Freedom at Universities

Introduction

The U.S. university system is broken. Faculty and students self-censor. Debates have become one-sided. Those speaking up get punished in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. University environments now feel remarkably orthodox, carried by a core group of true believers, and supported by the vast majority who “swim with the flow” of acquiescing to the common viewpoints and to certainly not questioning them in public. In consequence, that means that important questions can no longer be freely asked or pursued, and that debates get stifled. It is critical that these issues get addressed in a clear-minded manner, lest the university system fall further behind in the proud role it once played in advancing technology, science and knowledge and the society more generally. My goal with this essay is to contribute to that end.

I seek to convince the reader of three tenets. First, universities need to encourage a robust free speech environment, going beyond the narrower version of “academic freedom” and even allowing speech going beyond what is permitted by the first amendment. Second, universities need to develop a culture of listening to uncomfortable points of view and, ultimately, engaging with them in an open-minded debate. Finally, universities need to develop a culture of cherishing rather than castigating the unorthodox: in short, committing to these principles in spirit and not just in letter. None of this will be easy. At the end of the essay, I will develop some thoughts on what might help.

Tenet 1: universities need to encourage a robust free speech environment, even allowing speech going beyond that permitted by the first amendment.

“Freedom” at universities comes in two flavors. One is the narrow version of “academic freedom”. Academic freedom is the freedom for the individual researcher to pursue any topic of inquiry, using scientific means. It has long been recognized that academic freedom is of essence for a well-functioning university. There is broad agreement that it is needed and should be kept, enshrined by the AAUP and others. The other is the broader version of “free speech” as enshrined, say, in the 1^st amendment of the constitution. Free speech is the right to express ideas and opinions without fear of punishment, censorship and retaliation, but finding its boundaries in, say, disallowing outright defamation as well as “fighting words” likely to incite violence. The exact boundaries are the core subject of constitutional scholars as well as court decisions. For the purpose of this essay, let me accept the consensus views of the legal profession on these matters.

Where is the difference? Freedom of speech allows one to say patently absurd things such as “the sun did not rise in 2024”, which have no scientific merit. Academic freedom allows for the possibility to research whether the sun rose in 2024 or not, with presumably unsurprising conclusions. However, the distinction goes beyond that. “Free speech” implies that an individual can state one’s views or opinion, without seeking to engage in a debate. A demonstration is the perfect example of this activity. By contrast, a scientific approach seeks debate with skeptics and the exchange of well-founded arguments. I envision the latter as polite and respectful conversations at a high level between sufficiently informed individuals, carefully laying out their arguments and evidence, all in a club-like atmosphere, while tea and cookies are served. The uninformed are not allowed or, at best, allowed to listen and ask thoughtful questions to be informed. By contrast, there is no a priori “knowledge permission” test for free speech. The exercise of free speech can be loud, messy, passionate and chaotic; in fact, it often is. Unsurprisingly, there are therefore many who favor the more narrow “academic freedom” version as it seems more conducive to the objective of a university to advance knowledge and teaching. Public universities are subject to the rules of the constitution and therefore have to allow free speech, but the advocates of this perspective then encourage everyone to “put down the megaphone” and keep to scholarly debates only.

However, this is the wrong conclusion to draw. Once prerequisites are in place for who is allowed to speak on which subject, it is all too easy to silence the skeptics and the unorthodox. Once the “experts” have decided that there are more than two genders at birth, non-experts are no longer allowed to weigh in. If only learned scholars are allowed in reaching their consensus that systemic racism runs rampant and is the root cause for police shootings, then the dissenters must remain silent. The pursuit of unorthodox perspectives such as the lab origin of covid or discouraging the use of masks during the covid outbreak will be ruled unscientific by the consensus majority, leading to the condemnation of scholars pursuing them. None of these are idle examples, and they all led to embarrassing outcomes in recent memory.

It follows then, that dissenters should be encouraged, rather than condemned. It follows that prerequisites for stating one’s views must not be set. For students in particular, the objective of advancing knowledge and teaching is best served by having them explore how to come to their own views by their own thought process, sometimes pursuing false avenues in ignorance of what is well known. This needs to be allowed, even encouraged. As the Kalven report famously states, the university “is the institution which creates discontent with the existing social arrangements and proposes new ones. … The instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student. The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic. … To perform its mission in the society, a university must sustain an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry and … must embrace, be hospitable to, and encourage the widest diversity of views within its own community. It is a community but only for the limited, albeit great, purposes of teaching and research. It is not a club, it is not a trade association, it is not a lobby.” I read the reference of “extraordinary” as going beyond the “ordinary” freedom of inquiry inherent in the narrower definition of freedom as “academic freedom”: rather, the statement encourages free speech, as it should.

Free speech can be genuinely discomforting. That, of course, is the point. As Rosa Luxemburg famously said: "The freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the person who thinks differently." The first amendment permission of free speech is therefore not an obstacle to the objectives of public universities: on the contrary, it is a necessity. It is a necessity too for any private university that aspires to advance knowledge and teaching as best as it can. Moreover, universities are, in effect, training grounds for students. Students, but also faculty, should be encouraged to explore the boundaries of free speech rather than be afraid of reaching them. By necessity, this means that, on occasion, they will step outside these bounds. Students and faculty need to experiment. This should be tolerated, perhaps discussed, but the institution should refrain from punishment, even if sometimes a member has “gone too far”. Only then can we learn to become free and keep building a free society. To be sure, it is the bounds of free speech that students should be allowed to test, while rioting, physical violence or attacking police, say, cannot be permitted.

Tenet 2: universities need to develop a culture of listening to uncomfortable points of view and, ultimately, engaging with them in an open-minded debate.

It is one thing to be allowed to speak freely. It is quite another to have others listen to what one has to say. Of course, no one can or should be forced to listen. This is why certain restrictions on time, place and manner on the exercise of free speech are in order. For example, inside the classroom, free speech needs to be constrained by the objectives of the class and the teacher. Demonstrators cannot be allowed to simply barge in and disrupt instruction nor should the teacher impose his view on the students per “exercising free speech”. By extension, demonstrations or other forms of expressing viewpoints on campus cannot be permitted if they severely hinder the daily activities of others.

However, the bigger problem is another one entirely. It is human nature to feel certain in one’s own perspective on the world, perhaps having thought about it for considerable time or coming from a particular background. Those with different and possibly offensive perspectives must therefore be wrong. Why listen to them? Why even allow them a platform?

Unfortunately, the person with the different perspective may be right in the end. Reasonable people may disagree. People who disagree may be reasonable. The humbleness of classical liberalism is truly hard to master. Engaging with the perspectives of those with whom one passionately disagrees, and allowing for the possibility that they are right and that oneself is wrong, is an ability that requires continual training. The insight that different people can reasonably come to different conclusions is difficult to come by. Indeed, these skills now often seem largely lost among a remarkably intolerant generation. More insidiously, that intolerance will appear as “reasonable consensus” for all on the inside: after all, the vast majority has the same perspective. But then, the consensus will not meaningfully be called into question and knowledge cannot meaningfully advance. This is a major loss.

Universities must develop ways of teaching and training students in the art of classical liberalism. Curricula and forms of teaching to that end need to be developed. Fora and platforms for the unorthodox should be given. Debate and mutual listening should be encouraged.

Tenet 3: universities need to develop a culture of cherishing rather than castigating the unorthodox: in short, committing to these principles in spirit and not just in letter.

Some have concluded that universities will be fine if they adopt the “Chicago Principles”. There are three. The first is enshrined in the “Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression,” resoundingly endorsing free speech, as described in the first tenet. It states that the “university’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the individual members of the University community, not for the University as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves … Indeed, fostering the ability of members of the University community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner is an essential part of the University’s educational mission.” The second is the “Kalven Report,” admonishing the university as an institution to be neutral on any such matters (cited further above). The last is the “Shils Report,” demanding that hiring and promotions are based on merit only. The report states that “there must be no consideration of sex, ethnic or national characteristics, or political or religious beliefs or affiliations in any decision regarding appointment, promotion, or reappointment at any level of the academic staff. Particular care must be taken to keep “inbreeding” at a minimum. “

These are good principles indeed and adopting them is already a worthwhile and considerable step forward. Having these principles enshrined makes sure that a North Star is provided in any discussion on details, and that there is a guide for orientation.

Reading them also makes clear that simply “adopting” these principles is not enough. Take the Shils report. It is one thing to have a document that states that merit should be the only criterion for promotion. It is quite another to rule out that affirmative action plays any role. Indeed, most colleagues regard that particular battle as already hopelessly lost.

Now, suppose a colleague reminds everyone that the Shils report is there, and that merit should be the only criterion for advancement. Remarkably, these days, many find that perspective to be offensive. It is then one thing to have a document such as the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression, stating that the university should foster “the ability of members of the University community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner.” But it is another to make sure that such a colleague is applauded for the courage to stand up and to make sure that the statement of that colleague does not create obstacles to promotion or grounds for silently excluding him from a range of activities. Unfortunately, these routes to punishment are easy and they need not be explicit at all: effective they are, nonetheless. Other colleagues see the example being made and will refrain from weighing in. Orthodoxy results. Those that violate it are outcasts, are called extremists and dangers to democracy, are told they are an embarrassment to science and reprimanded. Why risk speaking up? There is too much to lose and little to gain. But this is unfortunate and needs work. Establishing a culture where breaking with orthodoxy is, if anything, rewarded, is one of the thorniest of matters.

Correcting “Kalven” violations is particularly tricky. After all, these are violations by the university leadership itself, and the university leadership is supposed to be guarding against violations. It is like asking the wolf to watch over the sheep. The only solution, it appears, is to find a wolf who, in character, is actually truly a good sheep dog. An internal watchdog committee or person, collecting whistleblower reports of violations, raising them with the President and seeing to it that they are constructively addressed, is a minimum.

Solutions?

There are no easy fixes. Adopting the Chicago Principles is a first and necessary step. Committing to these principles in spirit and practice requires conviction and repeated exercise. It is unlikely that the existing institutions will do so on their own, unless external forces push them to do so. The government may go ahead and collect whistleblower reports and, say, seek clarification or enforce sanctions. Rules against DEI are a good step forward. Ultimately, though, it may be dangerous to ask for too much involvement from the government: changing winds can produce the opposite of the intended results. Active members of the Board of Trustees will help, as will media descriptions and inquiries. Ultimately, it is the parents of students and the funders of scholarly activities that should not take these freedoms for granted. One cannot solve the problem and then rest easy. Freedom must be earned, it must be fought for time and again. Continual vigilance, a continual reminder of what is ultimately important, a continual check-up on the guiding tenets is of essence and perhaps the only hope.