MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

Mostly law professors, blogging on whatever we please since 2002 · Hosted by The Washington Post, 2014-2017 · Hosted by Reason 2017 · Sometimes contrarian · Often libertarian · Always independent

Securing Free Speech on Campus, Part II

Universities should be proactive about articulating, defending and protecting the free exchange of ideas on campus

Yesterday, I suggested that universities have a free speech problem, even if they do not necessarily face a free speech crisis. If the problem is not addressed by universities themselves, then it will be addressed by outside actors who, even if they act with good intentions, may not act in ways that are very helpful.

If universities want to fend off outside intervention and, more importantly, be true to their own mission, they need to be proactive in nurturing a better free speech culture on their own campuses. The task begins with getting clear about the right principles in the first place. University leaders should be capable of articulating and defending the idea that the point of a university is to be a site of sharp-edged disagreements, free inquiry, and unorthodox thinking. If they want to resist the impression that elite universities have become "hedge funds with universities attached," then they need to be willing to celebrate and defend universities as places where ideas are taken seriously and freely discussed and debated. One attraction of the University of Chicago Statement on Principles of Free Expression is that it offers a pithy articulation of these core commitments. I helped lead the effort to have the faculty at Princeton University adopt that statement in order to show solidarity for what should be a core commitment of university faculty across the country. Adopting such a clear statement of principle reaffirms and clarifies the values of a scholarly community and sends a message to both students and administrators as to what the expectations and priorities of the faculty are. If the faculty of a university cannot manage to agree on such basic principles of intellectual freedom, then that makes a statement of its own and prospective students, faculty, and donors should take notice.

A second task for improving the environment for free speech on college campuses is one of socialization. The membership of the campus community is constantly changing. Universities have a particular need to integrate new members into a common community and socialize them into the commitments, values and expectations of that community. Universities cannot take for granted that new students just entering the university, new graduate students being trained to become future scholars, and new faculty joining the ranks of those guiding the university will all arrive on campus with an appreciation of the scholarly enterprise and intellectual experimentation that should characterize university life. In the 2018-2019 academic year, Princeton University used my book, Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech, as a common reading for the incoming freshman class and the starting point for various campus conversations about the nature of the university and importance of – and requirements of -- freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom of speech and the productive exchange of serious ideas. Princeton University's president is among a shockingly small number of university leaders who are willing to take a visible stand on behalf of free intellectual inquiry and ideological diversity. (Happily, my sometimes co-author and chancellor of the University of California at Irvine is among that number as well.) Not every university is willing to make that kind of commitment, and Princeton presumably will not be repeating that experience every few years, but every university could and should integrate more modest efforts to spur discussion and contemplation of free speech principles into routine activities on campus. New student orientation, for example, should expend at least as much time and energy familiarizing incoming students with the intellectual expectations of their new campus environment as it does with familiarizing them with safe partying and safe sex.

A third task for improving the environment for free speech on college campuses is one of administration. Universities should strive to create a better intellectual culture on college campus, one that is more tolerant of disagreement and ideological diversity and more focused on investigating serious ideas rather than provoking or performing outrage. But cultural change is hard and not easily within the control of university administrators or faculty. Universities can at least ensure that their own administrative policies and practices do a good job of preserving academic freedom and free speech on campus. They should be committed to securing the freedom of faculty to research and teach in accord with their disciplinary norms and standards and regardless of the political, moral or economic pressures to conform to local orthodoxy. They should be committed to protecting the freedom of faculty and students to express their social and political views without fear of reprisal or sanction for saying something controversial. They should take care that campus codes of conduct not be designed or deployed to suppress dissent. They should make public spaces freely and fairly available for expressive activities on campus. Such policies sometimes need to be tailored to local conditions and administered with an eye toward the educational mission of the university, but they should encourage a pluralistic and robust intellectual ecosystem on campus rather than smother it.

Too many university leaders would prefer to cross their fingers and hope that their institution does not find itself in the media spotlight because of some free speech controversy. They would be better off taking active steps to make such controversies less likely and to put the university as an institution on the right side of any controversy that does erupt. They should be able to show politicians and the public that they are doing what they can to foster a sound intellectual environment on their campuses.

This argument is developed at greater length in a forthcoming article, which can be read in draft here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • James Pollock||

    To what degree are the answers to free speech questions for public high schools also valid for public universities?

    To what degree are the answers to free speech questions for public universities also valid for public high schools?

    I ask this pair of questions because the outcome of court cases between the two are almost totally separate. For high schools, the courts tend to settle on the "keeping order" argument as priority, whereas universities don't get this kind of deference.

  • I Callahan||

    Because in one case, we're talking about children; in the other, purported adults.

  • James Pollock||

    You have 17 and 18 yo persons in both locations. So, no, we aren't.

  • Rossami||

    So more precisely, in one case we're talking an overwhelming majority of children with a small minority of people who very recently passed their 18th birthday and in the other, an overwhelming majority of adults plus a very small minority of those who are close to their 18th birthday.

    While I disagree with much of the precedent about high-schoolers and their infantilization in the name of "control", there is clearly both a practical and legal distinction between the two populations.

  • James Pollock||

    Or would, if they made a set of rules that applied to minors, and another set of rules that applied to people who reached majority, in both places. But they don't.

  • apedad||

    Also, I think high schools have more of a defined, limited boundary where university campuses sometimes overlap with their communities so it's more difficult to university activities as opposed to having more control over high school activities.

  • apedad||

    ....difficult to monitor/control university activities...

  • James Pollock||

    When you say "communities", are you referring to students and others who spend time there, or are you talking about the towns and cities that surround the university?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Probably because high school students are typically minors, while college students are typically adults.

  • James Pollock||

    But the rules for high-school students apply to people who aren't minors, and the rules for colleges apply to people who are.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Doesn't mean that isn't why the two sorts of schools get treated differently, you know. The courts aren't requiring the institutions to craft a different set of rules for each individual case. They're permitting them to craft rules that apply to almost all cases, and then maybe require some sort of exceptions be made for exceptional cases.

  • James Pollock||

    "The courts aren't requiring the institutions to craft a different set of rules for each individual case. They're permitting them to craft rules that apply to almost all cases, and then maybe require some sort of exceptions be made for exceptional cases."

    We must be looking at different courts.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The problem I see here is an assumption that university administrators WANT free speech, that they aren't complicit in its suppression.

    Is that assumption really valid?

  • Jimmy the Dane||

    In my experience, the modern university just wants to appease its various constituencies and stay in business. If that means being pro-free speech then sign them up. If the faculty, staff, students, accrediting agencies, bureaucrats, lawmakers, and donors want something else, some them up for that. I have never seen any individual as flexible on a moral/ethical level as a university administrator. Their #1 purpose is to keep the money flowing in and #2 is to keep the complaining to a dull roar. How #1 and #2 are achieved is completely "flexible".

  • James Pollock||

    Most people will express support for "free speech" if asked about it in generalities. Most people will also support suppression of at least one area of "objectionable" material, usually with a statement along the lines of "of course, free speech doesn't extend to ...(whatever it is that they don't think people should be freely speaking)". This includes Constitutional scholars.

    Not everybody agrees with exactly WHAT should be suppressed, but nearly everybody has SOMETHING to which they are reluctant to extend freedom. When you get one group that finds something peachy-keen, and another group that objects strongly to that same something, then you get whining about how "anti-free-speech" one of the groups is, and often both, and validly so.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Why should mainstream schools credit conservatives' views on this subject? When conservatives get control of a campus, they impose strident censorship, teach nonsense, and struggle to maintain third-tier status and sketchy accreditation.

    Despite decades of right-wing complaints about the sorry state of our Berkeleys and Amhersts and Reeds, they have yet to demonstrate their ostensible respect for markets by filling the claimed void with strong conservative schools.

    We've reached the point at which it is reasonable to conclude that the market has spoken and conservatives don't like the verdict or its plain lessons.

  • Kevin Smith||

    So your position is that two wrongs make a right? Conservatives do bad things so liberals should do the same bad things?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Conservatives do bad things so they should quit stop offering lame advice to their betters when they should be trying to improve their positions and conduct.

  • SDN||

    Tell you what, Reverend, return all the tax money you Fascists have stolen to supposedly provide schools for everyone, and remove all the laws designed to interfere with founding those schools, and we'll talk. But until your sticky fingers are removed from my wallet, I'm paying for equal access, and you will provide it, by any means necessary.

  • HMI||

    "When conservatives get control of a campus, they impose strident censorship"

    Please provide instances of this censorship at any secular college or university.

  • James Pollock||

    "Please provide instances of this censorship at any secular college or university."

    Back in the mid-80's, I was threatened with student discipline because I hung a sign in the window of my dorm room overlooking a park where a particularly obnoxious group of people gathered to play soccer, disparaging soccer. This particular state university was once described as a "hotbed of student rest", and the raging liberal school was another 30 minutes down the Interstate.

  • smartmuffin||

    Agreed. AFAIK, survey data has indicated that university administrators are just as overwhelmingly biased to the left as university professors are. They are part of the problem.

  • Jimmy the Dane||

    Yup college administrators were all about sexual harassment and sexual assault "reforms" because the federal DOE bureaucrats forced their hand with threats using power of the purse. Either do what they told you to do or face an endless, multi-year investigation. Big surprise though when the tide shifted and male students who were expelled without due process started suing they changed up their tune quite a bit.

    Same thing is largely true about free speech. When it involves something like a sex fair, communist professor going off the rails, etc. sign them up for the free speech side. If it involves a right wing speaker well then rally around the non-discrimination statement and speech code.

    I think I would trust the word of a convicted killer over that of a college administrator.

  • James Pollock||

    "I think I would trust the word of a convicted killer over that of a college administrator."

    You pick your associates, and you get judged on your choices.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "You pick your associates, and you get judged on your choices."

    Hm, you really believe universities should be held to that?

  • James Pollock||

    I said they were, not that they should be.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Agreed. AFAIK, survey data has indicated that university administrators are just as overwhelmingly biased to the left as university professors are. They are part of the problem.

    The primary problem in this context is the schools that are operated by conservative administrators, dominated by conservative professors, and attended by conservative students. Plenty of censorship and nonsense, scant quality and accomplishment.

    More fun, and profitable, to ignore right-wing campuses and instead rant about Yale and Michigan, though, at least for conservatives.

  • James Pollock||

    " AFAIK, survey data has indicated that university administrators are just as overwhelmingly biased to the left as university professors are."

    Assuming for the moment that this is true, what is the cause? Is it that people who are conservative don't pursue careers in academia? Is it because they try, and fail? If that's it, are the failing because they're bad at it, or because they're held back by something external? If it's the external one, is it that other conservatives are responsible, or people of other political ideologies?

    Now, taking that original assumption back, a key question about any survey is "who's asking it, and what results are they looking for?" Both of these have a VERY significant effect of what gets found. Nobody should ever accept statistics without knowing who generated them and what they were looking for... and frequently not even then.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    If it's anything like what's been seen in other institutions taken over by the left, it's because, once a critical number of leftists are in place, they make a point of just hiring fellow leftists.

  • Lee Moore||

    I think that's an answer to why conservatives who want to go into academia may fail.

    But there's also the question of whether there's anything about being a conservative which makes you less likely to want to go into academia. Obviously there's the second order effect of the expectation of failure caused by the lefty takeover (and an unpleasant working atmosphere.)

    But there's also the different lifestyle and the different psychological profiles that are attracted to different lifestyles. Academia, for all the lefty demands to tear down the oppressive structure of Western patriarchy, is a very very safe space - a walled garden about as protected by the oppressive structure of Western patriarchy as it's possible to find. It can be seen as the continuation of childhood by other means. It doesn't offer, in most cases, enormous wealth or power, but it allows the harsh world of adult engagement with reality to be deferred indefinitely.

    That's attractive to some, but unattractive to others. The sort of people to whom it is unattractive are those who want to grow up, leave school, take responsibility and make something of themselves.

    Nor should we forget money. Business folk make a lot more money than academics. And the academics resent that quite a lot. But the folk who prefer to go into business took that into account when they chose their career path.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Well, yes, "Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach." isn't quite true, but it's a common attitude on the right. Didn't stop my uncle the plumber from ending up teaching at U of M.

    Doubtless it accounts for the relatively small numerical advantage the left used to have over the right in college faculties, prior to the 90's. It doesn't account for the huge numerical disparity we see developing since then.

    What's happened is that the left has developed a culture that's radically intolerant of dissent, views anybody to their right as a literal Nazi. So, NOW, anywhere they get a modest majority, they are inevitably driven to leverage it into a monopoly.

    I don't see that culture changing any time soon, the very fact that it succeeds means they're surrounded by people who agree with it. Thus my suggestion that the right must construct parallel institutions, and be very careful about who they hire, because, sadly, any effort on the right to achieve ideological diversity risks the whole "march through the institutions" dynamic just kicking in again.

  • James Pollock||

    "Well, yes, 'Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach.' isn't quite true, but it's a common attitude on the right"

    Those who can't teach, gripe about it on the Internet.

  • James Pollock||

    "Obviously there's the second order effect of the expectation of failure caused by the lefty takeover (and an unpleasant working atmosphere.)"

    I'd say there's a bigger influence of the convervatives not being impressed by academics, and therefore negatively reinforcing would-be academics interested in their perceived status amongst conservatives.

  • Lee Moore||

    Is that assumption really valid?

    Obviously not. And my impression is that Prof Whittington talks a good game without any serious intention of playing. Thus :

    "But cultural change is hard and not easily within the control of university administrators or faculty."

    Yes, in the sense that it's hard to turn a girl's basketball team into a boy's football team. You can twiddle at the edges - assuming good will - but you can't actually change the culture of an institution without changing the people in it. Strangely enough, the folk in charge of universities strongly believe in "diversity" as to race, sex etc and are quite happy to put their thumbs on the admissions scales to up the proportions of disfavored groups. And ditto for faculty. Intellectual diversity ? Not so much.

    Wake me when Prof Whittington posts his call for a 25% quota of conservative faculty.

  • James Pollock||

    "Wake me when Prof Whittington posts his call for a 25% quota of conservative faculty."

    There'd be no takers. Conservatives oppose quotas.

  • NToJ||

    "Wake me when Prof Whittington posts his call for a 25% quota of conservative faculty."

    Do you want this?

  • Lee Moore||

    Do you want this?

    1. Irrelevant to my point, which is that culture won't change without changing the people. And consequently calls to change the culture without calls to change the people are just hand waving. But since you ask....

    2, As for goverment colleges, there does need to be some mechanism to prevent ideological takeover of a whole swathe of government activity by one sect, or a group of allied sects. Details negotiable, but the point of principle is straightforward. Do I object to political involvement in the running of State Universities. No. Would I prefer it if administators ran their universities so well and so reasonably that no political interference was necessary ? Sure. Are we there ? Definitely not.

    3. Private colleges ? Not my business, obviously. But if asked for advice, in some cases I could see value in quotas. So if a 100% lefty liberal college really wanted to become for intellectually diverse, I can see how a quota on new hires might get them started.

    4. And just as quotas might be a useful starter for changing the culture in heavily leftist private colleges, in some circumstances, so might they be in some state colleges.

  • NToJ||

    1. It's not irrelevant to my question. I'm asking if Lee Moore wants this quota.

    2. What did you have in mind? Is quotas the solution?

  • Lee Moore||

    Well now. I find myself at a disadvantage in discussing the ideal structure of a State University, since I don't think they should exist. But if I am forced to accept them then

    (a) yes, as mentioned in 4 above, quotas might sometimes be the best short term solution to a serious ideological skew that damaged the quality of education, but

    (b) in the longer term (if I'm still not allowed to abolish State Universities) what I would prefer is an arrangement that prevents a political monopoly. So in the first case, you need to avoid the entrenchent of a bureaucracy - so bureaucrats must be removable and there can be no long term tenure for faculty (I'm not opposed to termed tenure.)

  • Lee Moore||

    As to political control, suppose you have a State with one university, and the legislature is composed of 60 Reds and 40 Blues. Instead of the 60 Reds having the power to appoint the whole board of the university, and noogies to the Blues, the Reds might appoint 6 board members and the Blues 4. Then instead of the Red appointees outvoting the Blues on everything, the Reds might control 60% of the budget and the Blues 40%, so that the Red board members would exert control over a majority of faculty appointments, but the Blues would appoint a good minority. Consequently, if the Reds were particuarly keen on Engineering, they might appoint most of the Engineering faculty, and that faculty might have more than its fair share of Professors comfortable with a Reddish educational philosophy. But the Blues might totally own the Women's Studies department. And if the Reds and Blues were reasonable people they might make deals.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Should a state university's administration and faculty attempt to emulate our strongest schools or, instead, the weak schools (whose conservative administrators hire conservative faculties)?

    I believe a state institution should pursue quality and success.

  • James Pollock||

    " I find myself at a disadvantage in discussing the ideal structure of a State University, since I don't think they should exist."

    Move to a place that doesn't have them, then. Problem solved.

  • SDN||

    As I told the "Reverend", your sticky fingers in my wallet seem to have a pretty long reach.

  • James Pollock||

    "As I told the 'Reverend', your sticky fingers in my wallet seem to have a pretty long reach."

    Whoever's fingering you is not me. Wipe that contented grin off your face.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    Follow the money; that's who university administrators want to appease.

    The increased demand for college diplomas has brought in far too many students who have no interest in actually learning anything worthy of a four year slog, but they need that sheepskin saying they have endured the four year slog. Thus the rise in gender studies and other sorts of indoctrination that go beyond what used to be called "basket weaving". This parallels the rise in government for the sake of government, where the default assumption is that every problem requires more government, even when (especially when) government created the problem.

    Demand for more government, meet supply of government proponents.

    There is where the money trail goes nowadays.

  • NToJ||

    Why don't you quantify for us what you think the "rise in gender studies and other sorts of indoctrination" looks like? How many cultural and gender studies majors do you think there are? And how fast are they growing? What percent of, say, Brown students do you think major in cultural or gender studies?

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    More than there were, say, 50 years ago. Now there are entire departments.

    Frankly, I don't care what the percentage is. They are students in name only, whose grades only depend on kissing up to faculty and making waves in public. They are not there to learn, only to get that sheepskin.

    If you see otherwise, you are blind.

  • NToJ||

    "Frankly, I don't care what the percentage is."

    I see that you're more interested in making sweeping statements about education and then bragging about how you came to that conclusion from a place of proud ignorance.

    Anyway, if it is the case that people who get the sheepskin in gender studies make more than welders, is that not a market response?

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    If there are gender studies departments now, and none 50 years ago, is that not what you asked for?

    And speaking of cites .... I doubt any gender studies graduates make more than welders. Citation, please.

  • NToJ||

    Data.

  • MJBinAL||

    nice, less than experienced welders.
    And, what percentage of them work in a field that made use of the degree?
    What percentage of them now teach gender studies?

  • NToJ||

    Welders.

    "And, what percentage of them work in a field that made use of the degree?"

    Their employers believe that the degree is worth something, don't you think?

  • gormadoc||

    Part of the reason humanities graduates' employment rates in their preferred field have fallen despite enrollment also falling is that the market doesn't really have much demand for them.

  • James Pollock||

    "Part of the reason humanities graduates' employment rates in their preferred field have fallen despite enrollment also falling is that the market doesn't really have much demand for them."

    Another reason is that humanities graduates are prepared for flexibility, including in employment. The humanities graduates can change readily when required to, and thus adapt to different employment opportunities.

    Most people working today have or will have had multiple career paths by the time they leave the working world.

  • Lee Moore||

    A second task for improving the environment for free speech on college campuses is one of socialization. The membership of the campus community is constantly changing. Universities have a particular need to integrate new members into a common community and socialize them into the commitments, values and expectations of that community.

    No no, no and NO. Colleges already do this and the result is compulsory courses in diversity, gender-fluidity, radical feminism, anti-racism, postmodernism and all points left. Including compulsory training in this ideology for faculty.

    The socialisation process should be left to the ordinary play of free association. If free speech and free association is genuinely wanted by the administration, they need do nothing but apply disciplinary measures to those students and faculty who interfere with it. First by warning, and then, if necessary, by a parting of the ways.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The students probably enter the university with more of a commitment to free speech than they exit it with, thanks to current efforts to socialize them.

  • smartmuffin||

    The single institution in American society most dedicated to the commitment to free speech is almost certainly the federal government.

    Think about that for a second...

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The students probably enter the university with more of a commitment to free speech than they exit it with, thanks to current efforts to socialize them.

    Which school? Wheaton or Columbia? Biola or Berkeley? Liberty or Swarthmore? Ouachita Baptist or Smith? Bob Jones or Sarah Lawrence?

  • James Pollock||

    "Colleges already do this and the result is compulsory courses in diversity, gender-fluidity, radical feminism, anti-racism, postmodernism and all points left"

    I worked in a college, for over ten years. We had approximately 0 of these.

  • ducksalad||

    Yup. Most of the commenters here went to college. Typical degree is 40-45 courses. How about a brief informal survey of how many compulsory courses we took in "diversity, gender-fluidiity, radical feminism, anti-racism, post-modernism"?

    I would wager that typically for a science/business/engineering degree at a major state university the number is somewhere between 0 or 1. Usually all that stuff put together is a part of one freshman course, or it's a few casual remarks thrown into the history or political science course.

    A "regular" degree in English, psychology, etc....maybe 1 to 2 required courses and a bunch of electives.

    A "studies" degree, well yeah, you get what you sign up for. In general if someone's education is mostly about identity politics that's because they wanted it that way.

  • NToJ||

    Zero.

  • NToJ||

    And I was a liberal arts major (philosophy) at a public university.

  • MJBinAL||

    When?

  • NToJ||

    2001-2005.

  • I Callahan||

    Here is one example. Look at the "Race and Ethnicity" requirement.

    University of Michigan

  • NToJ||

    Mine had a physical education credit.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I can't remember whether a physical education requirement existed, but I 'studied' basketball (more than once -- maybe four times), golf, wrestling, and track and field.

  • ducksalad||

    Yes, one course is about in the range expected. I can see objecting to mandating or paying for even on, and sort of agree . But I think one course in something stupidly political is survivable. It might even be "educational", although not in the way the professor probably intended.

    From some of the commentary you'd think college is mostly about PC indoctrination. That's an exaggeration,outside of a few boutique colleges and "studies" majors, and those people knew what they were getting into. Where I'm at Women's Studies and Mexican-American Studies have about 30 majors each out of 30,000 students total. Their existence is quite tolerable.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I was in college in the late 70's, dual major, computer engineering and human biology. There weren't much in the way of politically loaded classes back then, at least not at an engineering university.

    I gather things have changed quite radically since, but to differing degrees depending on major and institution. According to this, Engineering departments run to about 1.6 Democrats per Republican, and it rises from there to 48 to 1 in English departments.

    According to this, it really started going off the rails about '96, prior to that university faculty were unrepresentative of the general public, but not insanely so as today.

    Interestingly, the percentages for the students themselves haven't shifted much; A slight excess of liberals over conservatives, but nothing profound.

    So I conclude the change in college culture is mostly due to the very large minority of conservative students being afraid to speak out, thanks to knowing the faculty do NOT have their backs in any dispute.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The study to which you point refers to "elite liberal arts colleges."

    These 'elite' institutions appear to tend toward liberal, progressive faculties and administrators.

    There are plenty of schools -- not described as elite by educated people -- whose administrative offices and faculties are dominated by conservatives.

    There may be a lesson there, but not one the movement conservative Conspirators or their right-wing fans want to perceive or acknowledge.

  • James Pollock||

    "So I conclude the change in college culture is mostly due to the very large minority of conservative students being afraid to speak out, thanks to knowing the faculty do NOT have their backs in any dispute."

    Interesting that you can reach this conclusion without any evidence. It's almost like you started out with the conclusion you wanted, didn't do any actual research that might threaten it, and then decided you were right all along.

  • ducksalad||

    A couple things, both related to self-selection...

    1. The concept of "speaking out" is itself left leaning. If you ask an apolitical or conservative student why they're in college they'll probably say something like "to get a job" or maybe at a stretch "to learn". If you get an answer like "to promote social change" or "to find my voice" you can make a decent guess at the student's politics without even asking exactly what social change they are promoting.

    2. 18-year old conservatives, just like anyone else, want to go into a career that will be respected by their friends, family, and potential spouses. If their friends (and favorite blogs...) keep telling them that professors are intellectually dishonest communist ---holes, well, don't be surprised if the kid doesn't want to be a professor.

    I teach electronics and electromagnetics. It wasn't a lot of fun having my dad yell at me at dinner because his news source informed him that I spend most of my time teaching political correctness.

  • jubulent||

    I went to college nearly 20 years ago and was required to take a course on Marxism and another on racial studies. This was at a relatively conservative major Midwestern school as an Engineering undergrad.

    You were allowed to choose which flavor of leftist indoctrination you wanted; feminist studies, racial studies, post-colonialism, etc, so I guess technically you could say that "Radical feminism" wasn't a required class.

    Fortunately, the intellectual chops required to pass these classes was about as one would expect, because it was a required course and the school was then (as it is now) very concerned with making sure that even the freshmen in Remedial Algebra were able to get a degree.

    My eldest is now looking at schools and we are seeing the same BS required for all of the major universities she is interested in attending.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I wouldn't much mind a required course in Marxism, paired with a required course in Fascism, if the topic of "murderous political ideologies" was thought to be too much for one class. It depends on how it's taught, the difference between vaccinating somebody and infecting them.

  • ducksalad||

    Yeah, it's hard to tell from just the name. The 9-10am class in "International Terrorism" with Prof. Bolton has different syllabus from the 10-11am one with Prof. Bin Laden.

  • Alpheus W Drinkwater||

    I was in college just a little later than you, Brett. Marxist Political Thought was taught by the most conservative professor in the department. And my other political science prof, Gene Hickock, ended up in both Bush administrations, I believe. During the Reagan years, the Young Republicans staged walk-outs of professors they considered too liberal. Which is moronic, but a more responsible form of protest than what is going on now, since it doesn't suppress anyone's speech.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Why didn't you choose one of the hundreds of right-wing campuses?

    (If the answer is 'I wanted to get a good education at a good school,' I understand.)

  • jubulent||

    There aren't "hundreds of right-wing campuses." As I said, I went to a relatively conservative school. I'm not sure what your obsession is with classifying conservative schools as "bad schools." There are significantly more no-name left wing universities that provide students with a poor value.

    If you think there are "good" and "bad" schools for undergraduate programs I'd suggest you read some of Bryan Caplan's work on the subject.

  • Lee Moore||

    You're obviously not as young as I thought. Things have moved on.

    eg Cornell :

    https://cornellsun.com/2018/11/01/
    new-social-difference-requirement-one-of-changes
    -in-newly-passed-as-curriculum-proposal/

    The College of Arts and Sciences will allow students to take sign language to fulfill the college's language requirement and will have a "social difference" requirement…..

    The new social difference requirement can be fulfilled by classes that "take class, race, ethnicity, nativity status, religion, gender, sexuality, or ability as an object of study,"

  • NToJ||

    Well, according to the article they haven't moved yet, at the one college you looked up. The change is for 2020.

  • WJack||

    Beginning about 100 years ago Progressives infiltrated and then subsequently captured the educational system. Almost all schools are now aggressive Progressive propaganda pumps. Any reform that does not cope with this fact has merely rearranged the deck chairs.

    https://www.uvm.edu/~dewey/articles/proged.html

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The only reform likely to work at this point is starting a whole new education system from scratch, and being VERY carefully about who gets hired. It will be the work of generations, and fought every inch of the way.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    Just get rid of federal student loans. Make students and parents actually convince a bank to loan them the money, and make banks and schools quite aware that student loans are as bankruptable as any other loan.

    "You want $200K" to get a degree in Gender Studies? Try the kneecapper down the alley."

  • James Pollock||

    Killing off federal student loans hits people who want to make a mid-career course change. That career in truck-driving or coal mining didn't turn out to be a lifelong gig? Bummer. What other skills do you have? Nothing? Well, the forms for applying for wefare are stacked here on the table...

  • smartmuffin||

    Not really. Private lenders would be willing to lend funds to someone with a reliable work performance record, who was pursuing a degree in a high-demand field, from a reasonably priced institution.

  • James Pollock||

    You live in a fantasy land if you believe this.

  • I Callahan||

    What are you talking about? Banks give these loans out NOW, to students who have no assets whatsoever.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    Yes, because they are unbankruptable.

    Private banks who have to justify their loans will be glad to loan to students with family, a house, a work history, and a good rewarding major. They won't be so happy to loan to basket weaving students.

    To think otherwise is to hate capitalism and not understand free markets.

  • NToJ||

    "...and a good rewarding major."

    Right, so if a bank has loaned a student 3 years worth of credits in engineering, they're going to refuse to loan the money necessary to complete 2 more years when the borrower changes majors to art? How does that work out for the bank?

  • gormadoc||

    That's the sunk cost fallacy. If the bank thinks another loan won't provide the return the want even considering the loans they've given already they won't give the loan. That's how it works for every loan. The fact that the last three years might be kaput doesn't make the next two a sure deal.

  • NToJ||

    It's not a sunk cost fallacy. It's that the lender's ROI changes dramatically if the borrower receives a piece of paper, regardless of the major.

  • gormadoc||

    If it isn't worth it they still won't do it. Insisting it would be worth it is playing to the fallacy.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Better than it likely does for the student.

  • James Pollock||

    "Private banks who have to justify their loans will be glad to loan to students with family, a house, a work history, and a good rewarding major."

    This is fantasy.
    Unless you meant that if they have a house, they can get a loan against equity.

    There are idiots in the banking industry; the first decade of this century taught us that. But they aren't ALL marginally-functional drooling idiots. Some of them actually understand banking. They know that you only loan money to people who have a way to repay it.

  • NToJ||

    What do you think the average income is of a person with a gender studies degree?

  • jubulent||

    Starbucks starts around $10/hr.

    That's pretty high for pouring coffee, but the company found a niche.

  • NToJ||

    It's about $50K.

  • jubulent||

    $10k/hour is significantly less than $50k/year.

    You must have been a gender studies major.

  • NToJ||

    No, I'm telling you that's what people with gender studies degrees make per year. To rebut your claim that they all worked at Starbucks. See here.

  • jubulent||

    Self reported data is less than useful.

  • NToJ||

    It's better than no data. What are you relying on?

    Question: In 1970 do you think there were fewer (as a percentage of total majors) humanities majors than there are today? What about computer science and engineering majors?

  • mad_kalak||

    The only thing is, is that according to that data from they link above, they live in LA, NYC and D.C., where $49-70k is near poverty level income if you include housing costs.

  • Sarcastr0||

    'Your data cannot defeat my narrative!'

    As a former physicist, I find STEMLords to be the worst.

  • jubulent||

    "It's better than no data."

    https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_sbc.pdf

    Unemployment rates for humanities and social sciences are significantly higher, and their median earnings (those that have jobs) are significantly lower, than average for college graduates.

    Having a degree in, for example, electrical engineering will look better on a resume, (controlling for alma mater and experience) even if you're applying for the same job.

    I'd suggest reading some literature on the subject.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Heck, Occasional Cortex managed to get a degree in economics, and ended up a barista.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Just get rid of federal student loans.

    I hope you are prepared for a lifetime of profound, and deserved, political irrelevance.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • apedad||

    FYI, you're currently losing the fight and there doesn't seem to be any indications of the tide turning in your favor in the generation or so.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I tend to agree. We're looking at the tail end of a fight that the right abdicated until it was probably too late, just like the left's control of most media outlets. And it isn't like we weren't warned, we were just too busy doing other things to fight the necessary fight.

    Best case, it's going to be a several generation slog to recapture society from the left, worst case looks a lot like Venezuela with a dark age after it.

    At this point I think we should be concentrating on creating islands of civilization that can survive what's coming, and admit the nation as a whole is probably a lost cause.

  • NToJ||

    "At this point I think we should be concentrating on creating islands of civilization that can survive what's coming, and admit the nation as a whole is probably a lost cause."

    Ok. The rest of us will just go on with our lives living in a the new Venezuela. Do you really believe this shit?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    If you believed the left just a few years ago, Venezuela was the future. Socialism is always the future until it fails, and ceases to have ever been socialism in the first place.

    Yes, I believe this shit. The left is parasitic on a culture they won't maintain. Look at the cities they've controlled for half a century or more: They turn into hell holes, with sky high murder rates, deteriorating ghettos, people pooping on the sidewalks. And, yeah, towers reaching towards the sky, $500 a plate restaurants, art museums. Income inequality off the charts.

    But that wealth lives off the parts of the country they DON'T yet control.

    The left can't maintain civilization, they're ideologically opposed to its foundations. If they take control, civilization will fall, for lack of those foundations. The only reason this hasn't happened yet is that the left isn't fully in control yet, large swaths of the country are still healthy enough to keep the blood flowing to the parts that are gangrenous.

    Can they maintain that balance, only take over so much of the country, and leave enough still functioning to feed their strongholds? I don't think so, because they don't view their not controlling it all as legitimate.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Your logic can only conclude that political violence against liberals is laudable, looks like.

    Heck, by your logic they shouldn't vote, and maybe all be in jail.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Almost all schools are now aggressive Progressive propaganda pumps.


    All, or nearly all, strong schools are operated in the liberal-libertarian mainstream.

    There are hundreds of conservative schools -- conservative administrators, conservative faculties, conservative instruction, conservative students. They are weak schools, but they are schools, and they are numerous.
  • apedad||

    In war, the winners write the history books, so your future relatives will read about you being a loser.

  • M.L.||

    Relatedly, federal student loans should be ended. This is entirely responsible for the absurd tuition increases over the last 50 years. Universities must be forced to go back to what they used to do, which is to charge prices that the market will actually pay. That will be something resembling annual tuition in the amount of a summer's wages for a hard-working college student. Massive restructuring, layoffs, downsizing, and bankruptcies will be necessary and we will be so much better off for it.

  • NToJ||

    "This is entirely responsible for the absurd tuition increases over the last 50 years."

    Entirely? So approximately 71% of undergraduate students don't take loans. (There's no point discussing graduate students, since the federal government earns money on those loans.) That's about the same number as it was 10 years ago. 5% of the borrowing students don't take any subsidized loans. And 19% of the borrowing students take some combination of subsidized and non-subsidized loans, meaning not even all of their borrowing comes from federally subsidized loans. That leaves just 5% who are borrowing exclusively through subsidized loans. It seems unlikely, to say the least, that this small fraction of the college-attending public is driving the approximately 50% growth per decade. Maybe there is something else going on, here?

    Perhaps there is a higher demand by colleges to draw in the 71% of students who aren't paying any loans (since they're funded by others), and to do that they encourage 18 year olds to decide on their four-year path with rock walls and lazy rivers. Those things cost money, too.

  • MJBinAL||

    Yes, entirely responsibile.

    The costs are wildly inflated because of demand and the fact the the universities overcharge some students to subsidize others. Since every student can go to college without regard to academic merit, demand is high and colleges compete with recreational facilities, eateries, social clubs, dorms like high rent apartments, etc. In addition, academic standards drop like stones and majors like Gender Studies get created to provide majors that the truly stupid and useless can pass courses in.

    Discussing students without loans also requires discussing students with outright grants. I remember a classmate in college who, on the basis of acceptable grades in HS and his family income, having his entire tuition paid by Ohio Educational Grants. He didn't take out any loans ... and did not pay any of his tuition.

  • MJBinAL||

    My comments are based on my attending university, my children attending university, and a friend who retired as a department head at a university engineering department.

  • NToJ||

    Entirely, got it.

  • jph12||

    "71% of undergraduate students don't take loans"

    Does this reflect the number of students themselves who don't take federal student loans, or does it include their families as well?

    "This is entirely responsible for the absurd tuition increases over the last 50 years."

    There's virtually never a single cause responsible for a social phenomena.

  • NToJ||

    "There's virtually never a single cause..."

    Agree.

  • mad_kalak||

    The other cause is the bloat in administration, deans everywhere

  • gormadoc||

    Absolutely. My university's administration has been non-stop increasing in size and scope even in the midst of a budget crisis.

  • jph12||

    And credentialism, and the decline in manufacturing jobs, and cost being linked to prestige, and colleges competing on amenities, and . . .

  • M.L.||

    You've grossly misconstrued the facts. That statistic is annual Stafford loans.

    Here's the reality: over 70% of undergrads leave with significant student debt. Federal student loans include federally guaranteed debt issued by private lenders. The federal government has also excluded student debt from bankruptcy.

    According to the federal reserve, over 90% of outstanding student debt is federally guaranteed. There's no appreciable credit risk exposure being taken on by private lenders. For all intents and purposes, essentially all student debt is federal student debt.

    This is a "but for" cause of exponential tuition hikes. There are other factors: mainly, the insane cultural notion that nearly everyone should go to college, stay out of the workforce, and stay in la la land well into their 20's or even beyond. That's the basic problem, and federal student loans are just the most prominent policy aspect.

    Sooner or later, drastic changes will occur. There's no question that the academic subjects could be learned in a small fraction of the time at essentially no cost, with online curricula and other resources, and that skills training can be done in tandem with gainful employment. The sticking point is the credentialing mechanism, which is monopolized and entrenched by existing institutions, and the broader outmoded cultural paradigm.

    The remaining question is whether we can effect drastic change through intelligent forethought, or if we'll wait for dire economic necessity.

  • NToJ||

    "There are other factors: mainly, the insane cultural notion that nearly everyone should go to college, stay out of the workforce, and stay in la la land well into their 20's or even beyond."

    Who do you think is driving this? Are you an employer?

  • M.L.||

    2/2

    "There's no point discussing graduate students, since the federal government earns money on those loans."

    Wow, so you actually thought that the concern here is whether the federal government is making money off of student loans? That's just incredible. Amazing.

    Regardless, it's not true. But with 7 and 8% interest rates charged to poor students, it's no surprise that some extremely shoddy accounting could be slapped together to produce such a profoundly silly claim. Apparently that accounting is required by law, but the CBO itself acknowledges that it's bunk (see the link).

    Keep in mind also that so-called "default rates" exclude people who are paying $0 year after year, or paying an amount that doesn't even cover the interest. To be considered in default, you have to be so braindead that you just blow past multiple opportunities to file some simple forms indicating that your income isn't high enough to be required to make the standard payments.

  • NToJ||

    "Wow, so you actually thought that the concern here is whether the federal government is making money off of student loans? That's just incredible. Amazing."

    You started a discussion about federal student loans. Your entire point rests on the assumption that these federal dollars are going to people who can't pay them back. If the federal government is making money on graduate student loans, your entire premise drops its guts, at least with respect to those loans. Because graduate students are paying off their loans, which means they're making more money than the borrow

    And graduate loans are profitable. The link you've posted discusses undergraduate loans. Do you understand why default rates, and returns, might be different for graduate versus non-graduate student loans?

  • M.L.||

    Uh, wrong. The biggest problem with this huge, big government policy you love is that it makes higher education cost 10x what it should and would otherwise cost. That's true regardless of whether the loans are profitable, and regardless of whether and in what instances such education may still be a positive value proposition to prospective students.

    No, graduate loans are not profitable, you blithering moron. From your own damn link: "But it would earn a 14% profit off the loans for graduate students and parents over the same time period, according to Delisle. (He uses the official calculation method. When accounting for more risk, the CBO finds that government would lose money on all loans except for those that go to parents.)."

    Why do you love one of the most massive big government policies around? I though you were more of a small government, free market kind of guy.

  • James Pollock||

    "Federal student loans include federally guaranteed debt issued by private lenders."

    Used to, you mean.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    M.L., there seems to be little room in your thinking for liberal arts training—which provides the skill sets most likely to be helpful in solving problems which disrupt politics and government, including economic problems. STEM isn't going to do much to tell us how to get along without reliable news, for instance—nor anything at all to make the news more reliable.

    Also, there is currently an enormous unemployment/underemployment problem among young adults, very much including young adults with technical training. Your notion of skills training in tandem with gainful employment probably isn't something that never happens, but believing it happens enough anymore to make a difference is laughable. And once again, it seems like your "training" notion is purely technical. What happens to that unemployment cohort after you swell its ranks by taking a large fraction of college students out of school?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Which in theory provides the skill sets likely to be helpful in solving these problems, but in practice the problems with, for instance, journalism, appeared right when we started relying on liberal arts training to provide those skill sets, instead of what amounted to an apprenticeship system.

    Journalism went to hell exactly when the J school graduates took over. I don't think that's a coincidence: They weren't taught to dig for the truth and report it regardless of who it affronts. They were taught to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable", which is to say, to take sides.

    And eventually taking sides took precedent over everything else, even the survival of the outlets that employed them.

  • M.L.||

    "believing it happens enough anymore to make a difference is laughable."

    Exactly my point. . . . it doesn't happen anymore . . . . due to this trillion dollar scam called higher education credentialism

  • James Pollock||

    "we will be so much better off for it."

    A massive economic depression makes us better off?

  • M.L.||

    Broken window fallacy

  • James Pollock||

    Broken window fallacy is a thing, yes. Irrelevant, but a thing.

  • bernard11||

    Interesting how many commenters have extensive knowledge of university practices, degree requirements, and course content.

    Are they all faculty members and administrators, or are some making shit up, or parroting shit others have made up?

  • WJack||

    Got it exactly backwards as to who makes most of their stuff up.

  • NToJ||

    no, u

  • jph12||

    "Interesting how many commenters have extensive knowledge of university practices, degree requirements, and course content."

    I find that the number of experts on university practices pales in comparison to the number of experts on Islam.

  • James Pollock||

    Both of those pale next to the number of people who believe a problem to complex social and political problems can be expressed on a bumper sticker.

  • gormadoc||

    Woah, it gets a lot easier to discount everybody who disagrees with me if I assume they don't know anything.

    "Check out this neat trick! Rhetoricians hate him!"

  • James Pollock||

    "Are they all faculty members and administrators"

    I was a college instructor for a bit over a decade, and also the IT administrator for the college's student-accessible computer systems. I also have a kid who's currently earning a graduate degree.

  • apedad||

    Universities are (and should continue to be!) a major part of our nation's social laboratory.

    Believe it or not, there is NOT one "right way" and universities are the perfect places to test boundaries (i.e. loosening/restricting policies, etc.).

    And for the folks who don't like that we even have a social laboratory, well, sucks to be you.

  • Eddy||

    Social laboratory? My laboratory is in a deserted castle on a desert island.

    "They called me mad - mad!"

  • James Pollock||

    Sorry, Mario, but our Princess is in another castle.

  • WJack||

    "[S]ocial laboratory" ... wow, only a victim of Progressive educators would think this is a good thing.

  • gormadoc||

    Why? This is exactly what we believe with regards to the states in our union. Voting with our feet comes from that idea.

  • jubulent||

    I don't think 18-22 year olds should be considered a representative sample of our nation's social structure.

  • James Pollock||

    You might want to pop down to a few colleges and universities in your area. They're full of midlife career-changers now.

  • James Pollock||

    What this commentary suggests, as a whole, is that A) a lot of people couldn't get jobs as academics, and B) they also never learned Aesop's Fables, specifically, the Fox and the Grapes.

  • ducksalad||

    Well, that's a bit strong. I'm a professor and don't think any of the criticism is motivated by sour grapes.

    I do think reading reports of outrageous incidents gives people the wrong impression. There have always been asinine professors, including asinine leftist professors, but there hasn't always been a CollegeFix and a Breitbart to make each of them nationally famous.

    In reality 90+% of what we do is teach completely non-political stuff like accounting and engineering to students who then go get non-political jobs. And write mandated accountability reports about it, because we keep hiring more administrators whose job is to demand data and reports they can put on a spreadsheet and send up to the next level.

    The reason for writing all the reports is they are required in order to get the state and federal funding. The reason we have students is so we can write the reports. That's really what it's about.

    We don't sit at tables dreaming up nonsense PC stuff. Well, not more than a few times a year.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Considering that it should be 99+%, that doesn't exactly mean there isn't a problem.

  • ducksalad||

    You don't think there should be political science courses at all? If so, don't blame professors. The 1929 Texas legislature passed a law that all degrees at public universities must include six credits of US and Texas government. I don't think the 1929 Texas legislature was controlled by left wing social justice warriors.

    If you mean there should be zero tolerance for lefty politics being expressed in a classroom by a professor, then I'd say your attitude is not a distinguishable from the people you are criticizing.

    Maybe you could clarify...

  • Toranth||

    In 1929, the state of Texas was governed by Democrats. They held every state level office, all 31 senate seats, and 149 of 150 house seats. Every Federal representative was a Democrat.

    While the 1929 Democrats were certainly "right-wing" by the definition of today's SJWs, they were very Progressive for their time, and it shows in their policies to 'shape' people through the use of government - Prohibition, for example.

  • James Pollock||

    "In 1929, the state of Texas was governed by Democrats."

    In 1929, the state of Texas was governed by Texans.

  • ducksalad||

    It was effectively a single party state, so the number of D's doesn't tell you much about whether they were progressive for their time. The real election was the Democratic primary, and those were sharply contested between the populists and the main street faction. You have a point that the populists won some cycles in the 1920's but without researching it I'd guess the main street faction pushed the curriculum requirement. The original wording said study of the US and Texas constitutions, and I don't imagine that's something New Dealers would've want studied too hard.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    There's a difference between teaching political science, and teaching in a political manner. It's the latter that's the problem. Even in political science, ideology should not dominate. To the extent ideology does dominate, it's not science anymore.

  • James Pollock||

    Newsflash:

    Calling political science "political science" doesn't make it a science. It never was, and never will be.

  • ducksalad||

    I don't think that easy to decouple ideology from the content. For example, simply defining and discussing federalism implies that the teacher thinks it's important and that the federal government is limited to powers granted by the constitution. Which is a position that (for example) Nancy Pelosi and many mainstream Democrats disagree with, they even roll their eyes at it.

    And anyway, a class in which the professor recites facts in a monotone without any hint in her/his voice indicating approval, disapproval, or interest....is a sucky class.

    Of course ideology shouldn't "dominate" but I don't think your 99+% quality control target is attainable. It might not even be a good thing.

  • James Pollock||

    "I don't think that easy to decouple ideology from the content."

    You can teach ideology as "the people who believe X do so because Y, Z, and Q." Note that only people poor at discernment just read "YOU SHOULD BELIEVE X!!!" in the preceeding quote.

  • wreckinball||

    Houston we do have a problem. Quite a few if not most Universities treat free speech in a similar manner as Twitter does. They censor and make up excuses to ban conservative speakers yet allow the farthest left wack jobs to speak. Examples of each are Ben Shapiro and Angela Davis.

    And if you are public university or a private university that accepts public funds I don't think its asking too much to adhere to the constitution especially the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights

    So this can be short. Allow free speech period. Those that won't tolerate it need expelled. If you don't like it find another school.Think of the little nannies who screen applications now that won't be needed. Tuition should go down.

    I don't want to hear what about if a white supremacist wants to speak. because last I checked 1A doesn't say speech is free except if you are a white supremacist. You don't get to judge the speech.

  • James Pollock||

    "And if you are public university or a private university that accepts public funds I don't think its asking too much to adhere to the constitution especially the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights"

    The one that says "Congress shall make no law...", but doesn't restrict anyone else?

  • wreckinball||

    Yes, I think its OK to require schools to adhere to 1A if they expect federal funds.

    So the EO would place that restriction on these institutions. Quit being such a dumb fuck. You've been on here all day being one . Are you pulling an all nighter?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Do you think schools that suppress science to flatter superstition, teach nonsense, and censor to enforce silly dogma should receive federal funds? What about schools that limit academic freedom based on fictional beliefs?

    Be careful what you wish for, clingers. Conservative schools couldn't survive a society that required academic freedom and prohibited censorship, at least not while remaining conservative.

  • Kevin Smith||

    So why would you want to preserve the censorship and limited freedoms that allow these school you hate so much to exist? What are you so afraid of?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Stale-thinking bigots, superstitious rubes, and half-educated losers of the culture war have rights, too.

  • jubulent||

    I think you'll find that most people would oppose teaching religious beliefs as facts.

    That you conflate your religious beliefs with facts is your problem, not mine.

  • James Pollock||

    "So the EO would place that restriction on these institutions."

    No it wouldn't. The E can only O federal employees.

    "Quit being such a dumb fuck."

    I'm sorry you don't like me stepping on your territory.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online