Dorian, you wouldn't believe how timely your article was: it appeared in my inbox 3 h before my first meeting with MCW's president to address his deplatforming of the Wisconsin Association of Scholars spring symposium in early May (more here: https://fairforall.substack.com/p/fair-news-the-dangers-of-stifling). President Raymond has promised to establish new policies at MCW based on the principles in the Chicago Statement. Thank you for such a helpful digest of the relevant concepts, history and steps necessary to create a proper university culture. Can we do it at MCW? This remains to be seen.
I thoroughly approve of the liberal use of the term "kindergarten." Great piece. The shame is that you have to spend time on this instead of geophysics.
Excellent! Where you addressed student admissions, and commented that admitting unprepared students inevitably leads to pressure to diminish grading standards, I would have added, “especially at public universities.” The focus on pass rates and graduation rates and alarm if they aren’t close to 100%, has definitely led to this kind of dumbing down.
Solid points supported by tangible successful results! Critical mass may be key - having a few faculty go against the nearly monolithic ideology (so much for diversity!) may be tough (though not a reason to quit), but a group of several dozen can certainly stem the tide and eventually steer the universities to their true mission. Alumni pressure and dropping enrollment (often parent-guided) in the most activist schools will help. Here is hoping to more successes of the Chicago Trifecta!
However, I would have some reservations about an "office for academic freedom", as bureaucracies tend to multiply.. (unless this office fully replaces an already existing one!).
Alumni of a university are certainly a large part, arguably the largest segment of its “community of scholars.” So when a university president or other high official publicly opines about something, he or she implies that that opinion represents the thoughts of a majority of the community. Before the Dobbs decision, several consecutive MIT presidents offered opinions to the public without bothering to check whether those opinions really reflected the thoughts of a majority; they evidently assumed it did, so validating those thoughts apparently didn’t occur to them. Chuck Vest filed an amicus opinion when the Michigan affirmative a tion case went to SCOTUS, Susan Hockfield appeared before the Us Senate talking about “global warming,” and Raphael Reif was more than happy to go along with the DEI mishegas and publicly cancelling the Carlson lecture.
Which was his undoing, and which, in no small measure, brought about his becoming aware of the large megaphone effect. Plus the fact that he was completely out of touch with a large segment of the people he thought he represented. His defense of cancelling the Carlson lecture was flimsy at best. What he hadn’t anticipated was the magnitude of the immune response that it would elicit. First, it exposed a disgracefully anti-freedom culture that had apparently been festering for some time. And it coalesced over 1,000 (and still growing) like-minded people to oppose that culture: we formed the MIT Free Speech Alliance, MFSA. Reif became aware that caving in to a small but vocal group of protesters did nothing except show them that be vocal and obnoxious was sufficient for them to get their way. The tail wagged the dog.
Reif hid behind the rhetoric that “The issues this situation has brought to the surface are complex.”* They are anything but complex. It was simply that he and the EAPS department were spineless and voluntarily impotent. So when Dobbs came along, he issued a letter saying that he had received many communications bemoaning it, but that people on both sides of the issue have strong feelings and that it would be inappropriate for him to comment. Looked like he had finally read the memo. By then he had already given notice of stepping down as president.
He didn’t mention the absurdity of complaining about a SCOTUS decision on abortion to the president of a STEM university. What did the snowflakes expect him to do? Reopen the comfort rooms that sprung up when Trump was elected? Jeez….
* I’ve kept the letter and my reply to it. Furnished on request.
Dorian, you wouldn't believe how timely your article was: it appeared in my inbox 3 h before my first meeting with MCW's president to address his deplatforming of the Wisconsin Association of Scholars spring symposium in early May (more here: https://fairforall.substack.com/p/fair-news-the-dangers-of-stifling). President Raymond has promised to establish new policies at MCW based on the principles in the Chicago Statement. Thank you for such a helpful digest of the relevant concepts, history and steps necessary to create a proper university culture. Can we do it at MCW? This remains to be seen.
I thoroughly approve of the liberal use of the term "kindergarten." Great piece. The shame is that you have to spend time on this instead of geophysics.
Amen - long may the Chicago Trifecta run!
Excellent! Where you addressed student admissions, and commented that admitting unprepared students inevitably leads to pressure to diminish grading standards, I would have added, “especially at public universities.” The focus on pass rates and graduation rates and alarm if they aren’t close to 100%, has definitely led to this kind of dumbing down.
Solid points supported by tangible successful results! Critical mass may be key - having a few faculty go against the nearly monolithic ideology (so much for diversity!) may be tough (though not a reason to quit), but a group of several dozen can certainly stem the tide and eventually steer the universities to their true mission. Alumni pressure and dropping enrollment (often parent-guided) in the most activist schools will help. Here is hoping to more successes of the Chicago Trifecta!
Thanks for this really important article!
However, I would have some reservations about an "office for academic freedom", as bureaucracies tend to multiply.. (unless this office fully replaces an already existing one!).
I agree that avoiding administrative bloat is important. So how about having a sunset clause in establishment of the office of academic freedom?
Alumni of a university are certainly a large part, arguably the largest segment of its “community of scholars.” So when a university president or other high official publicly opines about something, he or she implies that that opinion represents the thoughts of a majority of the community. Before the Dobbs decision, several consecutive MIT presidents offered opinions to the public without bothering to check whether those opinions really reflected the thoughts of a majority; they evidently assumed it did, so validating those thoughts apparently didn’t occur to them. Chuck Vest filed an amicus opinion when the Michigan affirmative a tion case went to SCOTUS, Susan Hockfield appeared before the Us Senate talking about “global warming,” and Raphael Reif was more than happy to go along with the DEI mishegas and publicly cancelling the Carlson lecture.
Which was his undoing, and which, in no small measure, brought about his becoming aware of the large megaphone effect. Plus the fact that he was completely out of touch with a large segment of the people he thought he represented. His defense of cancelling the Carlson lecture was flimsy at best. What he hadn’t anticipated was the magnitude of the immune response that it would elicit. First, it exposed a disgracefully anti-freedom culture that had apparently been festering for some time. And it coalesced over 1,000 (and still growing) like-minded people to oppose that culture: we formed the MIT Free Speech Alliance, MFSA. Reif became aware that caving in to a small but vocal group of protesters did nothing except show them that be vocal and obnoxious was sufficient for them to get their way. The tail wagged the dog.
Reif hid behind the rhetoric that “The issues this situation has brought to the surface are complex.”* They are anything but complex. It was simply that he and the EAPS department were spineless and voluntarily impotent. So when Dobbs came along, he issued a letter saying that he had received many communications bemoaning it, but that people on both sides of the issue have strong feelings and that it would be inappropriate for him to comment. Looked like he had finally read the memo. By then he had already given notice of stepping down as president.
He didn’t mention the absurdity of complaining about a SCOTUS decision on abortion to the president of a STEM university. What did the snowflakes expect him to do? Reopen the comfort rooms that sprung up when Trump was elected? Jeez….
* I’ve kept the letter and my reply to it. Furnished on request.