This is a challenging an perilous time for leaders of American universities. But along with the challenges come opportunities, and wise decisions made at this juncture can build and solidify reputations. Here, for example, is David Lat writing in his newsletter
I agree, we have a bad habit of “why TF it took you so long” in this current moment instead of embracing recent converts. Not that we shouldn’t verify that they stay quiet with the next outrageous moment....but it would be a step in the right direction, even under pressure is better than the alternative of obstinacy in a bad position.
Outside of your essay but related at this current controversy, I’m a bit queasier about Pinker’s call for promoting viewpoint diversity, I might be idealistic but it feels that if we dismantle structures that are creating self censorship, the diversity will re-emerge naturally without affirmative action for conservatives.
"There is little that university neutrality and commitments to free expression can do to interrupt this dynamic. Something more is required. For a start, it is necessary to get some understanding of the range of unexpressed opinion. This can only be done through mechanisms that are credibly anonymous. If it is found that the gulf between expressed opinion and held opinion is large, institutions have to find a way of narrowing it. And if it is small, reflecting an absence of viewpoint diversity, the problem is even more daunting."
This is a great idea. In my field (public health and epidemiology) I worry about the disconnect between stated opinion and held opinion, but there is also no doubt we suffer from ideological homogeneity: https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/189/10/998/5697299. For fields that are not purely academic, i.e., where there may be a relatively short lag between research and implementation, as well as a pressure to engage in advocacy, the importance of maintaining constructive intellectual disagreement and ideological diversity is particularly acute: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590113323000226.
What does this mean for students of groups who may feel their safety is at risk or they are subject to negative stereotypes, and that certain speakers exacerbate this in their daily lives on campus? Even if the speakers aren’t explicit in their speech to this effect. Is there any recourse for them other than counter speech? Is there any bar a speaker must meet to speak on campus other than to be invited? This seems like it would lead some groups to being constantly called to defend their safety and legitimacy--is that a fair trade?
This also has an odd resemblance to me to the arguments made around things like Twitter moderation. And I think it’s pretty clear where a lack of boundaries has led that forum.
Finally, this memo makes many references to the importance of debate in a law school setting. Do the same standards apply to an undergraduate university or other areas where that is not such a fundamental tenet?
Hi Jackie thank you for your comment. Counter-speech can take many forms including protest activity and counter-programming but under the Chicago Principles it cannot include event disruption. This applies as much to undergraduate communities as to law schools. The only bar that a speaker must meet is that they should have been invited by a member of the community in good standing, and abide by the procedural rules that apply to all speakers and events. Twitter's goal is profit rather than the creation and dissemination of knowledge, so they will do whatever they imagine serves that purpose. There's a good post by Virginia Postrel today on these issues, see link in Aron's comment above.
I have to say though, I’m still envisioning a Twitter like outcome. If groups on campus can invite speakers who demonize or delegitimize a group of students, especially repeatedly, it is a huge burden on those students to have to stage protests or counter programming just to defend themselves. In particular if they are outnumbered. We know that this dynamic can arise while everyone obeys standards of conduct on a neutral platform. Profit motive isn’t the only driver here I don’t think. If the university isn’t stepping in, I don’t know why we would expect bad actors to change their behavior.
It doesn’t seem at all to much to ask that universities at least impose some standards of scholarship on who can speak. Academics already hold papers to high standards, why not speakers?
Jackie, I don't know what kind of standard you have in mind, but if you are thinking of academic credentials then people like Amy Wax or Charles Murray would surely qualify. Such speakers would be upsetting to many, no doubt. But any standard that blocks such speakers cannot be content neutral. The alternative is to have administrators judge the acceptability of content, which (in my view) would ultimately lead to much greater harms.
If you look at the link to the Woodward Report you'll see a dissent that reflects some of your concerns. I disagree with it, but the views expressed there are now quite orthodox on campuses.
How would you, in that case, avoid the kind of situation where campus groups repeatedly invite speakers who claim that a certain segment of the population is inherently bad at math for example? If that segment is small, there’s no way they can effectively counter this narrative, and asking them to do so is unfair. But if they don’t they risk having their academic experience seriously degraded, and their tangible opportunities limited.
I agree there’s no clear dividing set of standards we can apply, and any effort to hold speakers to a standard gets messy. I also agree we’ve gotten overly censorious. But I think having no standards other than that a campus group wants to hear from them leads to abuse in the real world.
These are tough questions Jackie, with no easy answers. I don't think the present system is working well though, even when it comes to the psychological well-being of people who feel most isolated.
I completely agree. I just don’t think claiming neutrality and putting the onus on individuals to defend themselves is going to be a winning strategy either. Not sure there’s any really clean way to do this.
Thank you for this excellent presentation of the standards for toleration of conflicting opinions and principles on college and university campuses. I suggest, however, that it’s important to keep in mind the challenges university leaders face given the condition of financial dependence on donors, government grants, and the generosity of wealthy people generally. In her book, ORDINARY VICES, the late Judith Shklar reflects, in her chapter on snobbery, on the “Babbitt”problem. Unless there’s a way to protect endowments and obtain consent for acceptance of the condition of political toleration you map so well, I’m skeptical that we can reasonably expect to quell or limit intolerant and defiant behaviors of influential persons, corporations, and governments.
Hi Suzanne, thank you for your comment. The donor model does create difficulties for senior administrators, and it can be hard to resist donor pressure. That's the advantage of tying one's hands -- Kalven and the Chicago Principles make certain decisions non-discretionary, and thus resistant to pressure.
I agree, we have a bad habit of “why TF it took you so long” in this current moment instead of embracing recent converts. Not that we shouldn’t verify that they stay quiet with the next outrageous moment....but it would be a step in the right direction, even under pressure is better than the alternative of obstinacy in a bad position.
Outside of your essay but related at this current controversy, I’m a bit queasier about Pinker’s call for promoting viewpoint diversity, I might be idealistic but it feels that if we dismantle structures that are creating self censorship, the diversity will re-emerge naturally without affirmative action for conservatives.
"There is little that university neutrality and commitments to free expression can do to interrupt this dynamic. Something more is required. For a start, it is necessary to get some understanding of the range of unexpressed opinion. This can only be done through mechanisms that are credibly anonymous. If it is found that the gulf between expressed opinion and held opinion is large, institutions have to find a way of narrowing it. And if it is small, reflecting an absence of viewpoint diversity, the problem is even more daunting."
This is a great idea. In my field (public health and epidemiology) I worry about the disconnect between stated opinion and held opinion, but there is also no doubt we suffer from ideological homogeneity: https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/189/10/998/5697299. For fields that are not purely academic, i.e., where there may be a relatively short lag between research and implementation, as well as a pressure to engage in advocacy, the importance of maintaining constructive intellectual disagreement and ideological diversity is particularly acute: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590113323000226.
What does this mean for students of groups who may feel their safety is at risk or they are subject to negative stereotypes, and that certain speakers exacerbate this in their daily lives on campus? Even if the speakers aren’t explicit in their speech to this effect. Is there any recourse for them other than counter speech? Is there any bar a speaker must meet to speak on campus other than to be invited? This seems like it would lead some groups to being constantly called to defend their safety and legitimacy--is that a fair trade?
This also has an odd resemblance to me to the arguments made around things like Twitter moderation. And I think it’s pretty clear where a lack of boundaries has led that forum.
Finally, this memo makes many references to the importance of debate in a law school setting. Do the same standards apply to an undergraduate university or other areas where that is not such a fundamental tenet?
Hi Jackie thank you for your comment. Counter-speech can take many forms including protest activity and counter-programming but under the Chicago Principles it cannot include event disruption. This applies as much to undergraduate communities as to law schools. The only bar that a speaker must meet is that they should have been invited by a member of the community in good standing, and abide by the procedural rules that apply to all speakers and events. Twitter's goal is profit rather than the creation and dissemination of knowledge, so they will do whatever they imagine serves that purpose. There's a good post by Virginia Postrel today on these issues, see link in Aron's comment above.
Just read that piece, thank you for the pointer.
I have to say though, I’m still envisioning a Twitter like outcome. If groups on campus can invite speakers who demonize or delegitimize a group of students, especially repeatedly, it is a huge burden on those students to have to stage protests or counter programming just to defend themselves. In particular if they are outnumbered. We know that this dynamic can arise while everyone obeys standards of conduct on a neutral platform. Profit motive isn’t the only driver here I don’t think. If the university isn’t stepping in, I don’t know why we would expect bad actors to change their behavior.
It doesn’t seem at all to much to ask that universities at least impose some standards of scholarship on who can speak. Academics already hold papers to high standards, why not speakers?
Jackie, I don't know what kind of standard you have in mind, but if you are thinking of academic credentials then people like Amy Wax or Charles Murray would surely qualify. Such speakers would be upsetting to many, no doubt. But any standard that blocks such speakers cannot be content neutral. The alternative is to have administrators judge the acceptability of content, which (in my view) would ultimately lead to much greater harms.
If you look at the link to the Woodward Report you'll see a dissent that reflects some of your concerns. I disagree with it, but the views expressed there are now quite orthodox on campuses.
How would you, in that case, avoid the kind of situation where campus groups repeatedly invite speakers who claim that a certain segment of the population is inherently bad at math for example? If that segment is small, there’s no way they can effectively counter this narrative, and asking them to do so is unfair. But if they don’t they risk having their academic experience seriously degraded, and their tangible opportunities limited.
I agree there’s no clear dividing set of standards we can apply, and any effort to hold speakers to a standard gets messy. I also agree we’ve gotten overly censorious. But I think having no standards other than that a campus group wants to hear from them leads to abuse in the real world.
These are tough questions Jackie, with no easy answers. I don't think the present system is working well though, even when it comes to the psychological well-being of people who feel most isolated.
I completely agree. I just don’t think claiming neutrality and putting the onus on individuals to defend themselves is going to be a winning strategy either. Not sure there’s any really clean way to do this.
Thank you for this excellent presentation of the standards for toleration of conflicting opinions and principles on college and university campuses. I suggest, however, that it’s important to keep in mind the challenges university leaders face given the condition of financial dependence on donors, government grants, and the generosity of wealthy people generally. In her book, ORDINARY VICES, the late Judith Shklar reflects, in her chapter on snobbery, on the “Babbitt”problem. Unless there’s a way to protect endowments and obtain consent for acceptance of the condition of political toleration you map so well, I’m skeptical that we can reasonably expect to quell or limit intolerant and defiant behaviors of influential persons, corporations, and governments.
Hi Suzanne, thank you for your comment. The donor model does create difficulties for senior administrators, and it can be hard to resist donor pressure. That's the advantage of tying one's hands -- Kalven and the Chicago Principles make certain decisions non-discretionary, and thus resistant to pressure.
Your views, Prof. Sethi, seem largely aligned with those of Virginia Postrel, in her first paragraph here:
https://vpostrel.substack.com/p/from-the-archives-the-ethics-of-higher
I've just left a comment on her post, linking to yours.
Thanks, I replied to your comment there, her post is great.