The Changing Climate on Campus – and the Stakes for Democracy
Getty Images
Two months ago, a friend emailed me a question about the links between higher education and the welfare of U.S. democracy. Coming from a wise civic leader affiliated with two of the country’s top universities, the query was provocative: “Suppose a major university sought to explore how best it could support the health and well-being of democracy. Aside from pursuing with alacrity the core general functions of engaging in quality research and having a robust pedagogical core, what 3-4 things do you think could make the most difference?”
Here is my response:
“I would say the following, in descending order of importance, on top of the "core" work you describe. Note I am assuming this is an agenda for the leadership of the institution and it would be a top priority for them, i.e., the university president and board would be ready, willing and able to invest their political and institutional capital in it.
1) Cultivate a robust, intentional, and principled culture of free expression and respect for viewpoint diversity on campus. Increasingly this is the most important thing that elite universities could be doing, given the knock-on effect of their graduates going out into positions of influence in society. However, with a few notable exceptions, e.g., the University of Chicago, it seems that most institutions are leaning in precisely the other direction.
2) On a related note, ensure there are not one or two but multiple faculty in the social sciences and humanities that are bringing heterodox political, ideological, and cultural -- e.g., right of center and / or classical liberal -- POVs to their work and classrooms so that students are exposed to a range of diverse viewpoints over the course of their college education.”
I went on to make additional suggestions. Universities should support our system of elections and the civic education of their students by encouraging them to not only vote but also volunteer as poll workers. And universities should lift up and celebrate graduates who have gone into public service to help restore the luster of that vocation. But my main recommendations focused on the imperatives of protecting freedom of expression and cultivating viewpoint diversity.
The Constricting Campus Climate
A few things led to this prioritization. Fresh in my mind were recent conversations I’d had with two eminent social scientists. In asking about the state of play in their respective departments and fields, they each ruefully observed that, politically and ideologically, they now worked in progressive monocultures. This was especially ironic for one of the scholars whose university president often preaches about the importance of viewpoint diversity even as he leads an institution that fails to practice it.
Pulling the camera back, college and university students are picking up the same vibe. Recurring Knight Foundation / Ipsos surveys of college students show that the proportion of students who say their free speech rights are secure has dropped from 73% in 2016 to 47% in 2021. The decline is driven primarily by students who identify as Republican (-25%) and Independent (-13%) vs. those who identify as Democratic (-2%). In 2021, 65% of students agreed “the climate at their school or on their campus prevents some people from saying things they believe because others might find it offensive.” This is up more than 10% from 2016.
The Heterodox Academy’s 2021 Campus Expression Survey offers another sobering snapshot. The good news is that “88% of students agreed that colleges should encourage students and professors to interact respectfully with people whose beliefs differ from their own.” The bad news: “63% of students agreed that the climate on their campus prevents people from saying things that they believe.” In aggregate, 60% of students reported being reluctant to discuss at least one of five potentially controversial topics in their classrooms: politics, religion, race, sexual orientation, or gender. And here too there is a clear progressive political skew. Students identifying as Republican and Independent reported being more reluctant to discuss these topics than their Democratic counterparts.
The strong signals pointing to the diminishment and political skewing of freedom of expression and viewpoint diversity in higher education parallel those in other domains. We see similar patterns in journalism, media, and entertainment companies, professional services firms, philanthropic foundations, and many of the nonprofit groups they support.
Correlation is not causation, but the vast majority of up and coming employees in these organizations have something in common. They have spent four or more years being acclimatized in colleges and universities en route to what are currently the commanding heights of our society and culture. The worldviews and politics of the 38% of American adults who have at least a bachelor’s degree are diverging from those of the 62% who do not. Widening educational polarization is not good for a liberal democracy bedeviled by mounting populist disdain for elites.
As some of us have been noticing, and Ryan Grim recently reported in telling detail, it is not even good for progressive organizations and causes. To the great detriment of their missions, they are increasingly prone to Bolshevik vs. Menshevik-style infighting and stance taking. Colleges and universities must do better in preparing their students to participate productively amid the rough and tumble of our disputatious democracy–and the full sweep of viewpoints they will encounter within it.
Can colleges and universities rise to the challenge? What will it take for these institutions to recover their capacity to uphold freedom of expression and viewpoint diversity?
Toward a More Heterodox Academy
To gain some purchase on these questions, earlier this month I attended the Heterodox Academy’s 2022 conference. The Academy (or HxA, to use their chosen acronym) is a nonprofit organization founded in 2015. HxA’s mission is “to improve the quality of research and education in universities by increasing open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement.” HxA currently has approximately 5,000 members, 500 of whom attended the conference.
As a lapsed academic and recovering grant maker, I was something of an interloper in their midst. Most conference participants were college and university faculty members. I came away from all the conversations, keynotes, and panels with three strong impressions.
First, cancel culture is becoming more rampant and institutionalized in colleges and universities in ways that have a chilling effect on faculty, classroom dynamics, and student learning. But for every prominent conflict that attracts public attention, there are many more that unfold just as arbitrarily behind the scenes.
Since 2015, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has tracked 537 incidents “targeting a scholar for some form of professional sanction over constitutionally protected speech.” There were 111 such episodes in 2021, a substantial increase over the annual totals in the early years of the survey. FIRE also found “that over two-thirds of targeting incidents were initiated by individuals or groups to the left of the scholar (76 incidents; 68%), whereas less than one-third (33 incidents; 30%) came from the right of the scholar.”
I was aware of these patterns before going to the conference. What caught me off guard were the myriad episodes I heard about that occurred far from the public eye. Most of the informal intimidation efforts, social sanctions, and petty ostracisms endured by attendees and their colleagues would not even register in FIRE’s database. But they are no less real and troublesome, and even more widespread. Hearing these stories left me aghast – and even more appreciative of the determination and spirit of good humor among the conference goers. While obviously a self-selected group, these scholars are dedicated to and energized by the ideals embodied in HxA’s mission.
Second, this is not primarily, or even essentially, a right vs. left or red vs. blue issue. Indeed, some of the most egregious stories I heard from conference goers involved blue on blue attacks. Liberal and leftist scholars practicing free expression and inquiry in their progressive pursuit of truth are no more immune from the wrath of campus zealots than colleagues on the right. Moreover, the infringements and silencing threats are not just coming from the left. Attendees heard about the dangers inherent in the wave of gag orders now being passed by red state legislatures banning discussion of critical race theory and other controversial topics.
The fundamental question, which HxA co-founder Jonathan Haidt has helpfully specified, is what is the ultimate purpose or telos of the university? Is it the pursuit of truth, or of justice as those on the left or right might want to define it–and regulate how others are to talk and / or not talk about it?
Third, a hammer and tongs defense against actors undermining freedom of expression and viewpoint diversity is necessary but insufficient. Those of us who believe that the purpose of the university is to pursue truth must engage with and persuade those who may not share our convictions.
A compelling way to do this is by practicing what the Heterodox Academy calls “The HxA Way,” which they have distilled down to five norms and values:
Make your case with evidence
Be intellectually charitable
Be intellectually humble
Be constructive
Be yourself
It is not always easy to exemplify these norms and values, especially when they are under brazen assault, but this is the life that HxA members have chosen. By living up to them, members can serve as what Kyle Sebastian Vitale, VP of Programs at HxA called “winsome disruptors.” In his keynote address, Vitale outlined the imperative: “an ardent and disarming response to forces that crowd against open inquiry as we pursue truth in education. Done in a way that wins people to us, rather than gets us past them.”
HxA makes a point of blending inspiration with practical resources and support. For example, they are drafting a best practices guide for educators working in different roles to bring the HxA Way to bear in their universities. This is the sort of prosaic support that will be essential in the extended campaign that lies ahead.
One Last Recommendation
Let me conclude where I began, with institutional leadership. I left the conference thinking that, were I to be asked again, I would make an additional suggestion to my friend. College and university presidents and administrative leaders should become members of HxA. The membership rolls are public, so this action would send a powerful signal to the academic communities they seek to lead.
Becoming a member requires two simple and straightforward commitments. Members must seek to live up to the HxA Way as described above. They must also affirm the following statement: “I support open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement in research and education.” If these commitments feel like a bridge too far for university administrators, perhaps they are in the wrong line of work. At the very least, they are not leading their institutions to do what is uniquely in their power to do when it comes to strengthening American democracy.
