The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Fareed Zakaria (CNN) on "Why University Presidents are Under Fire"
From Friday's opinion piece:
American universities have been neglecting excellence in order to pursue a variety of agendas — many of them clustered around diversity and inclusion. It started with the best of intentions. Colleges wanted to make sure young people of all backgrounds had access to higher education and felt comfortable on campus. But those good intentions have morphed into a dogmatic ideology and turned these universities into places where the pervasive goals are political and social engineering, not academic merit….
Out of this culture of diversity has grown the collection of ideas and practices that we have all now heard of — safe spaces, trigger warnings, … micro aggressions … [and] speech codes ….
In this context, it is understandable that Jewish groups would wonder, why do safe spaces, micro aggressions, and hate speech not apply to us? If universities can take positions against free speech to make some groups feel safe, why not us? Having coddled so many student groups for so long, university administrators found themselves squirming, unable to explain why certain groups (Jews, Asians) don't seem to count in these conversations.
Having gone so far down the ideological path, these universities and these presidents cannot make the case clearly that at the center of a university is the free expression of ideas and that while harassment and intimidation would not be tolerated, offensive speech would and should be protected….
The whole thing is much worth reading.
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
Alex Jones is back on Twitter; Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland is still banned by the Volokh Conspiracy.
The War Against Universities continues.
With the way many currently operate, that is a good thing.
It dosn't matter how they operate. They're not conservative enough. And the more extreme and weird conservartism gets, the less conservative they are, the more extreme and dubious the attacks.
Zakaria is not a conservative nor does he believe universities aren't conservative enough.
Shouldn't give them this kind of comfort, so.
I suspect he thinks his recipe is a call to have universities be more classically liberal. At first blush, it strikes me as good argument that would not give comfort to conservatives.
Whatever that's suposed to mean.
It means he's occasionally capable of analyzing world events through prism other than "Is this good for the Democrats in the next election?"
In other words, he's not a transparent hack.
Or rather, selectively, he supports free speech, when he gets 'concerned.'
What speech do you think Zakaria selectively supports?
No, that's you.
Every time free speech concerns get raised aimed her, you pop up to explain why these people don't really deserve the right to express their opinion. A judge at Stanford, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard, anyone who is uncomfortable signing a DEIJ pledge in order to achieve a tenure track position. You consistently find a way to justify putting boots on their necks.
The saddest, ugliest part, is that you're not even anti-Semitic. You are not supporting chanters of "from the river to the sea" because you agree with them. You simply determine all morality according to whether you consider the groups involved to be good or bad, colonized or colonizers, oppressed or oppressors.
Palestinians are oppressed, and therefore good, and therefore they must be supported. Anyone supporting them is good by extension, even if they are calling for genocide.
Lennon used to call people like you "useful idiots." These days, there's not even anybody for you to be useful to.
Lenin.
Autocorrect hates me.
I wonder why.
'What speech'
Well quite.
‘you pop up’
You are lying.
‘You simply determine all morality according to whether you consider the groups involved to be good or bad,’
No, I consider their actions.
Re: Randal
It’s a figure of speech.
I take it the middle school sarcasm means you have no actual rebuttal.
Re: Nige
You mean that was someone else with your handle coming into the comment section of pretty much every article here on university speech policing to explain why the people being censored/disciplined/mobbed deserved it?
My mistake then, I must've confused you with the other Nige.
That guy, though he'd be looking really hypocritical standing where you're standing. If you run into him, you might also explain that a group that committed similar actions to the pro-Palestinian groups but directed them against Black people or gays or any other minority would be out on its ear. The universities (and you) consider the Palestinians and their supporters to be more equal than the Jews, and therefore they get extra leeway or less institutional protection accordingly.
'My mistake then, I must’ve confused you with the other Nige.'
No, you're just lying.
Heedless sounds reasonably on-point to me.
That would be the last thing I want. The whole point of a university is open inquiry and expression for ALL and if someone is hurt or feels threatened by that, sucks to be you.
It rather depends on who's being smuggled in under the infinitely expansive rubric of ALL, doesn't it?
Well in a truly open forum let them all battle it out and the audience can decide for themselves.
Battle? Audience? Jesus. Is there ever a point when, for example, we just don't bother about whatever the Nazis have the say?
You're making my point. I don't suspect Nazi's would get many supporters in attendance. Lots of people to mock and jeer, but not many supporters.
The larger point is it is not your or my place to decide what others get to hear.
No, obviously, neither you nor I are involved with deciding curriculums or arranging speaking engagements. But the people who do are generally expected to be, as it were, discriminating. If you want to find out what Nazis are saying, google it.
Maybe the problem is too many self-inflicted wounds.
Note the first sentence framing: excellence vs. diversity and inclusion. Where could this be going, I wonder?
Simple, SL. You are not that stupid. It means to lose the now mandatory,"why I am excellent at DEI" statement required of faculty applicants for hire or promotion.
What do you think of "universities" that suppress science to flatter childish superstition; impose statements of faith and speech codes; mock academic freedom; engage in strenuous discrimination (1) with respect to hiring everyone from faculty and administrators to landscapers and basketball coaches and (2) against gays, Muslims, transgender people, unmarried women, and others; disdain reason and the reality-based world; collect loyalty oaths; and enforce silly dogma (to the point of firing faculty members for offending dogma)?
Do those conservative-controlled schools bug you as much as our strongest, mainstream, liberal-libertarian schools seem to?
You are all partisanship and polemics, no principle or character.
"What do you think of “universities” that suppress science to flatter childish superstition;"
Are you referring to Harvard, where Prof. Carole Hooven was forced out of the Evolutionary Biology department for saying that, although people's gender identities should be respected, as a matter of biology there are two sexes?
Where it usually goes: you whining that there are too many Asians on campus.
Nieporent, when you state what you take to be my advocacy, it is remarkable that you so often require corrections. Quote any statement of mine that says or implies there are too many Asians on campuses. I do not think that, and you will not find it.
I am in fact an advocate for meritocracy, privately chosen, privately defined, and privately administered. Let the chips fall where they may. I am an opponent of any notion that meritocracy can or should be defined legally, or implemented legally.
I think you are capable of more forthright insight than you seem to use when you target my commentary. You seem to get things wrong on purpose. Perhaps that has to do with the fact that you are an ideologue, and I favor experience over rationalism as a basis for politics.
It's a bit puzzling how it could be "privately chosen, privately defined, [or] privately administered" in the context of a public institution, or how it could be defined or implemented in any way other than legally in such a context.
Moreover, as long as the Civil Rights Act and state equivalents govern admissions and hiring decisions relating to private institutions — and they do — then your attempt to remove these decisions from the public/legal realm is futile.
"It’s a bit puzzling how it could be “privately chosen, privately defined, [or] privately administered” in the context of a public institution, or how it could be defined or implemented in any way other than legally in such a context."
Puzzling? Maybe public institutions have the ability to make decisions behind closed doors? (Maybe they already do that *a lot*?) Maybe much of the content of decisions is not mainly a product of formalized policy, but of human discretion? Maybe laws and policies mainly serve, in practice, as guidelines, and can't practically be much more than that?
"your attempt to remove these decisions from the public/legal realm is futile"
Your implication that practical decision-making is mainly a mechanism of the public/legal realm strikes me as incorrect. There's a lot of practical latitude there. With some exceptions, life within the university doesn't butt up against the law, but against the non-academic, non-legalistic peeves of the mice at play.
So why is this only occurring to the left now? What has changed that is making them give up on all this?
So why is this only occurring to the left now?
I think it’s because the negative consequences have become impossible to ignore. (The left generally doesn’t like to lie to itself.) It should’ve been obvious long ago, but whatever.
What has changed that is making them give up on all this?
I don’t think we’re giving up, just recalibrating. The heavy hammer didn’t work, because the very presence of the hammer freaks everyone out and makes everything revolve around it. I expect DEI to morph into something more like the way we value “communication skills” and “emotional maturity,” that is, a generic quality that we look for in people, especially employees.
So we're not going to explicitly make you sign a statement explaining your advocacy for and commitment to DEIJ in order to secure a faculty position, we will merely scrutinize your application for evidence of your advocacy for and commitment to DEIJ in order to secure a faculty position.
I suppose a shift back to the early 2000s standard of covert political hiring criteria is an improvement over the status quo, but it is still appalling.
Being respectful of a diverse set of people is part of the job, the same way good communication skills are part of the job.
It doesn't matter of you actually respect, in your heart, Black people or gay people or whoever is it you're trying to be allowed to keep hating. You still have to pretend to respect them as an employee.
So yes, that will continue to be a qualification for the job that employers, including universities, look for.
You are seriously misinterpreting what is required in the DEI statement. The university want positive promotion of DEI goals, not the simple respect all equally expectation.
That later requirement should be obvious
You should ask yourself what, really, is the difference between those two things in practice.
In one instance, people just do the right thing. In they other they make up a load of bullshit or make a practice of discrimination based on accidents of birth.
This is a lot of difference in practice. I am surprised that you can't see it.
Do you think employers shouldn’t be allowed to ask about candidates’ willingness or experience regarding respect for diverse people? That seems dumb. The whole point of hiring is to find the people best suited for the job, and that requires asking them about their qualifications.
What the f*3K is "respect for diverse people?" The operative question should be more like, "Are you hostile to differences?"
I’ve interviewed many people as a hiring manager. I usually ask how candidate’s treat people in different circumstances that they may encounter. If they would be a supervisory, I ask how they would ensure fairness in all HR related decision. I don’t ask people about their ideology; I do ask how they would handle particular situations.
I don't cross-exam candidates about how they implement fairness and respect toward all on the job. Fairness is a condition of employment. I know of enough people who sing a good DEI song and who kick down and kiss up. They make for poor emplyees.
The people who swear that a man can magically become a woman by just saying so "don't like to lie to themselves"?
Comedy
Gold!!!!!!!
LMFAO
these universities and these presidents cannot make the case clearly that at the center of a university is the free expression of ideas
No, at the centre of a university is higher learning. All these ideological battles should be fought elsewhere.
Ideological battles don't contribute to higher learning?
God, no.
Your concept of "higher learning" isn't "high" enough. (I don't have a clue what he means. Maybe he's just being humorous without the funny part?)
"Ideological battles," a.k.a. open debate, can and should be an invaluable mechanism in education.
Not if the people who are doing the battling are university administrators, politicians, and talking heads on the internet/TV, rather than actual academics.
I don't see why the problem is so hard to square.
It's reasonable to create an intellectual environment in which students and professors are free to express themselves, without being targeted for harassment on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, etc. That includes both "hate speech" as well as "debates" that implicitly treat people's identities as somehow open to dispute or subject to other people's agreement. A trans student shouldn't have to endure being constantly misgendered by a professor or classmate, any more than a Black student should have to endure being constantly called "nigger." A gay student shouldn't constantly be called upon to defend their moral status, any more than a woman should have to constantly explain why she is entitled to equal rights.
By the same token, a Jewish student shouldn't have to be constantly on the defense, accused of being pro-Israel, subjected to antisemitic slurs or discriminated against, etc. Expressly calling for the extermination of Jews should be treated the same way we would treat similar calls for the extermination of LGBT people.
By the same token, we should teach students (and, where necessary, professors) how to handle conflict around this kind of speech and harassment in a mature, intellectually-respectable way. Eviscerate hate speech with effective rhetoric and persuasive arguments, not by shouting it down (or punishing it).
The only reason any of this is hard is that the Stefaniks, et al., want "antisemitic, genocidal rhetoric" to encompass a broad swath of criticism of Israel that is not actually antisemitic or genocidal. They want to restrict speech and debates that they also would want to protect, when the same kind of speech and debate relates to LGBT people, other racial minorities, etc. "From the river to the sea," in their view, is "genocidal," while "All Lives Matter" is just a reasonable position in an open debate.
" That is much easier to say than to do."
Conflict management of any sort is difficult.
"without being targeted for harassment on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, etc."
You can't even say that, generally speaking, "PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE TARGETED FOR HARASSMENT." What is with your need to limit which people shouldn't be harassed?
Your insistent attempts to enumerate which peoples should be protected has implicitly metastasized into peoples who should not. That's just wrong.
You can’t even say that, generally speaking, “PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE TARGETED FOR HARASSMENT.” What is with your need to limit which people shouldn’t be harassed?
The point of an enumeration is to make clear that the principle is not, "harassment is wrong," but rather, "harassment based on morally irrelevant features is wrong." We might not want to be quite as prescriptive when it comes to, say, pedophiles, rapists, murderers. Terrorists. And so on.
The irony here is that my enumeration is not, by its terms, exclusive. While your response, purporting to be more categorical, actually relies on an implicit assumption about the limits of its scope in order for it to be tenable. You just want to be sure that "white, Christian men" aren't marked for non-protection. Which, you know, they never were, the way I put it.
.
I see: we're back to "It's OK to punch a Nazi." Or a Zionist. Or a conservative. That's just great, Simon.
No, but I'm glad you're able to recognize that ideological commitments like neo-Nazism, Zionism, and conservatism are not inborn characteristics that it would be wrong to hold against a person.
What you're describing is true for any workplace. There's no reason why universities should have different rules than the normal rules on hostile work environment, etc.
One thing lost in a lot of the discussion is money, particularly from students. Universities today are in competition for students and as the consumer the students are in too much control. Students want comfort in living quarters, food they eat and comfort from their professors and administration. If you are selling a good product, an education, that should be enough. The University is not there to provide for your comfort. There can be a free exchange or no exchange of ideas, but not piecemeal policy.
Yup, striving to make themselves more attractive to their target customers than the other guys. That's the free market for you!
Wasn’t worth reading.
Congrats to Zakaria for figuring out what should have been obvious decades ago.
"They should abandon this long misadventure into politics, retrain their gaze on their core strengths and rebuild their reputations as centers of research and learning."
It’s too late. They’ve forgotten how to do that. The majority of their staff is deeply hostile to anything meritorious. Any efforts would be undermined internally, every step of the way.
.
When did the discussion turn toward Regent, Biola, Franciscan, Ave Maria, Hillsdale, Grove City, Liberty, Wheaton, Ouachita Baptist, and dozens (or hundreds) of similar low-quality, nonsense-based, conservative-controlled schools?
LOL, Meat.
This episode should influence the degree to which the culture war's winners treat conservative losers as the liberal-libertarian mainstream continues to prevail in the culture war and at the modern American marketplace of ideas.
There is no rule requiring America's betters to be magnanimous toward obsolete, deplorable conservatives clinging to their guns, religion, and old-timey, multifaceted bigotry.
Try to be nicer, clingers . . . or don't complain about the consequences of being on the wrong side of history.
"It started with the best of intentions."
Bullshit.
Not necessarily bullshit, but irrelevant.
Dennis Prager talks about how Russian Communists, and even German Nazis, thought their intentions were good. It's just that there were these people who needed to be killed in order to "make things better for everyone."
If your "good intentions" lead to (pretty explicit) anti-Asian discrimination, or Jewish students being afraid to go to class, maybe what you're up to isn't all that "good"...
Suppose we lived in a world where these DEI and critical race theorists, etc., took a further step in the direction of ideological extremism, and went so far as to call for systematic oppression of white, cisgender, straight, men. These activists would be calling for fewer rights in the political realm, fewer rights in civil society, unequal treatment in the workplace, etc. Call them the “Misandrists.”
We can imagine white men themselves, as well as their allies, as objecting: “How can universities allow this kind of rhetoric? Is it not essentially inconsistent with what you’ve been teaching for years?” And it would be true that, within an intellectual framework that has been significantly driven by a desire to dismantle the hegemonic power of white, cisgender, straight men and creating new power structures, it would be difficult to critique the Misandrists, at least superficially speaking. A university president, hired primarily for their ability to fundraise and not to solve challenging intellectual puzzles, certainly wouldn’t do well if put on the spot.
The reconciliation comes by problematizing the Misandrist’s institutional bent. The inherent problem of white male patriarchy is in the way it creates and oppresses an “Other,” not in the way it targets Blacks or women, etc., per se. That Other may, in current power structures, be just racial minority groups, women, etc., but flipping around those power structures just so that different groups benefit and other groups suffer would just perpetuate the basic injustice. The answer to the challenge raised by critical race theory and DEI initiatives is not simply to ensure that white men suffer henceforth; rather, it’s to dismantle the structures that create that suffering in the first place.
The “why not Jews?” backlash follows the same basic contours. That is not to say that Jews are just “white,” because of course that’s simplistic and untrue. Rather, the “why not Jews?” backlash is coming from the same quarters of institutional power that the Misandrist backlash would come from: money, politics, media, conservative university professors. The white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy is striking out by trying to delegitimize its opposition, by making claims that DEI/CRT ideology is somehow hypocritical or inconsistent in failing to acknowledge its own antisemitic currents. Proponents of that DEI/CRT ideology are therefore reluctant to accede to the criticism, while it is difficult to find a persuasive response to it that the white-supremacist capitalist patriarchs would find convincing.
But here is a sketch of a response: to the extent that campus communities respond to the crisis in Gaza with true antisemitism – (and I mean true antisemitism, not “antisemitism as has been liberally applied in bad faith to include every anti-Zionist claim or criticism of Israel that putatively imports a double standard or fails to acknowledge the severity of Hamas’s terrorist attack,” etc., meaning discriminating against or harassing Jews for being Jews, assuming all Jews are alike, that sort of thing) – they are in a fundamental way betraying their own principles and adopting the tools of the same system they claim to oppose, the same way that Misandrists were. A commitment to DEI and core insights provided by CRT should lead us to refrain from employing, against Jews, the same kinds of hate and division that white-supremacist capitalist patriarch has used against Black people and women.
By the same token, DEI/CRT also helps us to see the “why not Jews?” backlash as itself motivated by bad faith, as re-fostering the institutional power of white male capitalists, and so to be taken with a grain of salt. Elise Stefanik is not in the least concerned with racial justice or ideological consistency within the DEI/CRT camp. For her, “why not Jews?” is a wedge issue that will effectively divide liberals without a strong theoretical footing against one another, and ideally against the whole DEI/CRT project. So it is a deeply cynical campaign, even if built on an observation that is correct, for different reasons.
I think a strong footing in DEI/CRT also would help us to better diagnose this “antisemitism” problem, such as it is. For instance, here in NYC, the Black community has long had a strain of antisemitism (as has Black nationalism more generally). That comes from a different place than campus contrarians who lose track of their ideological commitments when defending Palestinians. And that campus contrarianism is itself distinct from the more basic, simple antisemitism uncovered by the Labour Party inquiry.
Suffice it to say a congressional hearing led by an ambitious Republican, attended by campus bureaucrats, commented upon by a CNN pundit, and conveyed by a professor with zero expertise on the subject, is not a good way to untangle the issue.
so, real DEI hasn't been tried.
More like: Jewish students are just some eggs that (regrettably!) must be broken in order to fight "the white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy." More "good intentions," ladies and gentlemen.
This is the opposite of what I've said. Maybe find your Mommy or Daddy to come explain my comment to you.
"Suffice it to say a congressional hearing led by an ambitious Republican, attended by campus bureaucrats, commented upon by a CNN pundit, and conveyed by a professor with zero expertise on the subject, is not a good way to untangle the issue."
You get the prize for the most insults and disinformation in a sentence in this thread.
*takes a bow*
Thanks, Nicky. I try.
He didn't say she was forced out of Harvard. He said that she was forced out of the Evolutionary Biology department. I don't know a lot about the situation, but here's how she described her current status in a recent interview:
Even by your standards, that is a really sad attempt to cover a bad argument.
Stop digging.
Sounds like you either have TERRIBLE reading comprehension or just like telling bald faced lies.
LOL