuing an anti-CRT statement but careful reading of the statement reveals sufficient room to continue CRT among multiple analytical approaches; the AAUP condemned the Florida Presidents' CRT statement and others expressed outrage, seeing DeSantis' initiatives as indicative of battles yet to come.

Some argue that DeSantis cannot be beaten in an academic freedom debate but must, instead, be called out for labeling CRT and diversity education in general as political. The fact is, the DeSantis and supporter initiatives are blatant political actions intended to silence critical consideration of historical and contemporary conditions. The attack on AP African American course design allowed DeSantis to move the anti-diversity conversation to a national level but an alternative was quickly unveiled in response. These conditions call institutions, and their Presidents, to speak out about the threat of white supremacy. Michael Gavin urged Presidents to label it for what it is - it is hatred and exclusion, not a political perspective. The fight against racism and white supremacy is also not a matter of a culture war - it is active marginalization of the identities of the faculty, staff, and students who count on higher education to stand for the advancement of knowledge and the improvement of the human condition.

The tendency of journalists and scholars mischaracterizing Critical Race Theory (CRT) have sometimes coupled it with the discomfort students encounter when introduced to new ideas, or ideas that are contrary to their own. CRT might be more appropriately referred to as culturally responsive teaching and sociologists have affirmed the importance of students learning about racism and its impact. The point is that CRT is more about being honest about history and teaching in inclusive and responsive ways. The University of Chicago believes it found a way through the divisive debate on DEI and critical theory by establishing a new academic Department of Race, Diaspora, and Indigeneity. Leora Auslander and Adam Getachew of the University faculty write that "What happened at the University of Chicago was not that we found a 'middle ground' between both sides. Rather, we proliferated spaces for robust engagement and discussion that not only fostered a majority coalition but also produced the best version of our intellectual vision." At the core of the process of creating the new department was not "winning over critics" but establishing critical dialogue characterized by openness and inviting challenge. Unfortunately, conservative student activist Daniel Schmidt used Chicago's strategy against a professor who was targeted for her course, the Problem of Whiteness, ultimately "ginning up an outrage campaign" by posting the course description, photo, and email of the course instructor.

The University of Chicago's survey on free speech reflected a wide divergence of views on how it should be supported. The opposing positions of preventing harmful speech versus saying whatever they want are almost evenly split among survey respondents.

Stanford University found a work-around to the debates over CRT, including differences about what should be included in the academic canon, or core, of students' learning. The first-year curriculum has been reconceptualized Civic, Liberal and Global Education or COLLEGE for short. The COLLEGE experience includes three courses over three semesters and "brings back the idea of a shared curriculum, though not to celebrate a canon or to nudge students to declare humanities majors. Rather, COLLEGE is designed to engage all our entering students, whose interests range widely across disciplines, by confronting them with existential questions: What is the true end of education? How do we sustain democracy? Can we solve problems on a global scale? COLLEGE also tackles underlying issues in campus social dynamics, which reflect rational trends and are growing concern at Stanford." However, Stanford Law became embroiled in controversy over disruption of federal judge Kyle Duncan's appearance on campus, concluding with the resignation of the Associate Dean who was at the center of the incident.

Questions remain... How could a process such as the University of Chicago's 18 month deliberation heal the schisms that divide so many campuses? Could the Stanford model avoid the ideological disputes that are tearing so many academics apart? Some educators believe that the statements about free expression and exchange of ideas fall apart when conflicts arise, leading them to assert that students are best served by facing each other and building relationships. Virginia's Governor urged hiring faculty with diverse political perspectives, a move that sounds consistent with openness and civil discourse but designed to perpetuate a myth of hostility for conservatives on campus. Parents and alumni of Grove City College declared that campus DEI initiatives are "profoundly unbiblical" resulting in a survey of diversity initiatives that was ultimately approved by its Board of Trustees. The Open Letter to the Board of Trustees by Jemar Tisby is a powerful critique of the Board's action. The Wyoming Senate voted to defund the University of Wyoming's gender and women's studies program, an obvious step to remove the presence of ideas that are discomforting. Avoiding discomfort is, in fact, the basis of Tennessee's SB2290 legislative proposal to prevent the discussion of divisive topics.

The Princeton Principles for a Campus Culture of Free Inquiry claim to extend the University of Chicago statement. The model is based on the belief that "Universities have a special fiduciary duty to foster freedom of thought for the benefit of the societies that sustain them," although the principles have not been endorsed by Princeton leaders. Going beyond the immediate campus climate, the statement proposes that "Trustees and regents should also oppose and resist government mandates, such as bans on disfavored topics and subjects." Robert George, the Princeton professor instrumental in the "Princeton Principles" was himself disrupted when speaking at Washington College.

The free expression group PEN and AAC&U warned in a joint statement that "Legislative restrictions on freedom of inquiry and expression violate the institutional autonomy on which the quality and integrity of our system (U.S.A) of higher education depends." Incursion into academic freedom in U.S.A. higher education is mirrored around the world, resulting in 70 countries signing a joint resolution of the U.N. Human Rights Council. Todd Kashan, a professor at George Mason University and author of The Art of Insubordination: How to Dissent and Defy Effectively, offered ten principles for embracing conflict to guide those struggling with attempts to curtail freedom of thought and expression on campus. Beyond Kashan's analysis and recommendations, several books dealing with freedom of thought and expression have recently come to market. Fifty faculty at Harvard University formed a group to defend academic freedom on their campus and around the country. Steven Pinker and Bertha Madras said of the group, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and if we don't defend academic freedom, we should not be surprised when politicians try to do it for us or a disgusted citizenry writes us off."

The 2023 Academic Freedom Index asserted that it's critical that educators have tools to protect intellectual discourse and many institutions showcased solutions that appear to be effective at the . The Academic Leaders Task Force released its report, Campus Free Expression: A New Roadmap, to guide campus leaders on how to foster more and constructive speech. This report referred to student affairs educators as "first responders" and called for them to cultivate skills and dispositions conducive to conversations across difference. Researchers raised question if the "speech crisis" voiced in political discourse actually exists and encouraged educators to continue to do what they do best, "research, debate and dig into the complexities of important issues of public concern." The AAC&U convened a meeting to explore the implications of the gag legislation and what is spurring the trend of students seeing their rights abridged. Keeping academic discourse open and free is a student right that must be protected. Fortunately, 70% of students report being comfortable expressing their views on campus. The same survey found that 74% of students said that professors who express offensive views should be reported.

The Hamline University case of a faculty member who showed a picture of the Prophet Mohammed in class is a very difficult example. Critics say that Hamline administration violated academic freedom by speaking out against the professor. Tom Ginsburg of the University of Chicago criticized Hamline's "so-called academic freedom conference" that appeared to be an attempt to justify Hamline's criticism of the faculty member.

Faculty views on freedom of expression is mixed, based on a recent survey conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). An organization that has previously championed conservative faculty views, FIRE asked questions such as "How worried, if at all, are you about losing your job or reputation because someone misunderstands something you have said or done..." or questions related to how much they self-censor in publications, meetings, or social media. The survey has a somewhat representative sample, although a FIRE contact list was used for a portion of the sample, but the response rate was very low.

Research conducted at universities in North Carolina determined that student peers are a ready source to help improve campus discourse because most students want to engage in constructive dialogue. Resources like those described above are timely as legislative action, like that signed into law in Georgia or Oklahoma's statewide oversight committee, attack free speech provisions and conservative students adopt ingenious ways to circumvent campus guidelines intended to preserve free expression. An invited conservative speaker at the University of New Mexico drew a large crowd of protestors; the speaker called the protestors, "campus terrorists" and "rabid banshee animals." A U.S.A. Appeals court struck down policies designed to prohibit discriminatory harassment and bias-related incidents in a lawsuit against Central Florida University; the conservative student group, Speech First, initiated the suit.

"Turning down the heat" through constructive dialogue may pave the way for "culture peace" to emerge as institutions strive to protect the most vulnerable within their communities. Productive discourse requires thoughtful reflection and preparation and involves a number of issues, one being the centrality of accepting criticism of one's ideas. Student government leaders are a ready resource for creating campuses open to discourse on contested issues, although they often have different views about what open expression includes and how it should be undertaken. The University of Buffalo student government drafted a student club recognition policy raised conservative students' suspicion that their ability to assemble was the target. Faculty can help by clarifying that academic freedom has specific parameters that do not encompass "oracle" dimensions, meaning that discretion should be used to stay within one's academic expertise and understand that "freedom" relates to public rather than private matters. Defining academic freedom more narrowly and creating faculty-driven accountability is important to retaining legitimacy of academic institutions in advocating for it.

While turning down the heat may be an objective for academics, the political discourse is likely to become increasingly strident under the new GOP majority in the House of Representatives. With Virginia Foxx named to chair the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, intervention to "stop this administration's reckless and destructive regulatory agenda" will likely include attempts to regulate CRT from the federal level. The House Committee on Education released a September 2023 report calling for stonger protections of free speech on campus.

The naming of institutions and buildings on college campuses is an often unrecognized assertion of specific ideological views. Buildings and monuments can be found throughout southern U.S.A. states that memorialize the conspirators of the Confederacy of the 19th century. These monuments are remnants of the "Lost Cause" of the Confederacy and have continued to buttress the systemic continuity of racism in these institutions. Some institutions, such as the University of North Carolina, have begun to introduce new names that represent greater diversity to counter previous naming conventions. Other institutions are removing names. However, make not mistake - naming as a way of asserting racial supremacy is still visible every day on many campuses and even songs such as Alabama's fight song, which includes pride in "Dixie," is an offensive reminder of racism.

Dissension over the legitimacy of differing perspectives has contributed to certain words or concepts shifting over time, with certain words taking on greater weight. Some institutions quietly removed triggering words from their websites but Stanford drew criticism after being more public about it. Being aware of these shifts in higher education language is critical if discourse is to remain productive. Overzealous critical social justice advocates may actually inhibit free expression that is so important to keeping dialogue and critical examination open in classrooms and elsewhere on campus. A fascinating twist in the debate about CRT is that legislation (Ohio HB 327) prohibiting promotion of "partisan philosophy or religion by indoctrination, coercion, compulsion, or teaching... a set of beliefs in a one-sided, biased, and uncritical manner" may actually help educators resist the assertion of white supremacy ideas in classroom and other discourse.

Calling liberals "snowflakes" because they object to harsh discourse is common among conservatives; conservatives claiming they are being bullied by liberals is perhaps an example of the reverse dynamic. However, others believe that political interference in higher education has increased and that the real problem is the "avalanche of legislation passed by Republic-controlled legislatures around the country that gags discussion of certain topics," meaning that those initiating multiple legislative and governance moves are the actual "snowflakes." Instead of using derogatory characterizations of each other, perhaps all those who value quality and freedom of thought in higher education should/could join together in "robust engagement and discussion" that is anchored in principles of intellectual discourse. If higher education doesn't act, it is "failing not just our students but our nation and our democracy."