Parents will pay tuition as long as they believe that they are purchasing a credential for their children that will enable their access to opportunity.
The academic nonsense and tyranny will end when employers (and most importantly, the high-prestige employers), start refusing to hire the graduates of academic institutions that are indoctrinating nonsense and establishing tyranny.
I agree with you, but I also see a bit of a chicken and egg issue.
At the current moment it seems to me that the “high prestige employers” often work with the universities and the government to control speech.
I don’t think it helps high prestige employers get better employees, but it may help them get a more easily controlled populace that will cede control to government, academic, and industry “experts” rather than daring to question things. If anything many of us fear that if we dare think independently (and openly so) and upset the “wrong” person/people we might become a pariah socially, financially, and perhaps in the worst case scenario lose freedoms due to being labeled an enemy of society as a whole...and none of that is conducive to creative thinking and genuinely open inquiry.
Perhaps the power to use the government (for example: through accreditation, licensing rules, and government grants - or even private tax sheltered ones) to crush competing institutions, businesses, etc. has more appeal to high prestige employers than the ability to find employees who think creatively and outside of any collective box?
Maybe if we could find a way to remove many of the government controlled barriers to creating new institutions, new businesses, new products, etc. we might also need to rethink the value of having a limited number of high prestige employers to compete for the favor of?
The ability of corporations and not-for-profits to obtain government powers to serve competitive advantage is a short-sighted strategy. How can they maintain productivity and creativity without ambitious, independent and well-educated employees? The quality of contemporary college graduates is laughable. Their level of under-education is incredible. Biochemists do not know the concept of -delta G, BS grads do not know 40 x 10^4 is 4 x 10^5. I am supposed to mentor them to create stem cell- derived human brain organoids to study neurocognitive disorders or perform single cell RNAseq analyses? We are kidding ourselves here as to the consequences of our inaction. Not to mention the lack of work ethic and the disdain for constructive criticism. There is no drive for development or desire to make significant contributions. Time spent attempting to fight uphill battles or mend morbid institutions with Band-Aids is a monumental waste of time and testimony to our lack of character strength. We should be thinking about means to outmaneuver the woke and pathologized ideologues. Instead we play their game of weaponized empathy. They certainly are not going to show us any.
Thanks for writing this up. Although I'm not an academic, I tend to agree with 2--we need fresh ideas, and I'm doubtful that the current system can be reformed in such a way it will be able to produce them. Maybe a lot will move outside the institutions to the online platforms, which might be a rough ride, but perhaps a necessary one.
Systems strive to survive with as little effort as possible; universities and education industry are system(s). Real change to them is best done with external forces.
I agree with your opinion that we are "going to need all 7 solutions" but I think some will have more bang for the buck, and some will have more impact long term. It would be interesting to hear how various people consider the ordering of the 7 solutions. Where do I put my faith or money or trust, etc?
In order, I would say: 4516723. That is, I like idea 4 the most and 3 the least. Implicit in idea 4 is to educate the faculty (and admins) to educate the students in open inquiry etc. That's Heterodox Academy's bread and butter. Jon Haidt's photo is the upper right most on in the array of headshots you used to illustrate your blog posting. Traditionally, a newspaper puts its most important article at the upper right of the front page. So that fits here too. Greg L (FIRE) is one square to the left (he leads idea #1, which is my third place priority). My second priority would be your ideea 5, a judicial branch inside the university; that reminds me of the student-run honor system I experienced as an undergrad at UNC-CH. Very few other universities use one: UVA-Charlottesville and the military academies are ones I recall.
If cases that test the tension between (Title IX+DEI) and (academic freedom) were adjudicated by a somewhat independent panel of stakeholders (e.g. some faculty, some students, a trustee, an admin), I think a lot of cases would be resolved better (fairer) than the current method(s). Everyone would benefit from feeling confident that cases are handled more fairly.
More importantly than handling cases that come up will be creating a culture of respectful disagreement, so that cases don't come up in the first place. That's why your idea 4 would be my top priority.
As an exercise for the reader, how would YOU order the seven ideas? Extra for experts = what other idea might be missing?
The extra idea that comes to my mind and then I reject is "State legislators making laws defining what and how professors should teach and topics college students should learn." It doesn't surprise me that such an idea would not have been presented at a conference on academic freedom, except possibly as an example of a solution hat we do not welcome.
Thanks for this. Very reassuring. I love Thomas Sowell in interviews but found his books quite dense. Here's my take on the attacks on JBP if you're interested:
I agree that all seven solutions are needed. Some of us freedom loving academics are quietly canceled before we can even begin to profess because it is sensed that we perhaps question too much or encourage others to question too much the dominant ideologies-in-use at an institution.
Really useful perspective. I especially appreciate #4...students guiding their own education through open inquiry. I love this thought by John Rose from Duke - the natural tendency toward free and open inquiry.
This reminds me a lot of the work of Dr. Daniel Siegel from UCLA who teaches the three innate stages of adolescent brain development: 1) risk-taking behavior 2) "gist" (big picture) thinking and 3) intuition. If late-age high school students were encouraged to develop their innate intuition, along with their creativity, this powerful combination of inquiring/thinking/reasoning/creating could very well guide them into deeper inquiry during university studies.
We all know, the system is broken. It is so encouraging that higher ed is actually shining a light on it and moving in the direction of change!
Reminds me of Einstein's thought that you can't change the problem from the same mindset that created it. Solutions must come from outside. Those within seem to hold too much power and control and are unwilling to relinquish it.
Parents will pay tuition as long as they believe that they are purchasing a credential for their children that will enable their access to opportunity.
The academic nonsense and tyranny will end when employers (and most importantly, the high-prestige employers), start refusing to hire the graduates of academic institutions that are indoctrinating nonsense and establishing tyranny.
I agree with you, but I also see a bit of a chicken and egg issue.
At the current moment it seems to me that the “high prestige employers” often work with the universities and the government to control speech.
I don’t think it helps high prestige employers get better employees, but it may help them get a more easily controlled populace that will cede control to government, academic, and industry “experts” rather than daring to question things. If anything many of us fear that if we dare think independently (and openly so) and upset the “wrong” person/people we might become a pariah socially, financially, and perhaps in the worst case scenario lose freedoms due to being labeled an enemy of society as a whole...and none of that is conducive to creative thinking and genuinely open inquiry.
Perhaps the power to use the government (for example: through accreditation, licensing rules, and government grants - or even private tax sheltered ones) to crush competing institutions, businesses, etc. has more appeal to high prestige employers than the ability to find employees who think creatively and outside of any collective box?
Maybe if we could find a way to remove many of the government controlled barriers to creating new institutions, new businesses, new products, etc. we might also need to rethink the value of having a limited number of high prestige employers to compete for the favor of?
The ability of corporations and not-for-profits to obtain government powers to serve competitive advantage is a short-sighted strategy. How can they maintain productivity and creativity without ambitious, independent and well-educated employees? The quality of contemporary college graduates is laughable. Their level of under-education is incredible. Biochemists do not know the concept of -delta G, BS grads do not know 40 x 10^4 is 4 x 10^5. I am supposed to mentor them to create stem cell- derived human brain organoids to study neurocognitive disorders or perform single cell RNAseq analyses? We are kidding ourselves here as to the consequences of our inaction. Not to mention the lack of work ethic and the disdain for constructive criticism. There is no drive for development or desire to make significant contributions. Time spent attempting to fight uphill battles or mend morbid institutions with Band-Aids is a monumental waste of time and testimony to our lack of character strength. We should be thinking about means to outmaneuver the woke and pathologized ideologues. Instead we play their game of weaponized empathy. They certainly are not going to show us any.
Thanks for writing this up. Although I'm not an academic, I tend to agree with 2--we need fresh ideas, and I'm doubtful that the current system can be reformed in such a way it will be able to produce them. Maybe a lot will move outside the institutions to the online platforms, which might be a rough ride, but perhaps a necessary one.
There was a great deal of backroom discussion of the dean role (I was there in that capacity) that did not make it to the stage.
Systems strive to survive with as little effort as possible; universities and education industry are system(s). Real change to them is best done with external forces.
Thank you for summarizing. Here's another attendee's summary.
https://quillette.com/2023/01/11/a-report-from-the-stanford-academic-freedom-conference/
I agree with your opinion that we are "going to need all 7 solutions" but I think some will have more bang for the buck, and some will have more impact long term. It would be interesting to hear how various people consider the ordering of the 7 solutions. Where do I put my faith or money or trust, etc?
In order, I would say: 4516723. That is, I like idea 4 the most and 3 the least. Implicit in idea 4 is to educate the faculty (and admins) to educate the students in open inquiry etc. That's Heterodox Academy's bread and butter. Jon Haidt's photo is the upper right most on in the array of headshots you used to illustrate your blog posting. Traditionally, a newspaper puts its most important article at the upper right of the front page. So that fits here too. Greg L (FIRE) is one square to the left (he leads idea #1, which is my third place priority). My second priority would be your ideea 5, a judicial branch inside the university; that reminds me of the student-run honor system I experienced as an undergrad at UNC-CH. Very few other universities use one: UVA-Charlottesville and the military academies are ones I recall.
If cases that test the tension between (Title IX+DEI) and (academic freedom) were adjudicated by a somewhat independent panel of stakeholders (e.g. some faculty, some students, a trustee, an admin), I think a lot of cases would be resolved better (fairer) than the current method(s). Everyone would benefit from feeling confident that cases are handled more fairly.
More importantly than handling cases that come up will be creating a culture of respectful disagreement, so that cases don't come up in the first place. That's why your idea 4 would be my top priority.
As an exercise for the reader, how would YOU order the seven ideas? Extra for experts = what other idea might be missing?
The extra idea that comes to my mind and then I reject is "State legislators making laws defining what and how professors should teach and topics college students should learn." It doesn't surprise me that such an idea would not have been presented at a conference on academic freedom, except possibly as an example of a solution hat we do not welcome.
Thanks for this. Very reassuring. I love Thomas Sowell in interviews but found his books quite dense. Here's my take on the attacks on JBP if you're interested:
https://open.substack.com/pub/scottcampbell/p/your-digital-dozen?utm_source=direct&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I've been binging you Thomas Sowell podcast. Well done!
I haven't been able to find your email so I post this here. You probably already know it...
https://mises.org/es/profile/eugen-richter
Richter's short story from over one hundred years ago is vitally important, a wry piece of writing, and fun to read.
I agree that all seven solutions are needed. Some of us freedom loving academics are quietly canceled before we can even begin to profess because it is sensed that we perhaps question too much or encourage others to question too much the dominant ideologies-in-use at an institution.
Really useful perspective. I especially appreciate #4...students guiding their own education through open inquiry. I love this thought by John Rose from Duke - the natural tendency toward free and open inquiry.
This reminds me a lot of the work of Dr. Daniel Siegel from UCLA who teaches the three innate stages of adolescent brain development: 1) risk-taking behavior 2) "gist" (big picture) thinking and 3) intuition. If late-age high school students were encouraged to develop their innate intuition, along with their creativity, this powerful combination of inquiring/thinking/reasoning/creating could very well guide them into deeper inquiry during university studies.
We all know, the system is broken. It is so encouraging that higher ed is actually shining a light on it and moving in the direction of change!
Reminds me of Einstein's thought that you can't change the problem from the same mindset that created it. Solutions must come from outside. Those within seem to hold too much power and control and are unwilling to relinquish it.