By Frederick M. Hess
Monday, June 24, 2019
This Wednesday, June 26, the South Dakota Board of
Regents will meet to discuss the implementation of one of the nation’s more
forceful efforts to protect intellectual diversity and free inquiry on campus.
Earlier this year, South Dakota enacted a new law intended to counter the
stifling orthodoxy that weighs so heavily on the nation’s colleges and
universities. The bill, S.D. 1087, requires public institutions of higher
education in the state to “maintain a commitment to the principles of free
expression” and to foster civil, intellectually diverse environments. It
protects student organizations from viewpoint discrimination, requires an
annual report to the legislature on campus intellectual diversity and speech
suppression, and safeguards the use of outdoor spaces as forums for free
speech.
Unsurprisingly, the bill has been dismissed by the
higher-education industry as burdensome and unnecessary. A member of the South
Dakota Board of Technical Education objected, “It’s pretty certain to increase
costly bureaucratic mandates . . . it’s likely to lead to lawsuits . . . [and]
I don’t think it has much of an effect on campus speech at all.” Student
government leaders from the University of South Dakota (USD) and South Dakota
State (SDSU) testified in opposition to the bill, which the president of USD’s
student government association called, “an attempt at a solution to a problem
that does not exist.”
And yet, lots of evidence in recent years has suggested
that there is a problem on South Dakota campuses.
In 2015, USD shut down an on-campus viewing of a film on
the “honor killing” of women in Islamic cultures, suggesting that the
documentary was an example of anti-Muslim bigotry. In 2018, when a student at
South Dakota State hung an American flag in his dorm to commemorate family
friends who died in the 9/11 terror attacks, university officials removed the
flag. The student told reporters that when he protested, he was informed “that
the school’s speech policy was deliberately vague to allow for decisions based
on the feelings of the community.” And just this February, the USD
administration urged the hosts of a campus “Hawaiian Day” party to change the theme,
deeming it insensitive to indigenous Hawaiians. When concerns about
administrative bullying were raised, USD legal counsel A.J. Franken archly
opined, “Students have the right to speak. They also have the right to refrain
from speech.”
South Dakota’s experience is a microcosm of what’s
unfolding across American higher education, and the resolution and
implementation of S.D. 1087 may have national implications. After all, across
the land, liberal faculty members outnumber their conservative counterparts
five to one, and the disparity is starker still when it comes to the social
sciences and humanities. Such a lack of intellectual diversity affects who gets
hired at colleges and universities, who enjoys the platform provided by
prestigious institutions, what gets researched, and what gets taught. As Luana
Maroji recently pointed out in The Atlantic, when campus communities are
thoroughly in the grasp of particular views and values, a natural result is
self-censorship that is bound to affect what professors teach and how they
teach it.
Indeed, in too many cases, 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:
Continuous research . . . 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 . . . 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.
Not only has the increasing dominance of certain views
and values within the academy raised questions about the ability of campuses to
support free inquiry, but research suggests that the quality of scholarly work
suffers when the academics producing it all think alike. Educators, like anyone
else, can fall prey to confirmation bias — and the more ideologically uniform a
research environment, the greater the risk of that bias going unnoticed and
tainting results.
The implementation of S.D. 1087 presents a number of
practical challenges, but also a great opportunity. The goal, after all, is to
encourage principled academics to defend their own core values against the
efforts of an ideological vanguard of administrators, faculty, and students.
On this count, sensible suggestions abound. The National
Association of Scholars has recommended that students take survey courses in
United States history and government to provide a broader, more textured
framing for today’s heated cultural debates. Model legislation from The
Goldwater Institute recommends establishing “a system of disciplinary sanctions
for students and others who interfere with the free-speech rights of others.”
Stanley Kurtz, of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has suggested that
public colleges create an office with the mission of bringing a diverse array
of speakers and perspectives to campus. And campuses would surely do well to
report on metrics of ideological diversity alongside other traditional measures
of student and faculty diversity.
Legislation that protects free inquiry in America’s
public colleges and universities is, sadly, a necessary and appropriate
response to the derelictions of the nation’s academics and campus
administrators. As it discusses how to proceed, the state’s Board of Regents
should keep this in mind, and observers should watch to see if the home of
Mount Rushmore can provide a promising path forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment