Excellent essay! I agree that fostering culture of free speech is as important as adopting policies that protect free speech. My observations at USC illustrate that it is not the policies that are deficient but the culture:
Why university culture has degenerated so badly? Because of the Woke ideology and its bearers -- all these radical faculty and indoctrinated students. The Woke ideology is illiberal and authoritarian -- they are not shy enforcing their believes with a heavy hand. It disdains truth -- so the Woke do not see benefit of debates. They are already in possession of ultimate truth and will use any means to enforce it. And in its core is veneration of select minority groups, which are simultaneously considered to be superior to other groups and also helpless victims in need of protection from "harms", including "harms" inflicted by free speech.
I do not think there is a need to go beyond the First Amendment -- it is broad enough. If you read essays by Lukianoff and Strossen about misconceptions around the First Amendment, I do not think you will find it lacking in any way:
"In its core [woke university culture] is veneration of select minority groups."
Going a bit deeper, it appears to me that woke culture is based on Marxist assumptions and goals. The emphasis on minority "victim" groups, and on equity, are based on an utopian ideal of absolute equality more suitable to communism than to reality. The structural assumptions are the Marxist "oppressors vs. victims" expanded from economic classes to gender, race, and sexuality. The woke revolution is really the socialist revolution by other means. It is just as totalitarian as Marxist governance.
I think universities (as well as the whole country) need MORE than "freedom of speech". In Whitney v California, Justice Brandeis the father of our free speech doctrine wrote"
"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. IF THERE BE TIME TO EXPOSE THROUGH FULL DISCUSSION THE FALSEHOOD AND FALLACIES, TO AVERT THE EVIL BY THE PROCESSES OF EDUCATION, the remedy [for bad speech] to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
Today, we would say that Brandeis is talking about counter speech. In today's world of college cancel cultures and internet echo chambers, does counter speech - which Brandeis assumes with protect and educate us - really exist? As places of education, universities need to do more than allow freedom of speech where one side or the other to dominates: for example on the rare occasion when a student questions a professor/ Real education is presenting the best arguments from both sides and allowing students to make up their minds
Makes sense: "universities need to develop a culture of listening to uncomfortable points of view and, ultimately, engaging with them in an open-minded debate."
Standards have to be raised all around. Including among those who are doing the "controlling". This is why there are several proposals on the table now to replace ALL current mainstream academic institutions.
This is because NOTHING will happen unless those who currently have a death grip on academia are "beaten back". I do not believe they will EVER relinquish their power willingly.
As an example, my own undergraduate institution has steered itself into the weeds. It has a massive ineffectual bloated incompetent bureaucracy that just promotes more of the same.
Their plans to "survive" are just stupid, in my view. They see China as somehow an effectively infinite source of money and students. They think this will be true forever.
So they will charge Chinese students exorbitant tuition rates and fees to attend a Western school with a slowly sagging reputation up on the tundra.The idea is that there is an infinite supply of extremely wealthy Chinese students who will pay anything to be surrounded by white people. Except, the same administration is on the other hand trying DESPERATELY to drive ALL the white faculty and students away, to be "woke" and hip and diverse and whatever.
And whatever previous stature this institution thinks it had is decreasing as they grow their bureaucracy and reduce the quality of their research and education. Because after all, what is MOST important is that the administration and their bureaucratic sycophants should be able to live and live well, while they do nothing whatsoever of any value, right?
Once they import all these wealthy Chinese students to freeze on the tundra, they will then send them back home, keeping all that cash. Sounds brilliant, right?
Obviously, this is a very shaky plan at best. And it depends on a whole bunch of dopey assumptions which might not actually be realistic. But you cannot question these characters under any circumstances, since they are "in control". To hell with the learned faculty and alumni etc. These woke bureaucrats "know" what is best.
So maybe these places need serious competition. And maybe some legislation to stir things up a bit.
Some might be forced to reform, through a tremendous amount of pain.
Some might just wither away and disappear.
Some might turn into just "social justice mills" spewing out nonsense and churning out students with completely worthless degrees.
So, there will be chaos and turmoil next. That is what happens next.
Tenet 1: universities need to encourage a robust free speech environment, even allowing speech going beyond that permitted by the first amendment.
No. The First Amendment does not take priority in a professional setting. A pilot may not leave the cockpit, nor a surgeon stop the operation to engage in free expression. Professional responsibility and accountability are key to the function of our society. The first Amendment allows lies and hate. The university must teach students to question and apply scientific methods to resolve lies, hate and other problems.
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.
No. Students do not need to learn to listen to how the USA is Oppressing the Houthis in Yemen (key point in a UW sponsored global webinar, that discouraged critical evaluation of the lies). What we need is to restructure the university as 1. a professional institution of learning, and 2. a robust platform for debate of content, rather than a platform for the expression and global dissemination of lies called "viewpoint diversity,"
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.
No. By what method? We do not need to teach (i.e. indoctrinate, preach our orthodoxy) ideology, culture, or spirit. We need to teach the established validated knowledge (currently more than can be learned in a thousand lifetimes) and the skills to acquire and advance knowledge. Based on thinking and reading a limited number of literary works (culture), all (maybe almost all) the people I met in medical school were dedicated to serve humanity. Teaching them to cherish.etc. as in the 21st century.. would not have helped. We do not need to reinvent culture. Just read some literary works.
CONCLUSION; There are no easy fixes. Adopting the Chicago Principles is a first and necessary step.
1. There are no easy fixes: There are fixes that can be implemented: restore scholarly discourse on campus; restructure the university as a professional institution; web access to uptodate courses on all university subjects. The main problem is job security in a world where instant access to validated knowledge bypasses the professor.
Adopting the Chicago Principles is a first and necessary step.
I signed petitions to adopt institutional neutrality, but thought it included faculty neutrality. But no. The orthodoxy of Institutional Neutrality is a ploy to affirm faculty autonomy, and freedom from accountability. Note that the Socratic method begins with a clean slate, otherwise known as neutrality: I know nothing, therefore I inquire. In contrast, institutional neutrality begins with I know and am therefore accountable to no one. In a democracy, all institutions are expected to be transparent, accountable, and subject to independent audit (critical evaluation). Faculty must likewise be accountable to the student and the public, and must be open to critical evaluation.
These topics should be robustly debated on this platform.
Let's stop pretending that we lack freedom of inquiry and expression or that our advocacy of these freedoms on campus engenders debate or the pursuit of knowledge.
Compared to the recent past when we heard little that was out of reach of our ears, we are now exposed to trillions of messages that are voiced by billions of people. We opened the pandora box of unverified free expression on the global stage and on campus. Our main, and exponentially growing problems are: a. disinformation, b. the weaponization of messages launched from campus, and c. the collapse of public trust in science and academia, d. the real-time detrimental effects on our society. Our universities must help us differentiate between truth and untruth.
Practice of the First (and Second) Amendment on campus is antithetical to education. And.. it is dishonest (or delusional) to claim that we practice First Amendment rights in education. Unverified expression, 2 + 2 =5, is not allowed in the classroom (it gets an F). Published untruth requires retraction. Disseminating lies from the university used to be considered unethical. A key function of education is to teach critical thinking and the skills to differentiate between objective truth and untruth. (1)
Free expression does not engender debate. Following October 7, more than 150 student organizations at Harvard, Brown, and Columbia, instantly sided with Hamas terrorists and used the campus as a launchpad to disseminate their unverified lies to the global media. None were challenged to fact check or debate (though they were legally protected by FIRE). Please read the UW AAUP faculty forum, which abounds with lies expressed by AAUP leaders who blatantly refuse to provide evidence or engage in fact check or debate. Please also note that they are not challenged by Heterodox or FIRE. On the contrary, the expression of lies is actively protected by Heterodox and FIRE (no matter how much it hurts). And... all in the name of Academic Freedom and Freedom of Inquiry. (2,3)
But don't ask Heterodox for a definition of "inquiry" and "Academic Freedom." Heterodox joins the AAUP to deride the appeal to restore scholarly discourse on campus and the appeal to define inquiry and academic freedom (and effaces the inquirer). (2,4)
Let's face it. "Free the Inquiry" is a battle cry, no different from others, but disguised to promote the campus orthodoxy of today. It is promoted by our intellectual leaders and shatters confidence in science. (ask oneself: what is inquiry? is it is unverified thought, a question, an end in itself or the beginning of a process). Our obsession with this mission makes it clear that we are totally disconnected from our societal reality. It clarifies that academicians will not restructure the university as a professional institution of learning and robust debate, in the service of students and society.
(And yes. We do have a problem with the intrusion of ideology into education and science. This problem derives from university faculty, not from the institution or government, and it is well defined in reference 1. But we must go on from there and define a mission that will reinstate scholarly discourse on campus. There is a lot of work to be done.)
This is a very thought-compelling essay. It is also well-written.
I find myself struggling to find ways to implement these principles in the "real world", given all the problems I have observed in STEM R&D over the last 50 or so years. It is not immediately clear to me how one can maintain an institution with these sort of values over the long haul, given human nature.
This a superbly written, well-reasoned, and very relevant essay. Recently, Representative Jasmine Crockett asserted that “only mediocre white boys” need be concerned with cancel culture and DEl. For more than a score of well-documented counter examples, please see Nick Wolfinger's Professors Speak Out; The Truth about Campus lnvestigations.
Excellent essay! I agree that fostering culture of free speech is as important as adopting policies that protect free speech. My observations at USC illustrate that it is not the policies that are deficient but the culture:
https://heterodoxatusc.substack.com/p/opinion-academic-freedom-at-usc
Why university culture has degenerated so badly? Because of the Woke ideology and its bearers -- all these radical faculty and indoctrinated students. The Woke ideology is illiberal and authoritarian -- they are not shy enforcing their believes with a heavy hand. It disdains truth -- so the Woke do not see benefit of debates. They are already in possession of ultimate truth and will use any means to enforce it. And in its core is veneration of select minority groups, which are simultaneously considered to be superior to other groups and also helpless victims in need of protection from "harms", including "harms" inflicted by free speech.
I do not think there is a need to go beyond the First Amendment -- it is broad enough. If you read essays by Lukianoff and Strossen about misconceptions around the First Amendment, I do not think you will find it lacking in any way:
https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/eternally-radical-idea/free-speech-does-not-equal-violence-part-1-answers-bad-arguments
"In its core [woke university culture] is veneration of select minority groups."
Going a bit deeper, it appears to me that woke culture is based on Marxist assumptions and goals. The emphasis on minority "victim" groups, and on equity, are based on an utopian ideal of absolute equality more suitable to communism than to reality. The structural assumptions are the Marxist "oppressors vs. victims" expanded from economic classes to gender, race, and sexuality. The woke revolution is really the socialist revolution by other means. It is just as totalitarian as Marxist governance.
Exactly.
Dear Harald,
What a beautiful and concise statement of the problems and the solutions.
Thank you!
randy
I think universities (as well as the whole country) need MORE than "freedom of speech". In Whitney v California, Justice Brandeis the father of our free speech doctrine wrote"
"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. IF THERE BE TIME TO EXPOSE THROUGH FULL DISCUSSION THE FALSEHOOD AND FALLACIES, TO AVERT THE EVIL BY THE PROCESSES OF EDUCATION, the remedy [for bad speech] to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
Today, we would say that Brandeis is talking about counter speech. In today's world of college cancel cultures and internet echo chambers, does counter speech - which Brandeis assumes with protect and educate us - really exist? As places of education, universities need to do more than allow freedom of speech where one side or the other to dominates: for example on the rare occasion when a student questions a professor/ Real education is presenting the best arguments from both sides and allowing students to make up their minds
Makes sense: "universities need to develop a culture of listening to uncomfortable points of view and, ultimately, engaging with them in an open-minded debate."
https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/the-institutional-suppression-of
https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/heresy
My hope is you're not casting pearls before the controlling swine. Then what happens?
Standards have to be raised all around. Including among those who are doing the "controlling". This is why there are several proposals on the table now to replace ALL current mainstream academic institutions.
This is because NOTHING will happen unless those who currently have a death grip on academia are "beaten back". I do not believe they will EVER relinquish their power willingly.
As an example, my own undergraduate institution has steered itself into the weeds. It has a massive ineffectual bloated incompetent bureaucracy that just promotes more of the same.
Their plans to "survive" are just stupid, in my view. They see China as somehow an effectively infinite source of money and students. They think this will be true forever.
So they will charge Chinese students exorbitant tuition rates and fees to attend a Western school with a slowly sagging reputation up on the tundra.The idea is that there is an infinite supply of extremely wealthy Chinese students who will pay anything to be surrounded by white people. Except, the same administration is on the other hand trying DESPERATELY to drive ALL the white faculty and students away, to be "woke" and hip and diverse and whatever.
And whatever previous stature this institution thinks it had is decreasing as they grow their bureaucracy and reduce the quality of their research and education. Because after all, what is MOST important is that the administration and their bureaucratic sycophants should be able to live and live well, while they do nothing whatsoever of any value, right?
Once they import all these wealthy Chinese students to freeze on the tundra, they will then send them back home, keeping all that cash. Sounds brilliant, right?
Obviously, this is a very shaky plan at best. And it depends on a whole bunch of dopey assumptions which might not actually be realistic. But you cannot question these characters under any circumstances, since they are "in control". To hell with the learned faculty and alumni etc. These woke bureaucrats "know" what is best.
So maybe these places need serious competition. And maybe some legislation to stir things up a bit.
Some might be forced to reform, through a tremendous amount of pain.
Some might just wither away and disappear.
Some might turn into just "social justice mills" spewing out nonsense and churning out students with completely worthless degrees.
So, there will be chaos and turmoil next. That is what happens next.
I must add that I totally disagree with:
Tenet 1: universities need to encourage a robust free speech environment, even allowing speech going beyond that permitted by the first amendment.
No. The First Amendment does not take priority in a professional setting. A pilot may not leave the cockpit, nor a surgeon stop the operation to engage in free expression. Professional responsibility and accountability are key to the function of our society. The first Amendment allows lies and hate. The university must teach students to question and apply scientific methods to resolve lies, hate and other problems.
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.
No. Students do not need to learn to listen to how the USA is Oppressing the Houthis in Yemen (key point in a UW sponsored global webinar, that discouraged critical evaluation of the lies). What we need is to restructure the university as 1. a professional institution of learning, and 2. a robust platform for debate of content, rather than a platform for the expression and global dissemination of lies called "viewpoint diversity,"
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.
No. By what method? We do not need to teach (i.e. indoctrinate, preach our orthodoxy) ideology, culture, or spirit. We need to teach the established validated knowledge (currently more than can be learned in a thousand lifetimes) and the skills to acquire and advance knowledge. Based on thinking and reading a limited number of literary works (culture), all (maybe almost all) the people I met in medical school were dedicated to serve humanity. Teaching them to cherish.etc. as in the 21st century.. would not have helped. We do not need to reinvent culture. Just read some literary works.
CONCLUSION; There are no easy fixes. Adopting the Chicago Principles is a first and necessary step.
1. There are no easy fixes: There are fixes that can be implemented: restore scholarly discourse on campus; restructure the university as a professional institution; web access to uptodate courses on all university subjects. The main problem is job security in a world where instant access to validated knowledge bypasses the professor.
Adopting the Chicago Principles is a first and necessary step.
I signed petitions to adopt institutional neutrality, but thought it included faculty neutrality. But no. The orthodoxy of Institutional Neutrality is a ploy to affirm faculty autonomy, and freedom from accountability. Note that the Socratic method begins with a clean slate, otherwise known as neutrality: I know nothing, therefore I inquire. In contrast, institutional neutrality begins with I know and am therefore accountable to no one. In a democracy, all institutions are expected to be transparent, accountable, and subject to independent audit (critical evaluation). Faculty must likewise be accountable to the student and the public, and must be open to critical evaluation.
These topics should be robustly debated on this platform.
Let's stop pretending that we lack freedom of inquiry and expression or that our advocacy of these freedoms on campus engenders debate or the pursuit of knowledge.
Compared to the recent past when we heard little that was out of reach of our ears, we are now exposed to trillions of messages that are voiced by billions of people. We opened the pandora box of unverified free expression on the global stage and on campus. Our main, and exponentially growing problems are: a. disinformation, b. the weaponization of messages launched from campus, and c. the collapse of public trust in science and academia, d. the real-time detrimental effects on our society. Our universities must help us differentiate between truth and untruth.
Practice of the First (and Second) Amendment on campus is antithetical to education. And.. it is dishonest (or delusional) to claim that we practice First Amendment rights in education. Unverified expression, 2 + 2 =5, is not allowed in the classroom (it gets an F). Published untruth requires retraction. Disseminating lies from the university used to be considered unethical. A key function of education is to teach critical thinking and the skills to differentiate between objective truth and untruth. (1)
Free expression does not engender debate. Following October 7, more than 150 student organizations at Harvard, Brown, and Columbia, instantly sided with Hamas terrorists and used the campus as a launchpad to disseminate their unverified lies to the global media. None were challenged to fact check or debate (though they were legally protected by FIRE). Please read the UW AAUP faculty forum, which abounds with lies expressed by AAUP leaders who blatantly refuse to provide evidence or engage in fact check or debate. Please also note that they are not challenged by Heterodox or FIRE. On the contrary, the expression of lies is actively protected by Heterodox and FIRE (no matter how much it hurts). And... all in the name of Academic Freedom and Freedom of Inquiry. (2,3)
But don't ask Heterodox for a definition of "inquiry" and "Academic Freedom." Heterodox joins the AAUP to deride the appeal to restore scholarly discourse on campus and the appeal to define inquiry and academic freedom (and effaces the inquirer). (2,4)
Let's face it. "Free the Inquiry" is a battle cry, no different from others, but disguised to promote the campus orthodoxy of today. It is promoted by our intellectual leaders and shatters confidence in science. (ask oneself: what is inquiry? is it is unverified thought, a question, an end in itself or the beginning of a process). Our obsession with this mission makes it clear that we are totally disconnected from our societal reality. It clarifies that academicians will not restructure the university as a professional institution of learning and robust debate, in the service of students and society.
(And yes. We do have a problem with the intrusion of ideology into education and science. This problem derives from university faculty, not from the institution or government, and it is well defined in reference 1. But we must go on from there and define a mission that will reinstate scholarly discourse on campus. There is a lot of work to be done.)
1) https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/download/article/3/1/236/pdf
2) https://hxstem.substack.com/p/appeal-to-redefine-academic-freedom
3) https://weareall.com/pedagogical-malpractice/
4) https://hxstem.substack.com/p/why-we-must-not-redefine-academic
This is a very thought-compelling essay. It is also well-written.
I find myself struggling to find ways to implement these principles in the "real world", given all the problems I have observed in STEM R&D over the last 50 or so years. It is not immediately clear to me how one can maintain an institution with these sort of values over the long haul, given human nature.
But it is worth thinking about, for sure.
This a superbly written, well-reasoned, and very relevant essay. Recently, Representative Jasmine Crockett asserted that “only mediocre white boys” need be concerned with cancel culture and DEl. For more than a score of well-documented counter examples, please see Nick Wolfinger's Professors Speak Out; The Truth about Campus lnvestigations.
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=nicholas+wolfinger&crid=2UMVFN6MQT1FS&sprefix=Nicholas+Wolf%2Caps%2C102&ref=nb_sb_ss_fb_1_13_mvt-t3-ranker