The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Academic Freedom Alliance Guidance Statement on Compelled Speech
Universities should not compel professors to affirm their belief of contested values
The Academic Freedom Alliance today issued its first guidance statement. These statements will address broader policy issues in American higher education that implicate academic freedom but that might not involve any particular incident at a specific university or relating to a specific individual professor.
This statement relates to the increasingly common demand by university officials that professors affirm their belief on some question of contested values or political sentiment. Of late, many of these incidents involve diversity statements or anti-racism statements, but these sorts of demands can range across the political and ideological spectrum and involve a wide range of specific issues. It is inappropriate for university officials to demand that professors engage in compelled speech, regardless of the topic or the popularity of the opinion to be expressed.
But it is a serious intrusion on the freedom of speech of the faculty to mandate or otherwise direct that such statements must be included in individual course syllabi or otherwise adopted or embraced by individual professors. The inclusion of anti-racism statements in course syllabi must be voluntary and left to the conscience of individual professors.
Mandatory anti-racism statements currently being developed are in principle indistinguishable from myriad other statements of belief that university officials have sometimes attempted to force members of the faculty to endorse in the past. No matter how widely shared or normatively desirable any particular statement of values might be, individual professors should not be directed or coerced to endorse or accept such statements.
For public universities, mandating that professors embrace such statements is a clear violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. For private universities that have chosen to accept as their own comparable standards of individual conscience, such mandates violate those commitments. For private universities that have adopted broad principles of academic freedom, such mandates are at odds with those principles.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Is there any such thing as a value that isn't contested?
Weak, toothless statements from weak, toothless lawyers vs rescinding the tax exemption. The AFA should stop wasting time. It should start mandamusing the Non-Profit Office of the IRS to de-exempt these woke, treason indoctrination camp.
That this is even necessary is a terribly sad commentary on the state of discourse in the nation.
This is nothing new. Some schools have been collecting dogmatic statements of faith, loyalty oaths, statements of values, affirmations of creed, and the like for decades and longer -- often without mention or objection from conservatives, likely because it is the conservative-controlled campuses that have dominated this authoritarian field.
Do the Wheatons and Messiahs, the Franciscan of Steubenvilles and Regents, the Grove Citys and Hilldales have much to worry about with respect to objections from the Academic Freedom Alliance? I expect to observe this newly formed conservative group is focused on a different (and less conservative) set of targets.
That's all you, buddy. That's your effect on Volokh Conspiracy. They've taken your tu quoque to heart.
The statement seems to take as given that professors are not required to sign loyalty oaths. But in fact professors at many state universities are required to sign loyalty oaths as a condition of employment. I wonder why those existing loyalty oaths don't trigger the same sort of concern from the academic freedom folks...
Because we still get to teach what we want to teach and do whatever research we can raise funding for.