What is disinformation other than information you do not like? And if there truly is a difference, who is to adjudicate upon it?
The concrete problem here is not the type of information, or the application of the principles of the First Amendment to teachers, but their lopsidedness towards one particular point of view. It is the university administrations that let their students down by employing biased teachers, in particular with a universal bias across their majority, and moreover those that view themselves as activists for social and societal change first, and as academics only as distant second.
1. Read Abbot et al. Scientists have done a great job advancing knowlede, discerning between validated truth and error, and self-correcting.(1) 2. Read Pedagogical Malpractice’: Inside UCLA Medical School’s Mandatory ‘Health Equity’ Class.(2) When class content is open for all to see and critically evaluate, self correction is possible. 3. Read the medical UpToDate. Pedagogical presentation of validated knowledge has become the norm and remains up to date. Thanks for posing a valid question.
I know the first reference, but I do not see how it would contradict my point of view.
Thank you for pointing me to the second, which I had not read before. Still, it is my understanding that all the ailments described in it can be attributed to the woke bias of the faculty and administration of those schools, and they should be remedied by fixing this bias. Concretely, by not making compulsory a woke course, and even more so by offering alternative courses with contradicting content, students will inevitably question the ideology they are being fed. Then they merely have to decide for themselves what to believe.
If the result of this process is a minority of medical personnel with counterfactual beliefs, this is (a) a reason not to affix specific credentials to an academic degree from such an institution, and (b) better than the alternative of someone (who?) prescribing their approximation of the truth (as for us humans only ever an approximation is attainable) by fiat.
I do agree with you that all class content should be open for all to see, certainly in publicly funded institutes, and possibly even in privately funded ones.
This is a powerful essay, but as already noted by others, the problem is that, nowadays, one person's disinformation is another person's truth. We've personalized "truth" so that the definition of truth no longer encompasses what the author calls validated ideas. My "truth" isn't your "truth", a statement that in many ways is actually demonstrably true, but that can also be used lazily to deflect critical analysis. Another problem is that new ideas that might become valid in the future are not yet validated. This is true even in the sciences. As a science professor, I'm careful to make sure my students are aware that an idea might not yet be validated and, therefore might never be validated, or might be devalidated (is that a word?) at some point in the future with further research, and why it might be valid but never validated because of the complexity of the problem (a lot of ideas about climate change fall into this category). But once you step away from the sciences, where there is a well-accepted formula for validation, it becomes a lot harder to present students with new ideas and apply the same rubric I do to ideas in the sciences.
1. Read Abbot et al. Scientists have done a great job advancing knowledge, discerning between validated truth and error, and self-correcting.(1) 2. Read Pedagogical Malpractice’: Inside UCLA Medical School’s Mandatory ‘Health Equity’ Class.(2) When class content is open for all to see and critically evaluate, self correction is possible. 3. Read the medical UpToDate. Pedagogical presentation of validated knowledge has become the norm and remains up to date. Thanks for posing a valid question.
The answers to your questions at the end are all "no." Unfettered academic freedom, free inquiry, and free discourse is, to paraphrase Churchill, the worst system in all the world, except for all the others.
The solutions to the politicization of academia and the ability of academics to promote mis/disinformation are not to be found in limiting academic freedom. They can be found elsewhere (see, e.g., U. of Austin and the hostile but legit takeover of New College of Florida). See the wave of U's adopting institutional neutrality. Solutions start with political will and intestinal fortitude, it continues with appointing U leadership (Pres, Trustees, Governors, etc.) committed to having a university's faculty reflect the political diversity of the country, contingent on having the necessary conventional academic credentials. I could go on But, then, I do all the time. https://unsafescience.substack.com/
I think the root issue is that universities teach science, which has objective standards, methods of proof, and evidence. And the rest is ideology of one kind or another. Social "sciences" are not science, they are a kind of narrative.
Just because a small country on the other side of the planet has an internal security problem, we shouldn't have to tinker around with academic freedom here in the United States. It is too dangerous. First, it is the wrong thing to do on a primcipled basis. Second, with University administrators being predominantly in the woke left, any chipping away at the strengthnof academic freedom will mostly blow back on conservative faculty. Third, advocacy by the pro-Israel faction to limit free speech or to limit academic freedom is likely to blow back and reduce the inclination of conservatives like myself to support the pro-Israel faction. I do not have any sympathy for the pro-Hamas faction to begin with. But, I also don't like seeing the pro-Israel side undermine the American principles of free speech and advocacy against academic freedom, just because in the moment it is somewhat inconvenient. Now that the woke left is entrenched in academic administration, they would welcome a dial back on academic freedom in order to consolidate their position.
I think there were difficulties with this topic long before October 7th, 2023. You obviously have some strange personal issues with a certain segment of the population that is prominent in some parts of Academia (in my area, they constitute the majority and have done so for decades). I do not understand your concerns, particularly.
For an example not related to Jews or Zionism or Israel or terrorism or terrorist sympathizers, look at Riley Gaines' treatment at SFSU. Was that "freedom of speech"?
I think "free speech on campus" is more than slightly fraught. I am not quite sure what to do about it. But I applaud all those, like the author, who are offering suggestions.
The US Comstitution has the best possible demarcation. Supports free speech and peaceful protest, but does not cover violent protest. The case of Riley Gaines involved violence against her, and apparently coverup from SFSU. Which seems to be consistent with one of the problems I identified in my previous comment, which you thought was confusing and strange. No worries. It will make sense if you think it more carefully
It was not only a "coverup" by SFSU administration but promotion and celebration of this activity. And now, they have a lawsuit to contend with. Given the wretched state of our judicial system, I am not holding my breath, expecting anything rational will come out of this.
I could, of course, give many other problematic examples. Some resulted in lawsuits, and some did not. We are in a very unusual period, it seems to me.
I agree completely that once any protest or demonstration crosses over into destruction of property, or threats against students and faculty, etc., it has gone too far. I think it even goes too far if these protests or demonstrations impede the normal functioning of the institution.
These activities are not what these institutions are for. If people want to protest, let them do it in some distant enclosed area where no one has to deal with them. And perhaps, have them engage with the counter-protesters there. It could even be broadcast, live. They might get a massive audience in this way. It could even be an organized event, like what took place at the Roman Coliseum.
These people do not have any "rights" to disturb others. Period.
The most effective way to advocate for a cause on campus is to set up a table, have literature on hand, hand it out to people and have conversations with them. I used to see that a lot back when I was in grad school. Peaceful assembly. I don't think that we have much disagreement on this issue. My speculation is that the left has turned virulent because their paradigm is wilting (Gian Carlo Rota's book "Indiscrete thoughts" discusses this notion of wilting myths) and people aren't buying it. The ideological fuel was always there, but the slow death of their paradigm has sparked the ignition. Anyway, half baked thoughts off the cuff.
The impulse here—to root indoctrination out of higher education—is good and necessary. The proposed means—redefining academic freedom away from freedom of expression and toward holding classroom teaching to disciplinary standards of inquiry—is attractive as an ideal; I’m not sure how practical it is when entire disciplines have given up their traditional allegiance to rigorous empirical inquiry. In light of the backlash to Sweet’s address to the AHA in 2022 or recent presidential addresses at the ASA, what it will take to get where we need to get is disciplinary reform from within (or imposed from without).
Any limits of academic freedom based on content, at least in the context of research and public writings, can be, and will be, used to limit academic freedom in precisely the cases we need it most. I accept some of the positions taken in the article in the context of teaching, but we need to be careful.
For me, the distinction between "free speech" and "academic freedom" is helpful. Free speech knows few bounds. But "academic freedom" is highly restricted to pursuing academic activities. For me, all academic activities, whether the natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, legal studies, medicine, education, and social work should be authorized and restricted, with the exception of practicums, to intellectual inquiry, developing hypotheses, collecting evidence, formulating theoretical explanations, debating about whether the parts of the argument fit together, considering alternative evidence and explanations, and so on. The much lauded "diversity" should be diversity of perspective and opinion. "Activism" on campus should be grounds for dismissal. Let's keep universities academic.
Mis/disinformation falls into two categories: that created and spread within a country by its populace, and that created and spread by foreign agents, including state actors. The latter is dangerous and needs to be combatted by federal government forces. The former is generally protected by freedom of speech laws, and the cure for it is people speaking out against it with the truth.
I think the problems the author describes fall mainly in the former category, created by the woke left, and my prescription is for people, and academics in particular, to be brave, stand up, and speak out.
“Populace”? Are you including government a subset of the people? Or do you think government and its agents are not the biggest sources of misinformation - often outright lies - contrary to all evidence at our disposal?
I wish I could say those are the only two categories of misinformation and disinformation. What about that created and spread by the country's government itself, to bamboozle the populace? What if the federal government forces are those pushing this nonsense, aggressively?
You can stand up and be brave. But, you might find yourself facing severe consequences.
" What about that created and spread by the country's government itself, to bamboozle the populace?"
The obvious assumption is that the government acts in the public interest. If that's not the case, this article needs to be re-written to describe an enormously larger problem.
"But, you might find yourself facing severe consequences."
That's obvious. But "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Very true. At least from where I stand, it is not at all clear that all of the government is interested in doing anything in the public interest. Some parts still might hold to this standard, but other parts might diverge from this view.
For example, just a few months ago, a document was leaked from the FBI management about efforts to ferret out traitors. How did they propose to identify "traitors"? Things like having previously served in the military or being a member of any religious organization or having declined to be fully vaccinated were all suggested as signs that someone in the FBI might be a traitor. And therefore, a person like that should be fired, or worse, according to this document.
Remember previous documents leaking from the FBI that identified parents attending school board meetings as domestic terrorists. This was exposed in Congressional hearings, under oath. As embarrassing as that was, there were no consequences, of course.
Also recall people who were fired from the NYC public school system for not getting vaccinated, then had files opened on them at the FBI. They had a classification that was identical to those who are pedophiles, according to reports.
I have heard many elected officials suggesting that anyone who respects the US constitution is a dangerous radical who needs to be eliminated. I have also heard them calling for military strikes against US courts, including SCOTUS. I do not remember ever hearing anything quite so extreme, at least in my lifetime.
There are many other potentially troubling indications. I have never seen anything like this before. And it is more than slightly concerning.
What is disinformation other than information you do not like? And if there truly is a difference, who is to adjudicate upon it?
The concrete problem here is not the type of information, or the application of the principles of the First Amendment to teachers, but their lopsidedness towards one particular point of view. It is the university administrations that let their students down by employing biased teachers, in particular with a universal bias across their majority, and moreover those that view themselves as activists for social and societal change first, and as academics only as distant second.
1. Read Abbot et al. Scientists have done a great job advancing knowlede, discerning between validated truth and error, and self-correcting.(1) 2. Read Pedagogical Malpractice’: Inside UCLA Medical School’s Mandatory ‘Health Equity’ Class.(2) When class content is open for all to see and critically evaluate, self correction is possible. 3. Read the medical UpToDate. Pedagogical presentation of validated knowledge has become the norm and remains up to date. Thanks for posing a valid question.
1. https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/download/article/3/1/236/pdf
2. https://freebeacon.com/campus/pedagogical-malpractice-inside-ucla-medical-schools-mandatory-health-equity-class/
I know the first reference, but I do not see how it would contradict my point of view.
Thank you for pointing me to the second, which I had not read before. Still, it is my understanding that all the ailments described in it can be attributed to the woke bias of the faculty and administration of those schools, and they should be remedied by fixing this bias. Concretely, by not making compulsory a woke course, and even more so by offering alternative courses with contradicting content, students will inevitably question the ideology they are being fed. Then they merely have to decide for themselves what to believe.
If the result of this process is a minority of medical personnel with counterfactual beliefs, this is (a) a reason not to affix specific credentials to an academic degree from such an institution, and (b) better than the alternative of someone (who?) prescribing their approximation of the truth (as for us humans only ever an approximation is attainable) by fiat.
I do agree with you that all class content should be open for all to see, certainly in publicly funded institutes, and possibly even in privately funded ones.
This is a powerful essay, but as already noted by others, the problem is that, nowadays, one person's disinformation is another person's truth. We've personalized "truth" so that the definition of truth no longer encompasses what the author calls validated ideas. My "truth" isn't your "truth", a statement that in many ways is actually demonstrably true, but that can also be used lazily to deflect critical analysis. Another problem is that new ideas that might become valid in the future are not yet validated. This is true even in the sciences. As a science professor, I'm careful to make sure my students are aware that an idea might not yet be validated and, therefore might never be validated, or might be devalidated (is that a word?) at some point in the future with further research, and why it might be valid but never validated because of the complexity of the problem (a lot of ideas about climate change fall into this category). But once you step away from the sciences, where there is a well-accepted formula for validation, it becomes a lot harder to present students with new ideas and apply the same rubric I do to ideas in the sciences.
Who decides what constitutes disinformation and malpractice?
1. Read Abbot et al. Scientists have done a great job advancing knowledge, discerning between validated truth and error, and self-correcting.(1) 2. Read Pedagogical Malpractice’: Inside UCLA Medical School’s Mandatory ‘Health Equity’ Class.(2) When class content is open for all to see and critically evaluate, self correction is possible. 3. Read the medical UpToDate. Pedagogical presentation of validated knowledge has become the norm and remains up to date. Thanks for posing a valid question.
1. https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/download/article/3/1/236/pdf
2. https://freebeacon.com/campus/pedagogical-malpractice-inside-ucla-medical-schools-mandatory-health-equity-class/
The answers to your questions at the end are all "no." Unfettered academic freedom, free inquiry, and free discourse is, to paraphrase Churchill, the worst system in all the world, except for all the others.
The solutions to the politicization of academia and the ability of academics to promote mis/disinformation are not to be found in limiting academic freedom. They can be found elsewhere (see, e.g., U. of Austin and the hostile but legit takeover of New College of Florida). See the wave of U's adopting institutional neutrality. Solutions start with political will and intestinal fortitude, it continues with appointing U leadership (Pres, Trustees, Governors, etc.) committed to having a university's faculty reflect the political diversity of the country, contingent on having the necessary conventional academic credentials. I could go on But, then, I do all the time. https://unsafescience.substack.com/
I think the root issue is that universities teach science, which has objective standards, methods of proof, and evidence. And the rest is ideology of one kind or another. Social "sciences" are not science, they are a kind of narrative.
Just because a small country on the other side of the planet has an internal security problem, we shouldn't have to tinker around with academic freedom here in the United States. It is too dangerous. First, it is the wrong thing to do on a primcipled basis. Second, with University administrators being predominantly in the woke left, any chipping away at the strengthnof academic freedom will mostly blow back on conservative faculty. Third, advocacy by the pro-Israel faction to limit free speech or to limit academic freedom is likely to blow back and reduce the inclination of conservatives like myself to support the pro-Israel faction. I do not have any sympathy for the pro-Hamas faction to begin with. But, I also don't like seeing the pro-Israel side undermine the American principles of free speech and advocacy against academic freedom, just because in the moment it is somewhat inconvenient. Now that the woke left is entrenched in academic administration, they would welcome a dial back on academic freedom in order to consolidate their position.
I think there were difficulties with this topic long before October 7th, 2023. You obviously have some strange personal issues with a certain segment of the population that is prominent in some parts of Academia (in my area, they constitute the majority and have done so for decades). I do not understand your concerns, particularly.
For an example not related to Jews or Zionism or Israel or terrorism or terrorist sympathizers, look at Riley Gaines' treatment at SFSU. Was that "freedom of speech"?
I think "free speech on campus" is more than slightly fraught. I am not quite sure what to do about it. But I applaud all those, like the author, who are offering suggestions.
The US Comstitution has the best possible demarcation. Supports free speech and peaceful protest, but does not cover violent protest. The case of Riley Gaines involved violence against her, and apparently coverup from SFSU. Which seems to be consistent with one of the problems I identified in my previous comment, which you thought was confusing and strange. No worries. It will make sense if you think it more carefully
It was not only a "coverup" by SFSU administration but promotion and celebration of this activity. And now, they have a lawsuit to contend with. Given the wretched state of our judicial system, I am not holding my breath, expecting anything rational will come out of this.
I could, of course, give many other problematic examples. Some resulted in lawsuits, and some did not. We are in a very unusual period, it seems to me.
I agree completely that once any protest or demonstration crosses over into destruction of property, or threats against students and faculty, etc., it has gone too far. I think it even goes too far if these protests or demonstrations impede the normal functioning of the institution.
These activities are not what these institutions are for. If people want to protest, let them do it in some distant enclosed area where no one has to deal with them. And perhaps, have them engage with the counter-protesters there. It could even be broadcast, live. They might get a massive audience in this way. It could even be an organized event, like what took place at the Roman Coliseum.
These people do not have any "rights" to disturb others. Period.
The most effective way to advocate for a cause on campus is to set up a table, have literature on hand, hand it out to people and have conversations with them. I used to see that a lot back when I was in grad school. Peaceful assembly. I don't think that we have much disagreement on this issue. My speculation is that the left has turned virulent because their paradigm is wilting (Gian Carlo Rota's book "Indiscrete thoughts" discusses this notion of wilting myths) and people aren't buying it. The ideological fuel was always there, but the slow death of their paradigm has sparked the ignition. Anyway, half baked thoughts off the cuff.
The impulse here—to root indoctrination out of higher education—is good and necessary. The proposed means—redefining academic freedom away from freedom of expression and toward holding classroom teaching to disciplinary standards of inquiry—is attractive as an ideal; I’m not sure how practical it is when entire disciplines have given up their traditional allegiance to rigorous empirical inquiry. In light of the backlash to Sweet’s address to the AHA in 2022 or recent presidential addresses at the ASA, what it will take to get where we need to get is disciplinary reform from within (or imposed from without).
For a counterpoint to some of the positions taken here, see https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/academic-freedom-should-not-be-restricted-supposed-core-expertise
Any limits of academic freedom based on content, at least in the context of research and public writings, can be, and will be, used to limit academic freedom in precisely the cases we need it most. I accept some of the positions taken in the article in the context of teaching, but we need to be careful.
For me, the distinction between "free speech" and "academic freedom" is helpful. Free speech knows few bounds. But "academic freedom" is highly restricted to pursuing academic activities. For me, all academic activities, whether the natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, legal studies, medicine, education, and social work should be authorized and restricted, with the exception of practicums, to intellectual inquiry, developing hypotheses, collecting evidence, formulating theoretical explanations, debating about whether the parts of the argument fit together, considering alternative evidence and explanations, and so on. The much lauded "diversity" should be diversity of perspective and opinion. "Activism" on campus should be grounds for dismissal. Let's keep universities academic.
Mis/disinformation falls into two categories: that created and spread within a country by its populace, and that created and spread by foreign agents, including state actors. The latter is dangerous and needs to be combatted by federal government forces. The former is generally protected by freedom of speech laws, and the cure for it is people speaking out against it with the truth.
I think the problems the author describes fall mainly in the former category, created by the woke left, and my prescription is for people, and academics in particular, to be brave, stand up, and speak out.
“Populace”? Are you including government a subset of the people? Or do you think government and its agents are not the biggest sources of misinformation - often outright lies - contrary to all evidence at our disposal?
I wish I could say those are the only two categories of misinformation and disinformation. What about that created and spread by the country's government itself, to bamboozle the populace? What if the federal government forces are those pushing this nonsense, aggressively?
You can stand up and be brave. But, you might find yourself facing severe consequences.
" What about that created and spread by the country's government itself, to bamboozle the populace?"
The obvious assumption is that the government acts in the public interest. If that's not the case, this article needs to be re-written to describe an enormously larger problem.
"But, you might find yourself facing severe consequences."
That's obvious. But "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Very true. At least from where I stand, it is not at all clear that all of the government is interested in doing anything in the public interest. Some parts still might hold to this standard, but other parts might diverge from this view.
For example, just a few months ago, a document was leaked from the FBI management about efforts to ferret out traitors. How did they propose to identify "traitors"? Things like having previously served in the military or being a member of any religious organization or having declined to be fully vaccinated were all suggested as signs that someone in the FBI might be a traitor. And therefore, a person like that should be fired, or worse, according to this document.
Remember previous documents leaking from the FBI that identified parents attending school board meetings as domestic terrorists. This was exposed in Congressional hearings, under oath. As embarrassing as that was, there were no consequences, of course.
Also recall people who were fired from the NYC public school system for not getting vaccinated, then had files opened on them at the FBI. They had a classification that was identical to those who are pedophiles, according to reports.
I have heard many elected officials suggesting that anyone who respects the US constitution is a dangerous radical who needs to be eliminated. I have also heard them calling for military strikes against US courts, including SCOTUS. I do not remember ever hearing anything quite so extreme, at least in my lifetime.
There are many other potentially troubling indications. I have never seen anything like this before. And it is more than slightly concerning.
Hear Hear!