By Frederick M. Hess & Grant Addison
Thursday, July 27, 2017
In the past few years, the closing of the academic mind
has become hard to ignore. When a Republican presidential candidate’s name
chalked on a sidewalk is cause for student protest, “bias response team”
investigations, or even calls to the police, universities are clearly not
embracing robust dialogue. When faculty are disciplined for critiquing
university-sponsored anti-bias training, it’s evident that only certain views
are deemed permissible. So Pew’s new study showing that conservative support
for higher education has plummeted was noteworthy but hardly surprising. Pew
reported that nearly two-thirds (65
percent) of conservative Republicans say colleges and universities have a
negative effect on the country, while 43 percent of moderate and liberal
Republicans agree.
These results have prompted predictable head-shaking and
defensiveness on the part of college and university officials. The most
revealing response was offered up in the Chronicle
of Higher Education by the respected Terry Hartle, senior vice president
for government and public affairs at the American Council on Education. After
noting just how problematic it is for higher education and for the nation that
colleges and universities are seen as partisan institutions, Hartle explained
why it is that higher education has lost favor on the right.
Hint: It’s not because conservative speakers have been
disinvited, shouted down, and assaulted
by campus mobs. Nor is it because of institutions’ repressive speech codes,
seemingly adopted to stymie any opinions that run afoul of regnant notions of
political correctness. Nor is it even because of an overwhelmingly progressive
professoriate, comprising too many faculty members who’ve confused
proselytizing for pedagogy.
Nope. As Hartle sees it, Republicans’ darkening view of
colleges and universities is less the fault of higher education than of
irrational, right-wing pathologies. For one, he asserts that Republicans don’t
understand higher education’s economic value; for another, he argues that the
“conservative echo chamber” gins up controversies for its own selfish purposes.
But the heart of the issue, as Hartle sees it, is that conservatives have
turned against facts:
There also is a broader issue
confronting higher education that is much harder to tackle: the changing views
of truth. Logic, the disinterested search for truth, rigorous scientific
research, and empirical verification have been at the heart of higher-education
institutions in the modern era. But today, for many citizens, feelings outweigh
facts.
That’s certainly one way of putting things. Here’s
another way: The problem is not that conservatives have lost faith in the
mission of the university, but that too many universities have discarded their
sacred commitments to dialogue and truth in favor of ideological crusades.
Indeed, the mandarins of the academy now openly spout
Orwellian arguments for speech suppression based
entirely on feelings. Earlier this month, Northeastern University
psychology professor Lisa Feldman Barrett penned a piece for the New York Times titled “When Is Speech
Violence?” that claimed the mantle of “science” to argue for campus speech
restrictions. Before that, an April Times
op-ed by NYU’s vice provost for faculty, arts, humanities, and diversity, “What
‘Snowflakes’ Get Right About Free Speech,” justified censorship on the grounds
that subjective emotions should be privileged “over reason and argument,” and
that “[freedom of speech] means balancing the inherent value of a given view
with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can
participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community.”
Disappointingly, the author never quite got around to specifying just who will
determine the criteria for this “balancing.”
In short, the academy has abandoned its core values of
free inquiry in the service of ever-more-rigid political dogmas. President
Harry Truman, that voice of an older, more sensible Left, made those values
plain in his 1948 address to the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, the speech credited with giving rise to the National Science
Foundation:
Continuous research by our best
scientists is the key to American scientific leadership and true national
security. This indispensable work may be made impossible by the creation of an
atmosphere in which no man feels safe against the public airing of unfounded
rumors, gossip, and vilification. Such an atmosphere is un-American. It is the
climate of a totalitarian country in which scientists are expected to change
their theories to match changes in the police state’s propaganda line. . . .
Now and in the years ahead, we need, more than anything else, the honest and
uncompromising common sense of science. Science means a method of thought. That
method is characterized by open-mindedness, honesty, perseverance, and, above
all, by an unflinching passion for knowledge and truth.
The 1974 Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression
at Yale, known as the “Woodward Report” and later adopted as a model for
institutions across the nation, proclaimed:
The primary function of a
university is to discover and disseminate knowledge by means of research and
teaching. To fulfill this function a free interchange of ideas is necessary not
only within its walls but with the world beyond as well. It follows that the
university must do everything possible to ensure within it the fullest degree
of intellectual freedom. The history of intellectual growth and discovery
clearly demonstrates the need for unfettered freedom, the right to think the
unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
In 2005, Hartle’s own organization — representing nearly
1,800 college and university presidents and executives of related associations
— drafted and endorsed the “Statement on Academic Rights and Responsibilities.”
It held that “intellectual pluralism and academic freedom are central
principles of American higher education,” that “colleges and universities
should welcome intellectual pluralism and the free exchange of ideas,” and that
“neither students nor faculty should be disadvantaged or evaluated on the basis
of their political opinions.”
Contra Mr. Hartle, today’s universities — rife with
speech codes, “scientific” defenses of speech suppression, and faculties that
speak in one voice on seminal issues ranging from race relations to immigration
policy — have failed to adhere to their professed ideals or even to his
organization’s own standards. It’s true that there are plenty, on the left and
the right, who sometimes prefer dogma to science. Colleges and universities,
however, are supposed to offer a corrective to such thinking; they’re not
supposed to be a party to it. The sad truth is that conservatives are right to
look askance at higher education in 2017. Too many of our most esteemed academic
institutions have drifted from their historic mission — and that’s their fault,
not ours.
No comments:
Post a Comment