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."