Principles for a Campus Culture of Free Inquiry

A new statement worth reading for those concerned with academia

A group of scholars interested in free inquiry and the future of higher education met in Princeton last spring and began a conversation about what principles ought to guide a well-functioning scholarly institution dedicated to the mission of the preservation and advancement of knowledge. With radical proposals for higher education reform very much in the air, especially on the political right, it was hoped that it would be helpful to have a statement clarifying the objectives that any reform measure should be seeking to advance.

Don Downs, the Alexander Meiklejohn Professor of Political Science Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and a long-time advocate of academic freedom and campus free speech, did the heavy lifting of drafting a statement and working to build a consensus. I was happy to join the final statement.

From the statement:

The American university is a historic achievement for many reasons, not least of which is that it provides a haven for free inquiry and the pursuit of truth. Its unique culture has made it a world leader in advancing the frontiers of practical and theoretical knowledge. The habits of mind required for this advancement of knowledge sustain our republic by educating citizens in the liberality and intellectual independence necessary to participate in self-government in a pluralistic society.

To do their work well, universities need a protected sphere of operation in which free speech and academic freedom flourish. Scholarship and teaching cannot achieve their full potential when constrained—externally or internally—by political, ideological, or economic agendas that impede or displace the disinterested process of pursuing truth and advancing knowledge.

You can read the whole thing here.

Comments

[Matt F]

What a faculty-centered statement! The line about "the university’s obligation to create conditions for excellent scholarship and teaching" notably omits any obligations for excellent learning.

[Cheerio]

This is fair -- academics sometimes do stress that their academic freedom is for the benefit of society in general and their students in particular, but sometimes they just leave it implicit which can create the wrong impression.

[Social Justice is neither]

Truth is they give exactly zero shits about any opinion or freedom beyond their own.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If you're not at a teaching institution, you most likely don't even know how to teach.

Even then it's a coin flip.

[shawn_dude]

Not all faculty teach. Not all research/inquiry is in the context of student learning even when the faculty member teaches.

[Randal]

This policy seems specifically designed to allow for — and protect! — openly racist professors.

Do you think that's a bad thing or a good thing?

[Brett Bellmore]

In fact, the policy actually says, in part: "There is a corresponding duty for faculty to judge intellectual and creative work by its substantive merits alone, and not by accidental externalities such as race, sex, personal characteristics, political affiliation, ideological commitments, or religion."

You must have a really weird definition of "racist", if you think THAT is designed to protect open racism.

[Randal]

A professor can be openly racist, such as by expressing a belief that Black people aren't worthy of freedom, while still giving Black students fair grades.

[Brett Bellmore]

Like I said, really weird definition of "racism". If you're not treating people differently on the basis of race, it ain't racism.

[Idaho Bob]

Some will always see racism in everything. Even the lack of racism becomes racism to these idealogues.

[Randal]

You think telling the Black kids that they don't deserve freedom isn't racist? You're weird.

[Idaho Bob]

Who's telling black kids they don't deserve freedom?

You imagined some hypothetical scenario, and then defend it as factual. You're the weird one.

[Randal]

I imagined some hypothetical scenario, and then pointed out that such a professor's behavior would be supported and protected by the guidance of the statement we're talking about.

And my hypothetical is right at the crux of what the recent free-speech tension has been about (DEI etc.), so it's something that the authors certainly anticipated. They seem to have come out in favor of racist professors, as long as they grade fairly.

I'm interested in whether Keith supports that part or not.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some will always see racism in everything.

At what frequency would someone's use of a racial slur be enough to cause you to see some racism?

(Prof. Volokh really, really, really hopes no one answers that question.)

[Randal]

Maybe you are treating them differently. Maybe after telling them they’re worthless, you never call on the Black kids, and ignore them if they do try to participate. That sort of racist behavior wouldn’t implicate “judging” their “work.”

[David Nieporent]

Brett, endorsing the SJW argument that racism = prejudice + power.

[Brett Bellmore]

Setting aside for the moment that SJW 'power' is entirely nominal, being assigned to people (In a literal sense of "assigned".) on the basis of their group membership, not any actual power...

About the only people who don't have enough power to act in a racist manner are folks in a persistent vegetative state.

Beliefs about empirical matters, even if they have to do with race, are "true or false", not "racist" or "not racist". That's kind of the point here: Free inquiry, even concerning questions the left has pre-determined the only acceptable answers to on an ideological basis.

What is racism, then, that we should abhor it? It's treating people as instances of their race, rather than as individuals. The person who responds to the individual before them, rather than their stereotype about the group that individual is a member of, is not meaningfully "racist".

[Nige]

'The person who responds to the individual before them, rather than their stereotype about the group that individual is a member of, is not meaningfully “racist”.'

Of course, the person never thinks they're treating the individual differently.

[SimonP]

This is a completely arbitrary and nonsensical distinction, and one that you’re drawing (no doubt) to excuse holding racist beliefs that you believe to be true.

Because, when people describe belief as “racist,” all they are really saying is that the belief is a false or unjustified belief about people of a particular race, and moreover that it is a culpably false or unjustified thing to believe. True and justified beliefs about people of a particular race may be unpalatable, but it would be odd to call such beliefs “racist.”

So that seems to be where you feel the need to draw your distinction: you believe things that you recognize most people would describe as “racist,” but you believe they are true, so you reject that characterization. You conclude, then, that “leftists” think we should simply deny true and justified beliefs about the people of particular races, at least insofar as they run counter to “leftist” ideology.

But that’s not what’s happening. “Leftists” do not acknowledge, on some level, that you have racist but true beliefs. They believe you are mistaken in believing such things to be true or justified. And, indeed, in most cases, the putative bases for believing racist things can usually be easily shown to be false or invalid, to such an extent that one is forced to conclude that the person harboring racist beliefs has no desire to be proven wrong. Hence, the racist label, for such people – even if they pretend to pseudonymous strangers online that they treat people of all races equally – turns out to be perfectly apt.

You’re a racist, because you choose to belief things that are demonstrably false and unjustified about people of certain races.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Free inquiry, even concerning questions the left has pre-determined the only acceptable answers to on an ideological basis."

I tend to think that, if you have an objective basis for thinking a belief false, you'd be better off calling it "false", not "racist", and explaining that objective basis. People tend to pull out "racist!" to avoid having to do that heavy lifting.

[SimonP]

You're not owed a dissertation explaining why you're a racist asshat, Brett, or a recursive deep-dive into every mistaken premise you accept as self-evident. Sometimes it's more efficient to just call a spade a spade.

I'll take your response as effectively conceding that, yes, you do believe things that most other people would be inclined to call "racist," and you have the self-awareness to understand that about yourself.

[Don Nico]

David,
even the powerless can be racists

[Sarcastr0]

It's a semantic point, but I agree with you. So does DMN – that’s why he called it ‘ the SJW argument that…’

[Savagely Average]

That raises the question of what do you mean by ‘racist’. Because I have no idea what the word means at this point. Every social activist has their own definition; the only thing they agree on is that the traditional definition of racism - believing and acting in a manner that denies the fundamental equality and/or humanity of people of a different race than yours - is wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

I like to use the example of Holocaust denial instead. Less ambiguity, and engenders less defensiveness most of the time.

[Cheerio]

Fair, but of course, free speech absolutists have some pretty good "slippery slope" arguments (e.g., the historical fact that the power to "draw a line" on speech has literally never *not* been abused...ever).

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, and they can make that argument. But the arguments about line drawing are pretty strong compared to some speculative slippery slope concern:
-Paradox of tolerance
-The effectiveness of demagogic to *itself* short-circuit debate and inquiry
-The need for some general ideological coherence envelope for a department to be governable
-The need to please customers (students/funding bodies)

That is not to say that slippery slope arguments should be discarded - ideas on how to mitigate are good.

I also think leaving the line-drawing to the hiring committee has proven not the best method, which is why I like some affirmative action for conservatives. Pursuant to the broad ideological limits I highlight above.

[Savagely Average]

I think I'm with you on the slippery slope arguments. They don't carry a lot of water with me. Certain views are so repugnant that it's not unfair to suffer professional consequences for expressing them, and I think reasonable societies can draw reasonable limits as to what those views are.

Holocaust denial: Out of bounds.
Believing Dobbs was rightly decided: Matter on which people of good will can disagree.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What about habitual publication of vile racial slurs?

[Savagely Average]

I believe that lawyers and legal academics generally should, in legal or academic settings, mention and quote accurately and without expurgation including racial slurs. So, obviously it's not out of bounds to me.

Quotes are facts. A lawyer expurgating unpleasant facts is like a doctor fainting at the sight of blood.

[Don Nico]

"expurgating unpleasant facts "
simple unethical conduct.
in the university environment, academic misconduct

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Publishing a vile racial slur -- habitually, roughly once each week -- is not a blow for academic freedom. It is not ethically required conduct.

It is bigoted -- or, at least, racist-hugging and bigot-flattering -- conduct.

In the academic environment, it should be cause for dismissal (by legitimate, mainstream, liberal-libertarian schools -- at conservative-controlled, bigot-friendly campuses, however, it would likely be a precipitate for promotion).

Carry on, clingers. So far as your stale, ugly thinking could carry anyone in modern, improving-against-your-wishes America.

[Frank Drackman]

Well stop saying "Klinger" and it won't be pubiclated anymore.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You mean racist like professors that would refer to a white woman they don’t know as “Karen”? Or is it just certain targets you’re worried about.

And as Brett notes, the policy specifically addresses exactly the thing that you’ve got your panties in a wad over.

[Sarcastr0]

Hadn't heard of Karen as anti-white racism before. Bit of a surprise since I largely hear it from white folks. IIRC Travis is the male version.

Seems to me it's just a way to describe a particular sort of person, like 'dude-bro' or 'wanker.'

[bevis the lumberjack]

It’s a pejorative directed at a person of a particular race and gender intended to apply the worst characteristics of that race and gender to someone they don’t know. Based only on their race and gender. I mean, it’s textbook if you think about it.

You’re probably right about the mainly whites I think. Still you can do wane race racism. And the people using it generally seem to consider themselves superior due to their vigorous hatred of racism.

[Sarcastr0]

Based only on their race and gender
This is not how I've seen the term used.

intended to apply the worst characteristics of that race and gender to someone they don’t know
I don't think that pulling the 'I want to speak to your manager' applies only to white women. And I see it applied based on that *behavior* not based on race.
To be fair, I do see a white woman in my head when I consider the term, but your argument indicates this is a *characteristic* of white women, which seems like nonsense (e.g. I think of a white guy when I say wanker, doesn't mean fundamentally applies only to white guys).

I do agree the term is reductive and pejorative. For that reason alone, I don't like or use it myself (partially because I know a lot of pretty great people named Karen). But racist? That seems a stretch.

[Randal]

I think the name Karen is intended to invoke a white woman. Definitely a woman, so it's at least sexist... and Karen is a very whitey sort of name.

[Nige]

It really came to prominence due to a number of incidents where white women called the cops on black people for just existing. As these things do, it became a word assholes use to shut up women as well as a word for women who want to speak to the manager. Sometimes the woman is right to demand to speak to the manager, obviously, because often things only get put right if someone stands up and complains. Language, and the cultural and social values attached to words, is never a substitute for exercising judgement.

[Rossami]

"Karen" is certainly a pejorative but that's as far as I think you can go. There are plenty of male "Karens" (though I'll concede a stereotype that they are more likely to be female). And there is a strong classist assumption about "Karens" but there is nothing racial about it that I've ever seen. I've been to enough school board and small town meetings to know that there are plenty of black (and every other race) "Karens".

The pejorative "Karen" is about class and ideology, not race.

[David Nieporent]

The term Karen arose in the black community to describe certain entitled white women.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't know that. Wiki says it is one theory among many. But it does fit pretty well.

[Nige]

There were incidents like the woman calling the cops on some black people having a barbecue that made the term so prominent.

[David Nieporent]

To be clear, I do not think this means it must eternally be racially coded, or even that it is racially coded now. But it's not some crazy argument to say so; it has a real basis.

[Don Nico]

S-0,
"wanker" certainly is different

[Randal]

Sure, like "Karen," and no, I don't think racism is limited to "judging intellectual and creative work." It could be, for example, an anti-diversity statement on a syllabus like "I find Asians repulsive and psychosomatically smelly, so I would request all students of with an Asian appearance to sit in the back and refrain from speaking. Also Karens. You will be graded fairly."

[Ed Grinberg]

The statement is fine as far as it goes. But I still say: shut down all public colleges / universities, and cut off all government subsidies to private colleges / universities.
Any surviving schools should be encouraged to follow the principles so wonderfully elucidated in the linked statement.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Education-disdaining clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

These ignorant losers can't be replaced -- in the natural course, by better Americans from the liberal-libertarian mainstream -- fast enough.

[Publius_2020]

Interesting decision to call this the "Princeton Principles," when it is authored by a retired UW professor and not adopted by Princeton. If memory serves, Princeton has adopted the Chicago Principles. The reasoning here is explained on the website:

>> "In March of 2023, a group of scholars convened at Princeton University to establish a set of principles meant to revitalize free inquiry on campus."

I suppose it's a good thing that the group of 15 weren't at a Holiday Inn in Hoboken.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Good thing it wasn't written in Intercourse, Pennsylvania.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Princeton fucked up when it associated with Robert George and let him use the Princeton badge to try to obscure some of the right-wing stink.

[Savagely Average]

I think the statement is great and a good step. But commitments to open inquiry can't take the place of intellectual and ideological diversity. Schools should seek diversity of ideas the same way they seek other types of diversity.

It's fine if a school is majority-liberal or left, but it needs some critical mass of conservative and right voices to keep the majority in check or the most extreme voices take over. The vast majority of schools just don't have enough moderate and conservative professors to check those on the left.

[loki13]

It is strange that the modern conservative movement is against all affirmative action, excepting, of course, affirmative action for conservatives.

Well, maybe not strange. To quote an oldie but goodie- "Keep the Government out of my Medicare!"

Seriously, though. As has long been discussed, any imbalance is the reflection of natural market forces. Would you demand affirmative action for progressives to be CEOs, or just assume that the executive ranks of most companies tend to tilt rightward because of a self-selection bias? Just something to think about.

[Cheerio]

"...any imbalance is the reflection of natural market forces."

Well, to be fair, a core aspect of academia has always been that it's *not* supposed to be fully subject to market forces in the same way as the for-profit sector. Conservative academics largely accept this principle as well (except perhaps for those working at for-profit institutions, which are not thought of highly by academics on either side...).

A related tangent is the "student-as-customer" model -- which traditional academics across the spectrum view as problematic on multiple levels. Of course in a sense students are sort of customers, but we didn't use to take that to a level of undermining an instructor's authoritative role in running his class, imposing discipline if necessary, etc.

[loki13]

Well, when I talk about natural market forces, I am think more in terms of the various tradeoffs that people make when thinking about careers and their career path.

For example, if you want to maximize your wealth, you might be less likely to (1) get an English degree, and then (2) choose to go to graduate school and pursue an English PhD, and then (3) continue on with the academic track, knowing the issues with achieving tenure.

So if we assume that you have to be at least somewhat intelligent to go through all of this, and that this is a path that might not be as appealing to people who are already ideologically conservative, it makes sense. It also makes sense that this has increased over time, given that the professor/tenure path has become more difficult and less lucrative over time.

While I don't have the data handy, I bet that if you looked further into it, certain fields would have a higher conservative representation than others.

(This is separate from a different issue- which is whether or not, once a significant mass has been achieved, current faculty select new faculty who are similar to them.)

[Cheerio]

Ah, I see. Yes, that makes sense.

[Brett Bellmore]

"While I don’t have the data handy, I bet that if you looked further into it, certain fields would have a higher conservative representation than others. "

Here's that data, from 2005.

Ranges from 88%/3% liberal/conservative for English lit, to 49/39 for Business.

More data, 2017

Ranged from 97%/3% for history, to 'only' 80%/20% for Econ. (60% of History and Journalism departments had no Republicans at all.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Here's more detailed data, from 2020.

Partisan Registration and Contributions of Faculty in Flagship Colleges

The ratios weren't that bad in the 90's, but after the late 90's began climbing very rapidly, at a rate that only make sense if you assume a lot of institutions simply flatly stopped hiring any conservatives AT ALL after the late 90's, and existing ones in their faculties have just been aging out. (Mostly this happened in the NorthEast, to a lesser extent in other regions.)

/">Viewpoint Diversity in the Academy

[Magister]

Or a shift that makes sense if you notice that educated people, like academics, became appalled by what the Republicans turned into (i.e., the widened partisan divide between college educated and non college educated). The shifting demographics of academics may account for a political shift without being the result of hiring practices, but instead the self selection loki13 describes.

[Brett Bellmore]

Just another way of describing what happened: The left had a modest majority in academia, were even the minority in many STEM fields, said majority maintained by that self-selection Loki points out.

Then in '94, Republicans captured Congress, and made at least a half hearted effort to implement conservative policies. And the left wing academics realized that their conservative colleagues' theories might actually be put into place, and switched from viewing them as harmless eccentrics who could be tolerated, to seeing them as dangerous fanatics who had to be expelled from t he institutions.

[Magister]

Wow, it's the rare concession that Republicans actually did something without being forced to by Democrats! Somebody will be along to correct it shortly, I expect.

You've completely missed the point. Academics look at the two parties and gravitate more to the one that doesn't reject knowledge and expertise. Not because conservative academics might have gotten their policies implemented almost thirty years ago.

Add in the actual self selection that loki13 already explained; read that comment again without looking through your partisan goggles.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/11/principles-for-a-campus-culture-of-free-inquiry/?comments=true#comment-10194182

[Brett Bellmore]

You’re the one missing the point: The left had a modest majority among academics, durably, for many decades. Then in the space of about 20 years it went from modest to an almost complete monopoly.

That wasn’t a result of conservatives suddenly deciding en mass that they didn’t want to be academics, or conservative academics suddenly deciding they’d rather become radical leftists. It was a result of the institutions simply ceasing to hire conservatives.

Poll: 62% of Americans Say They Have Political Views They’re Afraid to Share

Not only are conservatives afraid to express their opinions, so are liberals! The only group that aren’t afraid are the most left-wing among ‘liberals’. Why aren’t they afraid?

Because they’re the ones terrifying everybody else!

Further, a quarter to a third of Americans think people should be fired simply on the basis of their political views. The only group where this hits 50%?

“Strong liberals”.

So, why wouldn’t we assume universities are hiring on the basis of politics, when the people in charge at them tell pollsters that they think doing so is the right thing to do?

Don’t get me wrong, there’s some support on the extreme right for political retribution, too. But not nearly as much as there is on the extreme left, and the extreme right are basically nonexistent in academia anyway.

This is not a symmetric situation. The left are driving it, and don’t even mind saying they should be.

[Magister]

I'm not missing the point, Brett. You join so many in believing that progressives or Democrats can only win if there is some kind of cheating (prime example being the 2020 election, of course). Liberals increased in mainstream academia because the right mostly departed that playing field for more lucrative ones and they no longer try to appeal to intelligent, educated people. You are heading deep into "everyone I know is conservative, so how can this be possible?" territory.

The right has "some support ... for political retribution" ? Luckily I wasn't actually drinking anything at the moment I got to that sentence. Trump has "political retribution" tattooed to his ass, something you are apparently willfully ignorant of, but it's an advance that you acknowledge, however unwittingly, that Trump is extreme right.

[Sarcastr0]

It's just overdetermined nonsense though - you want to hurt schools because they are libs and libs bad. So you made up a convenient story with zero causal support.

I'd bet people have had views they're afraid to share for *ages* it's part of being a social animal with an external life that is not identical to our internal life. There's some interesting sci fi about sentients with some emotional tell they could not control and how that culture would evolve. We are not those sentients.

Deciding liberals have been evil and deserve some bad behavior right back is a common conservative rationale these days. It's another tell how often you argue this is the liberal rationale. When you are doing it. Right now. Right here. No telepathy needed, you just typed it out.

You can point left all you want, but the only thing the evidence shows is that you are the bad guy.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I’d bet people have had views they’re afraid to share for *ages* "

Seriously, read the damned paper. Look at figure 2.

In the space of just three years, only three years, the percentage of people afraid to share their views increased by a pretty substantial amount. The only group whose fear of sharing their view didn't significantly increase were "strong conservatives", whose fear was already so high it didn't have a lot of room to increase!

In just three years! And you dismiss it as always having been the case.

[Sarcastr0]

Wait, so you're saying people fear to share their opinions, and then then it turns out the recent change is all from *nonconservatives*??

Seems like there is another and more simple explanation than liberals being the issue here.

Sorry, didn't click through, maybe later today.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If conservatives want to engage with modern, reason-based academia, they should ditch the racism, misogyny, xenophobia, Islamophobia, white nationalism, antisemitism, gay-bashing, silly delusions and sillier fairy tales.

Until then, they should stick with backwater religious (nonsense-teaching) schooling and downscale homeschooling . . . and maybe stop whining about how educated, modern people aren't sufficiently hospitable to old-timey conservative thinking (bigotry, superstition, belligerent ignorance).

[Magister]

If you click through, you'll find that the percentage who are afraid to share their opinions went from 58% to 62% between 2017 and 2020. Conservatives were no more fearful after a Trump presidency, and strong liberals went from 30% to 42% fearful of sharing their opinions.

No indication of whether the high levels of fear for conservatives might be caused by their generally fearful nature, or whether it's because their honest opinions tend to such racism and misogyny that those with any self awareness only speak them in friendly spaces. In web comic form:
http://smbc-comics.com/comic/the-discomfort-bomb

[Nige]

I'm reminded again of that one column on campus speech issues a few months ago where it was shown that the people in colleges who face most consequnces for speaking up are black people and women. The one column on the subject that got so few comments!

[loki13]

Yeah, that tracks with what what I would expect, Brett, both in terms of timing (it's become harder and less lucrative over the past few decades to become a tenured professor) as well as in terms of different subject areas having different balances.

Without putting a massive thumb on the scale, I don't think that you'll see that much redress because it's, IMO, largely a self-selection issue that repeatedly occurs.

That said, I wouldn't be adverse to changing up faculty tenure decisions (or other decision points) in order to make it more "fair" in terms of selection- but, IMO, that will still just be nibbling around the edges of the problem.

More succinctly, and anecdotally, I knew people that did the academic track, and people that did not do the academic track. Generally, people that did the academic track had a love for ... academics ... that far outweighed more serious concerns like "money" or "having a family" that also had a decent correlation with "not have super conservative beliefs." Not always, but often enough that it was noticeable to me.

[Savagely Average]

The factors you cite account for academia being a left-leaning enterprise - which it is and likely always will be - and that's fine. But they don't account for the tremendous imbalance since the '90s that Brett cites above.

I think I hear you saying something like you think the increasing imbalance is due to iterative self-selection constantly reducing the numbers of conservatives in academic fields - correct me if that's not what you're saying. If it is what you're saying I don't think it tracks data which show academia being left-leaning but relatively stable and then lurching violently leftward starting in the 90s.

Responding to your comment a bit further up - I'm not really seeing at as a matter of 'affirmative action'. If you're a college president and look around and see that your entire faculty is white, it's probably worthwhile to examine your hiring practices and your institution more generally to see what's causing that and if there's a way to change it. If you look around and your entire faculty is left-liberal it's probably worth examining and addressing that as well. Most of the time I think you should be able to do that without discriminating in individual hiring decisions.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Legitimate, strong academic prefers reason to superstition.

Science to dogma.

The reality-based world to childish fairy tales.

Inclusivity to bigotry (such as superstition-driven gay-bashing).

Modernity and progress to insularity and backwardness.

Strong education to belligerent ignorance.

Academic freedom to statements of faith, loyalty oaths, and dogma-driven censorship.

Is anyone surprised that legitimate, strong academia leans left, while the right wallows in backwater religious schooling and substandard homeschooling?

[Savagely Average]

'Leans left' is fine. But there's a difference between 'leaning' and homogeneity which is where many schools are now.

Any university that becomes ideologically homogenous – whether liberal or conservative - risks intellectual rot. You need a loyal opposition to keep the majority from spiraling into nonsense. If you believe liberals are immune to this you’re kidding yourself.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I don't think modern reasoning or science must be leavened by superstition or bigotry to remain strong or improve.

To the contrary, our nation's progress (and academic advancement) is fueled by diminishing the influence of supernatural claims, racism, misogyny, dogma, gay-bashing, hatred of immigrants, insularity, antisemitism, disdain for science, backwardness, etc.

Conservatives hardest hit.

[loki13]

"I think I hear you saying something like you think the increasing imbalance is due to iterative self-selection constantly reducing the numbers of conservatives in academic fields – correct me if that’s not what you’re saying. If it is what you’re saying I don’t think it tracks data which show academia being left-leaning but relatively stable and then lurching violently leftward starting in the 90s."

If you're familiar with the market, you know that the late 80s, and especially the 90s, began to see a real divide in terms of job paths and job prospects.

We had two things happening at roughly the same time- first, the path to academia was getting "closed off" (it was becoming a much more onerous and less lucrative path).

Second, other fields (finance, other business, etc.) were become even more lucrative than before.

Neither of these are novel observations, but they certainly strongly impacted what we've seen in terms of career paths. I know that in the 90s, I was already hearing professors (the honest ones, at least) strongly dissuading students from pursuing academic careers in the humanities.

So the data is not a surprise, at all! That said, eventually other factors come into play. The soft factors we don't like to talk about- mentoring, for example. Or even, in a supposed meritocracy, people choose other people who resemble them.

So while there is a lot of self-selection, there are also other factors at play. But to really get into that, you'd have to start talking about the types of things that are also at play in ... well, all of society. Which isn't a conversation I think most conservatives are happy to have?

[Savagely Average]

OK, so it sounds like you're talking about factors that would previously have just resulted in a leftward 'lean' intensifying to the point where they drive out most folks who aren't fairly committed to a liberal or leftist ideology. That is interesting.

[Brett Bellmore]

But the problem is that we have polling showing that the only group in American society that shows majority support for basing hiring and firing on politics is the extreme left. Who happen to be the ones in charge at most universities.

So, why go looking for another explanation for why something happened, when the people in a position to pull it off openly admit to thinking doing it would be a good idea? But it's just coincidence that something they admit to thinking is the right thing to do, got done?

[Sarcastr0]

we have polling showing that the only group in American society that shows majority support for basing hiring and firing on politics is the extreme left. We see it from right-wing religious organizations.

Where is your poll? And what the fuck is the ‘extreme left?’ that doesn’t sound like a crosstab to me. Sounds like a bit of overreading.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

But the problem is that we have polling showing that the only group in American society that shows majority support for basing hiring and firing on politics is the extreme left.

If that polling is accurate, conservatives are lying.

Every campus they get their hands on becomes a censorship-shackled goober factory that hires and fires based on loyalty oaths, silly dogma, statements of faith, old-timey speech and conduct codes, nonsense-based research restrictions, etc.

Right-wingers are gleefully celebrating the bigoted boycott of Bud Light -- because they are loathsome, lying bigots.

Wingnuts are applauding Gov. DeSantis as he fires elected officials for heresy from the right-wing perspective.

And the Volokh Conspiracy, leading blog of the academic right, engages in viewpoint-driven censorship.

No wonder conservatives can't compete at the modern marketplace of ideas and are roadkill in in the American culture war.

[Don Nico]

"If you’re familiar with the market, you know that the late 80s, and especially the 90s, began to see a real divide in terms of job paths and job prospects."

Correct, certainly in STEM fields.
"If you’re familiar with the market, you know that the late 80s, and especially the 90s, began to see a real divide in terms of job paths and job prospects."

Correct, certainly in STEM fields.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“it needs some critical mass of conservative and right voices”

I’m not so sure about that.

I don’t see how it would be constitutional at a state university – it certainly *shouldn’t* be constitutional.

And what if they decide to have some house conservatives? What’s to stop them from filling up the conservative slots with people who define conservatism in terms of an even bigger national security state, even more foreign enemies, or who share left-wing principles (e. g., on the administrative state) while disagreeing only on who gets to carry out these principles?

Then, in the name of promoting diverse opinions, they can hold debates on “American militarism – do we have just enough, or should we be doing more?”

Or what if their house conservative made his name by supporting broad Presidential war powers? Such a person could be trotted out to defend a leftist President.

And so on. It's infinitely manipulable.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Prof. Bernstein tells us about the practical problems of classifying people by race, and about the ways people game racial-preference systems.

Classifying people by politics would be at least as bad.

[Savagely Average]

I'm more just identifying the ideological homogeneity as a problem. I agree it's hard to solve, not least because 'liberal' and 'conservative' are very crude labels. More ideological diversity will help but I don't think some kind of political preference/quota system is the answer. I don't know the answer - I'm open to ideas.

I do think it would probably help if schools quit treating any political position that deviates from leftist orthodoxy as being unfit for polite company.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Another vote for more racism and gay-bashing in public life, and more fairy tales, dogma, and nonsense in modern education.

I doubt better Americans are interested in those suggestions.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

it needs some critical mass of conservative and right voices

Why would strong schools "need" any volume of bigotry, science-disdaining superstition, or backwardness?

Not one of our best teaching and research institutions needs a single conservative on campus.

[Savagely Average]

Banishing conservatives won’t reduce bigotry and backwardness. Those live across the ideological spectrum, though they can take different forms.

As for ‘science-disdaining superstition,’ if by that you mean ‘religion’ that’s everywhere as well. I’ve even heard of liberals who go to church!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

People should go to church if they wish.

People who bring religion -- myths, superstition, fairy tales, nonsense -- to reason-based classrooms are unserious and gullible people who should not be welcome in any position of authority at legitimate educational institutions.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Banishing conservatives won’t reduce bigotry and backwardness.

Unvarnished bullshit. It might not eliminate those problems, but it would diminish them greatly.

[Longtobefree]

I found "free inquiry" and Princeton in the same sentence and quit reading.

[bernard11]

Know a lot about Princeton, do you?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These right-wingers prefer Oral Roberts, Liberty, Franciscan, Ouachita Baptist, Regent, Wheaton, Calvin, Bob Jones, and Hillsdale to Princeton, Harvard, Berkeley, Yale, Oberlin, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Vassar.

It's not because conservatives tend to value education, reason, science, and modernity. It's because they tend to value ignorance, fairy tales, dogma, intolerance, and backwardness.

[Frank Drackman]

You left out your Almer Mater, Coach.

[mydisplayname]

As a reminder, many of the same folks that authored the 1915 Declaration also authored other works. It is difficult to simultaneously read both their Declaration of their own rights and their declarations against "defectives." (See, for example, https://tinyurl.com/ProgressiveTR )

[Sarcastr0]

I recommend checking out OSTP's scentific integrity policy:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/OSTP-SCIENTIFIC-INTEGRITY-POLICY.pdf

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

a conversation about what principles ought to guide a well-functioning scholarly institution dedicated to the mission of the preservation and advancement of knowledge

This refers to reason-based schools operated by and for the liberal-libertarian mainstream (which include all of our strongest research and teaching institutions) but is not aimed at (and is irrelevant with respect to) conservative-controlled schools that engage in strenuous censorship, practice across-the-board viewpoint-driven discrimination (everything from hiring and firing to research and administration), enforce dogma, suppress science to flatter religious myth, and teach nonsense.

Why is this such a focus at a movement conservative blog? Shouldn't conservatives be focused on trying to transform conservative-controlled campuses into legitimate educational institutions?

More important, why should the American mainstream -- which operates our best schools -- be in the market for pointers concerning education or schools from conservatives, who turn essentially every campus they get their hands on into a low-quality, nonsense-teaching yahoo factory?

[Cheerio]

"liberal-libertarian..."

Some religious schools can be fairly fringe and cringe. But mainstream universities should strive to *not* just be the polar opposite of that; at the moment, there's nothing "libertarian" nor (classically) "liberal" about the intolerant ideology that's been dominating in recent years...

Fortunately many fair-minded, liberal-leaning folks have begun recognizing this...so there's still hope for mainstream academia to get back to its core principles of genuine pluralism and truly open inquiry.

Most people reject left-wing hate and bigotry just as much as other kinds...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I doubt mainstream schools are interested in emulating, or arranging pointers from, conservatives with respect to operating legitimate, reason-based, high-quality schools.

I am confident they should not be.

Profs. Whittington and George and their group of conservatives should direct their efforts toward toward improving low-grade, conservative-controlled campuses. Until they tackle that one, why believe they are genuinely interested in anything other than making better campuses more hospitable to gay-bashers, racists, misogynists, xenophobes, and people who figure education is improved by superstition and right-wing backwardness?

These conservatives are entitled to whine about better schools as much they like, of course, but who cares?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

One of the core tenets of being a reason-based school is to believe a man can live his entire life as a man, then by the power of thought alone instantly transform himself into a real, authentic woman. And even breastfeed infants!

lol

[Randal]

Nobody cares about your dick's problems.

[Brett Bellmore]

Affirmative action for conservatives ain't happening. Once an institution flips to being fully left-wing, it's probably easier to destroy it and start over, the level of resistance to undoing that flip will be so intense.

It would be better to kill the model, actually.

Most people who go to the university are going there for some sort of job training. That IS the only sort of college attendance that deserves to be treated as anything but a luxury good, anyway. They're there to learn, and to get certification that they've learned.

I think we need to break these two functions apart, and let anybody who can prove they've learned a subject get the certification. That would kill the universities' ability to impose ideological indoctrination, because people wouldn't have to attend the university to get the certification. They could be autodidacts, or use online courses, or use Khan Academy.

That way the university would lose its ability to impose the indoctrination, and teaching jobs would be market driven towards people who just taught the subject, period.

[Randal]

And companies would continue to hire people from the best universities, rather than those with a certificate from Khan Academy, because they know that universities are about more than just learning the material.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, they're also about indoctrinating middle management to believe that you should offend your customer base in order to demonstrate your wokeness.

I can easily believe that the corporations that have already been rooted would keep hiring left-wingers, because left-wingers are controlling hiring. But once there's a source of reliably unindoctrinated people available, not all companies will make that choice, and the market should shift towards hiring competence because competence is profitable.

[Nige]

'Yeah, they’re also about indoctrinating middle management to believe that you should offend your customer base in order to demonstrate your wokeness.'

This is actually the standard of right wing intellectual thought at the moment, just in case anyone's wondering why so little of it makes it into universities. It boils down to 'cater to my bigotry.'

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It would be better to kill the model, actually.

I expect the culture war's winners to reject the advice of disaffected, autistic, bigoted right-wingers and stick with the current model, which involves operating our nation's best research and teaching institutions.

One of the great things about winning the culture war is you don't have to respect or heed pointers from can't-keep-up conservatives.

[Doug Huffman]

A tiny spark at seeing Alexander Meiklejohn’s name, founder of my underclass curriculum, SJSC Tutorials in Letters and Sciences.