The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Academic Freedom at Public Universities is in Trouble
Legislatures and regents across the country are restricting intellectual freedom
The Academic Freedom Alliance was founded with a particular concern for defending individual instructors and scholars at universities whose rights to intellectual freedom were being violated. Many universities in the United States have reasonably good contractual protections for academic freedom on the books (though there is room for improvement), and the First Amendment provides some protection for professors at state universities. Universities are not always very good at living up to the commitments that they have made, however, and individual professors need help when universities behave badly.
Unfortunately, there is a serious danger of a rollback in existing protections for academic freedom. Defending what rights individuals have at particular institutions will matter less if the rights that they have been granted are not very robust. Proposals have been floated at many private universities, including at Princeton University, that would carve out big holes in traditional academic freedom protections. Professors attempting to persuade their colleagues and their institutions to adopt the kind of principles and protections offered by the Chicago Statement have encountered remarkable resistance (and I remain grateful that Princeton was an early adopter).
Public universities are facing an additional threat. Politicians and governing boards across the country are actively considering measures that would significantly weaken protections for academic freedom or that would directly interfere with intellectual life on college campuses. In some cases, those proposals have already become a reality. Tenure protections are being weakened. Scholars are being discouraged from sharing their expertise. Unpopular ideas are being banned.
Over at the Washington Post, I have a new piece taking a look at some of these efforts and the difficult road ahead for public universities in the United States.
Scholars and teachers at universities across the country — at both public and private universities — already have too many reasons to shy away from controversial topics. Offend the wrong on-campus constituency, and university administrators will soon be lobbied to have the offending scholar banished from campus. All too often, administrators yield to such lobbying efforts, and even when they don't, everyone gets the message to tread carefully.
But state legislatures and boards of regents are now getting into the game — at a much greater scale.
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
State legislatures are rethinking whether they want to fund enemies of America and American culture on campuses. Why shouldn’t they?
How sad and embittering it must be to regard America's strongest research and teaching institutions as "enemies," to dislike the modern American mainstream to this extent, and to recognize that your preferences have little hope as your country's culture continues to improve.
The Ballad Of A Clinger.
(That was Pete's demo with respect to what became this.)
Looks like you're going to have to find a new pool of betters, Arthur.
"Hispanic Voters Now Evenly Split Between Parties..."
I'm shocked, shocked to see authoritarians like Ben want indoctrination, not education.
If we don't have the option of no indoctrination, why wouldn't we prefer that the indoctrination agree with us?
#defundhighered
Jimmy the Dane : #defundhighered
Didn't Trump say he preferred stupid supporters?
No
Merely words to that effect, and with every speech, action or stance purposed to that end. Certainly nobody cherishes and coddles stupidity like today's Right. They treat it like our only true national treasure.
There's a new Monmouth poll out showing 96% of Democrats and 79% percent of Independents are at least partially vaccinated. The Stupid Party? They come in at 54%.
Kinda makes you wonder where we'd be if today's Right hadn't decided to become the pro-Covid party for a tiny bit of political gain. Given their followers are the most docile of sheep, image if the MAGA politicians and Fox News propaganda machine had vigorously promoted vaccination. We'd surely have the highest rates in the world!
https://jabberwocking.com/the-covid-pandemic-is-the-fault-of-conservatives-full-stop/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/weather/trump-i-love-the-poorly-educated-144008662.html
Running / subsidizing colleges & universities is not a proper function of government. Defund higher ed.
Thank you, Keith, for discussing threats to academic freedom and free speech that we read surprisingly little of from other conspirators, their professed devotion to free inquiry notwithstanding.
Governors, legislators, and other state officials can do far greater damage to academic freedom than some idiot students shouting down a speaker.
Agreed
Governors, legislators, and other state officials can do far greater damage to academic freedom than some idiot students shouting down a speaker.
They can, but they mostly aren't. The point is that Whittington is pulling his punches, so as to maintain an on the one hand on the other hand posture, eg :
"Offend the wrong on-campus constituency, and university administrators will soon be lobbied to have the offending scholar banished from campus. "
This presents no risk to academic freedom at all, so long as the university administrators respond the lobbying with "Go forth and multiply." But they don't because they are basically lobbying themselves, egged on by the faculty of the various departments that are essentially hard left campaign groups rather than academic disciplines. The rules and procedures they adopt are designed to attack their enemies on campus - anyone to the right of Bill Clinton.
So basically we have one set of State officials, the university administrators, who are intent on using their power to stamp out intellectual diversity at their institutions; and another set of State officials who are legislating - pointlessly and ineffectually - to control the first set of State officials.
The solution, obviously, is to fire all the first set of State officials and replace them with a sane, intellectually and politically diverse, set. Each, male or female, possessed with a pair of cojones sufficient get rid of students or faculty who take actions to attack academic freedom on campus.
Personnel is policy, which is why things like banning critical race theory is pointless. Just change the Guard.
I doubt this guy even drives by an university much.
"banning critical race theory is pointless" ??!
Not "wrong-headed?" Not "a clear example of violating academic freedom?" Just "pointless?"
The only way to ensure academic freedom is to fire the faculty with opinions you don't like!
"idiot students shouting down a speaker"?
What about administrators consciously opposed to free expression firing and banning professors from the classroom for expressing the wrong opinions. Prof. Whittington has little to say about those cases, which would require the courage to engage hostilely with his colleagues and immediate superiors, preferring the easy course of denouncing yahoo state legislators.
Which cases do you think Prof. Whittington has ignored?
Erika Christakis. Amy Wax. Trent Colbert. Ronald Sullivan.
Legislatures are saying "who pays the piper calls the tune." and they do not like the tune at many institutes of "education"
No one should be forced to fund what they do not want to support.
I think that most of this legislation goes too far but with tenured positions how can the state regulate a state resource. Though to me much of not most of the problems are in the Administration, not the Professors.
The professors are paid for their speech. If you bought a ticket for a country music concert and instead were told it was changed to heavy metal, you would ask for your money back. You paid for something and did not like what you were getting.
Any professor has the right to say whatever outside the university, just as we all do. He isn't being paid then.
Yes, what they teach and research for pay should be aligned with whomever is paying for that.
In my opinion we need to change tenure to allow the needs to the employer to change. We also need to seriously shrink administrators and with some changes in tenure for teaching positions let the academics run the show not the adminsitrators
Your opinion is that whatever political ideology dominates a legislature, which may not even represent the majority of belief in a state, should determine what is taught in public schools and universities? That’s… something.
And tomorrow when there's a story about a university official pushing something he'll be clamoring about where is teh free speech?
Why bother doing research if your work "should be aligned with whomever is paying?" Shouldn't the research look for the facts without regard for the politics of the person paying? This seems like a defense of the tobacco and oil industries authoring "studies" that prove cigarettes don't contribute to cancer and fossil fuels don't emit CO2.
Governments should think twice about what they are doing. Universities are tremendous resources for federal state and local governments. They are often the source of basic research and manpower generating new businesses or builds existing businesses.
It may be helpful to think about all the academic talent that came to the US as authoritarian governments spread across Europe in the early 1900s. Just like voters, academic talent will vote with their feet.
“Universities are tremendous resources for federal state and local governments.”
That isn’t a libertarian argument for having the government fund these in the first place.
Correct.
Not everyone here is libertarian. Actually, I'd be surprised if even a third of the folks here were libertarian.
Tremendous resources under enemy control and direction are not tremendous resources for Americans.
They may or may not be for "federal state and local governments" depending on who controls those governments and whether those governments act to protect or destroy Americans and Americanism
Too freaking bad, universities shouldn't have sided 99%+ with one ideology and party.
They should all be liquidated or restructured.
Spoken like a good lil' fascist.
On the contrary, spoken like a free market capitalist.
Free market capitalists don't often do their own basic research. It's expensive, slow, and the result isn't often very marketable. They do, however, slurp up that free (to them) basic research as the basis for their own inventions which lead to marketable products, services, and associated profit.
Free market capitalists appreciate the infrastructure government provides that facilitates their business activities and aren't keen to chop off their nose to spite their face.
I don't think he meant that any person should be liquidated.
I don't see how privatization of higher education is in any way "fascist."
"They should all be liquidated or restructured."
Tax the big endowments and the valuable real property they own.
Do you really think they'd pay more taxes than your usual billionaire?
Musk? Bezos?
And if we're taxing non-profits, how 'bout them churches and super PACs, eh?
Reason vs. superstition
Science vs. dogma
Tolerance vs. bigotry
Inclusiveness vs. insularity
Academic freedom vs. censorship
Progress vs. backwardness
Education vs. indoctrination
Modernity vs. "traditional values"/"conservative values"/"family values"/"religious values"
The preferences are as predictable for strong, mainstream, liberal-libertarian schools as they are for conservative-controlled institutions . . . as are the results. Harvard vs. Hillsdale. Yale vs. Liberty. Berkeley vs. Biola. NYU vs. Grove City. Michigan vs. Regent. Wellesley vs. Wheaton. Amherst vs. Ave Maria. Columbia vs. Cedarbrook. Pennsylvania vs. Patrick Henry. Carnegie Mellon vs. Ouachita Baptist.
Sure, but the question is how do we get the superstition, dogma, bigotry, indoctrination, etc. out of public universities without threatening academic freedom?
(Most? All?) Public universities, as currently constituted, produce plenty of highly objectionable dogma, bigotry, and indoctrination. The simplest way to put a stop to this is to eliminate public universities.
The only reason the universities can get away with this is that they've become gatekeepers to most high paying professions. The answer is to expose them to competition, start competing academic institutions which, if they can't be unbiased, will at least have a different bias.
Once you have competing schools, students will be free to simply give the indoctrination mills the cold shoulder if they don't like what they're shoveling.
It has to start with the schools of education and K-12, though. The former train the indoctrinators, and the latter begin the indoctrination.
I think it is correct to characterize the 20th century as the period of transformation from physical wealth (think gold) to information wealth. At the end of the century, possession of and control of the flow of information will be the largest components of wealth.
Property law has evolved for centuries based on the idea of physical property. Intellectual property laws suck because info wasn't as valuable as gold. Therefore, it should be expected that the whole 20th century is turbulent as we need to rethink most laws, and many social conventions. (I'm old, so I won't get to hear how it turns out.)
Now if only we could end government student loans, most institutions of higher ed would be bankrupt. Then they'd finally have to provide real value and meet market demands.
Disaffected, education-disdaining, envious, bitter clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.
And the core audience of a White, male, faux libertarian, right-wing blog.
Then they'd finally have to provide real value and meet market demands.
Right. Because hardly anyone wants to go to these institutions now.
When Boomers went to college, a year's tuition was around the same amount as their summer wages. That is where things would head back to in the absence of trillions of free-flowing government dollars, which prevents any sort of price discovery or market function. This is a nice way of describing highway robbery, kleptocracy, corporate welfare, etc.
Yes. When I went to college you could earn tuition, or more, fort a state university with a minimum wage (about $1.00/hr. at the time) summer job. (Like most things, tution has gone up a lot more than the minimum wage, but that's another discussion.)
But your complaint about loans driving up costs, while it has a bit of merit, has nothing to do with your previous comment, or the subject of the thread. In fact it's clear from applications data, especially at the more prestigious schools which, I gather, are the biggest sinners in your eyes, that the schools are providing what students want.
Tuition has skyrocketed compared to anything else. This is due primarily to government funds.
My comment, which is the same point as my previous comment, is tangential to the subject of this thread, but it's related. Universities are untethered from economic reality because they are sucking down trillions of government dollars. This allows them to be more politically insane, because they don't have to cater to customer demand, don't have to set reasonable prices, and have lots of excess cash to devote their silly nonsense. They can be more leftist on the whole than 95% of the population.
To be fair, there is more to it than just government funding. It's also a culture of credentialism. And extreme elitism particularly inside the beltway and among the permanent bureaucracy. Schools hold a monopoly of sorts on a credential gateway to much of the workforce. Shocker that people want to earn a good living, huh? And they are led to believe that they must perform this rite of passage to do that.
In the case of more prestigious schools, their monopoly is much greater and they hold it on academic prestige as well. It's just a legacy asset from those who founded the place centuries ago and those who initially brought it to preeminence thereafter.
To say that prestigious schools are "are providing what students want" is a bit like saying that the only electric utility available is providing what you want because you want to heat your home, and so you'll pay any price and even put up with a bunch of extraneous nonsense if you have to.
There are a number of factors causing tuition to increase. If you focus on the Ivies, however, you're going to skew your results. They're a tiny, tiny fraction of the thousands of universities in the US, most of which don't have any sort of endowment worth mentioning. Many of them are tuition dependent and having trouble attracting students due to a drop in birth rates. If anything, this would increase demand pressures on the universities. And, in fact, there are obvious examples of this, but they aren't what anti-education conservatives would consider as validating. Schools are spending more on landscaping and other "environmental" aspects of campuses that aren't directly tied to quality of education. Largely this is because parents use this as signaling the quality of the education--if they take such good care of the quad, imagine what they do in the classroom!
With nearly 4,000 universities in the US, there's a school for every kid that match the parents' requirements. Most of these schools have high acceptance rates and conduct market research and attempt to be responsive to their perceived market.
Bernard, wants are unlimited. As a college student in the 70's, I didn't particularly want to eat liver chili and live in a lousy basement apartment (shared with 5 other students) an hour's walk from campus. I didn't want to darn socks, or walk that hour each way in northern Michigan winters to avoid the cost of driving my car.
I didn't really want to burn my eyebrows off in a foundry during the summer, either...
I did it because I couldn't afford to attend college otherwise.
The loans really DO enable college to be a much more pleasant experience. I visited my niece's college apartment in the 0's, and it was nicer than anything I lived in until I got my own house. But she's going to be paying that loan for the rest of her life, and my college debt was paid off within 6 months of getting a job.
If you'd made it easy for me to hock my future and live comfortably, I very well might have done it, being young and foolish. But why should we have a policy of enabling young people to make foolish mistakes that will haunt them the rest of their lives?
Brett Bellmore " ...I didn't particularly want to eat liver chili.... "
This brings back my college memories. I didn't want to eat liver myself - at first. But I worked in the cafeteria, sometimes busing but usually on the serving line. So I would ladle hundreds of servings of glop on fellow-student's plates, usually of a predominate choice, since there was a popular favorite each day.
So when it was my turn to eat after shift (while reading the discarded Washington Post & New York Times I collected on a sweep thru the Student Center), I often wanted the least favorite menu item available - the choice I hadn't just spooned hundreds of times.
That gave me a taste for liver, rabbit, and several other culinary oddities.....
Actually, a good fraction would simply charge more reasonable tuition and scale back their non-teaching activities.
Q. How much do we charge?
A. What the local market will bear, not different from any normal business.
Q. What will the market bear?
A. The amount available in grants and loans, at least for regional commuter schools.
It's amusing hearing the whining about student debt. In Texas - and we're not known for being particularly socialist - most public universities are free tuition and fees for families earning up to $75K or even $100K. There's a posted rate but almost no one is actually paying it out of pocket.
The undergrad student debt at public universities here is almost entirely due to room, board, and expenses of students wanting to live away from their parents in a college town; and older students going to back to school while still needing to eat and pay rent.
PS By "free" I of course mean the universities guarantees to find federal and state grants to cover your tuition and fees. We're still raking in the money, just not out of your personal pocket.
"a good fraction would simply charge more reasonable tuition and scale back their non-teaching activities."
Yes, most or even all of them would do that. But in the meantime, those that don't have billions in endowment to lean on would have to restructure their debt servicing, downsize, and/or dispose of some assets (or as you correctly note the public relations office would call it, "scale back on their non-teaching activties").
Public universities obviously tend to lean less on the government loan scam because they get government money directly. (But re the OP, as someone said above, he who pays the piper calls the tune).
And aside from that, some universities just do a much better job already of using resources efficiently and offering better value, compared to others.
"The undergrad student debt at public universities here is almost entirely due to room, board, and expenses of students wanting to live away from their parents in a college town; and older students going to back to school while still needing to eat and pay rent."
Sure. But whether it's tuition or COL, only a small fraction of that debt would ever be issued in a free market. Not only from the lender's side expecting repayment and a reasonable return, but also from the borrower's side expecting to have to actually, you know, repay.
Academic freedom is important. However, I think your focus on tenure as the necessary protection is on a lot weaker ground. Yes, tenure is a possible protection for academic freedom. But tenure also it comes with considerable costs - primarily the increased difficulty firing an objectively bad teacher. There are alternative means of ensuring academic freedom that should be explored as possible replacements to the concept of tenure.
"Across the nation, state legislatures are proposing laws to limit the teaching of certain viewpoints on campus, curb the tenure system or otherwise blur the already thin line between higher education and state politics."
There does seem to be a problem with the advocacy of bad ideas being passed off as scholarship. But the way for legislatures to deal with this is to defund the offending programs, like gender studies and the other grievance studies whose lack of rigor is a threat to true scholarship.
How we purge the Ed schools of ridiculous ideas like "getting the right answer in math is white supremacy" is another matter. Maybe stop funding Ed schools and prevent public schools from hiring or giving preferential pay to people with Education degrees?
There does seem to be a problem with the advocacy of bad ideas being passed off as scholarship. But the way for legislatures to deal with this is to defund the offending programs, like gender studies and the other grievance studies whose lack of rigor is a threat to true scholarship.
Wait. I thought the idea was that the bad ones would lose out in "the marketplace of ideas." But I guess you're just afraid of that, and want to be the one to judg ewhat "bad ideas" shouldn't be taught. Or maybe you think Ron DeSantis should be the one to do that.
"Wait. I thought the idea was that the bad ones would lose out in "the marketplace of ideas." But I guess you're just afraid of that, and want to be the one to judg ewhat "bad ideas" shouldn't be taught."
I'm not suggesting that we prevent people from expressing bad ideas, just the we stop funding academic departments where they tend to congregate.
Are you suggesting that academic freedom requires funding institutions like gender studies departments if the electorate doesn't think they're useful?
I'm suggesting maybe we let academics, you know people who work in the relevant field, make decisions about what should be taught. That's worked quite well! People from all over the world want to go to US universities. A university whose curriculum is designed by Ron DeSantis would not do as well, to put it mildly.
Letting the people who work in the relevant field have complete control over that field always works well - for the people already in the field. That's what monopolies do. That does not mean that they do well by their customers. Based on the objective evidence on student debt and unemployability, rather a lot of US universities are not doing well by their customers.
Yes, the evidence of foreign students applying to US universities is a data point in the other direction. Notably, however, that data has to be adjusted for the perceived impact that being a US student has on the immigration status. In other words, how many of those foreign students are applying here because the school is better than what's available in their home country and how many are applying here in hopes that it will increase their chances of staying here after graduation?
What I am suggesting is that the issue of what to teach should not be made by politicians, but by faculty and the universities. Sure, some silliness might slip by - though I don't necessarily agree that gender studies is silly - but it's worth tolerating that rather than letting governors and legislators run the schools.
I like the sanctimony of "the electorate doesn't think they're useful," though. Think what would be eliminated if we only taught things the electorate thought useful.
"What I am suggesting is that the issue of what to teach should not be made by politicians, but by faculty and the universities."
Why do you think faculty will decide to teach the skills that you or I think it's important for students to learn, instead of simply what they want to teach?
Wait, I thought you were the one constantly pointing out all the ways that marketplaces can be inefficient. Do you really believe that universities currently exist as fair and open marketplaces of ideas?
I'm not saying that DeSantis' ham-handed attempts to solve the problem are the right answer. Far from it - those attempts will likely make things worse. But at least he recognizes that there's a problem to be solved. Shoving your head in the sand merely encourages your opponents to more extreme "solutions".
You know, Rossami, unlike so many here, I'don't claim to be intimately acquainted with goings-on at universities across the country. I'm curious where they get their information.
So I don't know the answer to your question. I'm pretty sure the hysteria surrounding things lie CRT and other matters is wildly unjustified, and is mostly being used to rile up the base by the conservatives who have no good ideas about government of their own.
But say you're right. What comes to mind? Affirmative action for conservative faculty?
You do get that 'gender studies' professors are usually experts in traditional academic fields but whose work focuses on gender (like economists that study wage disparity, historians that study women's suffrage, etc), right?
Of course you don't because what you seem to 'know' about universities comes from moral panic right wing sources.
It's not the traditional academic fields that are publishing Mein Kampf re-written as feminist pastiche.
Keep panicing.
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-hitler-hoax-academic-wokeness-culture-war-1.9629759
Ackshually, accidentally publishing Hitler isn't so bad...
Just double down on that sloppy misrepresentation.
Gee, I wonder why you're not in academe?
"In 2014-2015, approximately 1.9 million bachelor’s degrees were awarded.
Of those:
Just 1,333 degrees were in women’s studies, the most common “useless major” bogeyman that grumpy readers write me about.
7,782 degrees were in the broader category of “area, ethnic, cultural, gender, and group studies,” which women’s studies falls under. This represents about 0.4 percent of all bachelor’s degrees."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2017/04/13/what-happened-to-all-those-unemployable-womens-studies-majors/
A central feature of moral panic is a regular, straining focus on truly relatively tiny things.
All of the humanities are similar.
American academic ability generally is dropping through the floor, from Kindergarten on up.
You're an uninformed idiot.
What's the difference in employment prospects between an English major and a cultural studies major?
What's the difference in the political leanings or bias of the professors? The course materials?
I would say not much difference, in most cases.
Not trying to demonize academics here, most of them (with some exceptions) are pretty fair and not personally biased in carrying out their instruction, in my experience.
Dude, you're a lawyer.
This is true. Except perhaps at a few boutique private colleges, the "studies" students and budget are typically something under 1% of the total.
I don't think I could stand sitting through a whole course in one of those departments, and I think it's questionable whether they're even a net positive on the problems they are attempting to address. But they're no great drag on the enterprise as a whole and 1% is reasonable cost for an open-minded person to tolerate.
This comment thread is just amazing.
All these commenters jump up and down and raise hell if a right-wing speaker is shouted down, screaming about the marketplace of ideas and so on.
But when a professor advances ideas they disagree with they are all for using whatever weapon they can to get the professor terminated, or to bar him from teaching that.
I guess I shouldn't really be surprised. The idea that conservatives are the guardians of intellectual freedom was always absurd, but it really is blatant and unashamed here.
"All these commenters jump up and down and raise hell if a right-wing speaker is shouted down, screaming about the marketplace of ideas and so on."
Exactly, they were never to be believed when they espoused those principles, it's just a cudgel they like to swing at liberals now and then.
Hell man, it’s as if they’re the mirror image of you. Fine with you if someone guilty of wrong think gets shouted down, but anybody that wants to slow the roll on CRT or intersectionality ow whatever in elementary schools your like OMG JUST LIKE HITLER!!!!
You’re just another run of the mill political hypocrite.
No, bevis.
It's not fine with me "if someone guilty of wrong think gets shouted down."
You might want to find my comments on the subjects before you jump to a wildly incorrect conclusion and make baseless accusations.
So fuck off with the "You're a hypocrite shouting OMG JUST LIKE HITLER!!!!." You're wrong.
A problem with the government funding institutions is, now those institutions are government institutions. And government does things by force rather than markets, and it's ostensibly ruled by politics a/k/a democracy.
It's a problem and I don't pretend to have all the answers. But I doubt the answer is, "Just let the recipients of trillions of dollars in public largesse do whatever they want! Hands off!"
And government does things by force rather than markets.
No, the government buys stuff like any other business as well.
And if you're going to argue that's money robbed from taxpayers, well you can enjoy your sophomore year libertarianism while the rest of us adults speak.
"And if you're going to argue that's money robbed from taxpayers..."
Its money taken by force from taxpayers, so I'm not sure why you're arguing that the government doesn't do things by force rather than markets.
"robbed" may be editorializing. Taxation is theft and all, but that's not germane to my point.
The money is taken from taxpayers by force, backed up and legitimized by a supposed consent of the governed, and democratic or republican process.
A free market in higher education would be entirely different than government funded higher education.
What's the difference between studying an issue and proselytizing, between inquiry and indoctrination? That, it seems to me, is the question.
I doubt I could prescribe how to get the former without falling into the ditch of the latter, but I can tell you when I see it happening. It has something to do with whether one can be considered a success even while presenting an "incorrect" view.
Can you be against critical theory and still graduate at the top of your class with a degree in sociology? Conversely, can you be all in for critical theory to the point where you understand arithmetic in terms of a power struggle, and still earn a degree in mathematics?
"Diversity" is not enough, even diversity of thought. You need freedom.
Academic freedom has been assailed internally by the institutional let now for two generations. It is a shell of what the concept was when the AAUP released its landmark statement in 1940. And that has all been at the hands of the left.
Now "academic freedom" is used mostly as an advocacy buzzword to promote resistance to political agendas and nothing based upon a core philosophical concept. It is a (poorly) designed ruse to shield institutions from scrutiny. That doesn't work though when disingenuous leftists in the academy spend countless hours and dollars suppressing speech and ideas only to turn around and scream it from the roof tops in a disingenuous manner. The people are not falling for it anymore.
Conservative-leaning arguments here have trouble coming to grips with the question how you bring something out of nothing. That is a common tendency among conservatives. They want everything judged according to standards which already exist. They do not want those standards to change.
That point of view has its uses, but it is badly adapted to answer questions about what should happen in cases of novelty or uncertainty—or where a problem centers on trying to imagine order hidden amidst apparent chaos.
It is the nature of academic research to probe the edges of what is known, and to disregard somewhat agreed-upon standards of thought, including even agreed-upon standards of judgment. That is a mission which will only be hampered if conservatives get empowered to use government to prescribe the range of acceptable thought.
"At various times in their history, American public universities have struggled to establish themselves as independent of state politics and not beholden to any partisan faction."
Universities which are actual, literal arms of the government are wondering how to be independent of the process which determines what government policy is to be (I refer to politics).
Some universities try to keep at least a *nominal* separation from the government by the expedient of *not* being arms of the government. Of course, why should clinger institutions like Harvard and Princeton set the example for more modern, enlightened state-run institutions?
Fortunately, for a long time there's been efforts to blur the icky public/private distinction by giving plenty of strings-attached government money to private institutions. This process makes the great private colleges even better by making them more and more like the government-run institutions they need to emulate.