Have universities finally turned over a new leaf on free speech? Thirteen university presidents, including those of Cornell, Duke, and Rutgers, would like you to think they have. As part of a larger initiative on civic preparedness, these university presidents have signed the "Campus Call for Free Expression," a project organized by the Institute for Citizens & Scholars. The project involves pro-free expression activities and initiatives at each participating institution, bolstered by a public commitment to the principles of free expression.
Yet so far, underneath the puff pieces and promotional materials, there don't appear to be any fundamental changes to the way these universities operate with respect to free expression and censorship. More importantly, there isn't a reckoning with very recent instances of censorious behavior at the signatory universities. For instance, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center stripped a leadership role from medical professor Norman Wang after he received backlash for criticizing affirmative action. The University of Pittsburgh condemned Wang's perspectives instead of defending his right to share those views. Rutgers University has canceled speeches in response to student protests. Claremont McKenna College essentially uses students as censors through a bureaucratic reporting system.
So while some may praise this initiative for its admittedly laudable goals, free speech defenders should remain skeptical. We should hold these universities to account for fixing their culture of censorship. If universities genuinely support free speech, they should be able to support it when it is uncomfortable, and even unpopular.
If they truly wanted to demonstrate a commitment to free expression, universities should release official statements in defense of University of Pennsylvania professor Amy Wax, who is under threat of losing tenure due to expressing legitimate scholarly opinions her colleagues find distasteful. Since the universities would likely face backlash from their own employees for releasing such a statement, this action would provide credibility to their purported pro-free speech stance. It would show that the campaign is not just a superficial publicity stunt, but a true commitment to standing for academic freedom even when it is unpopular. In addition, such a united stance could pressure the University of Pennsylvania to back off its unfair treatment of Professor Wax, producing a real victory for the free expression project.
Universities should also demonstrate a commitment to roll back bureaucratic structures that are antithetical to free expression, such as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. DEI policies punish those who engage in wrongthink. They have, for example, weeded out faculty applicants to science departments who didn't acknowledge the difference between "equity" and "equality," and the moral superiority of the former in our current cultural zeitgeist. There are clear contradictions between free speech and DEI initiatives.
We should expect resistance, but that is precisely why we should demand universities to back off on DEI. Cornell President Martha Pollack, for instance, stated just a few months ago that DEI and free speech must "coexist." In response to demands to roll back DEI policies from the Cornell Free Speech Alliance, an alumni advocacy group, President Pollack reiterated her stance, calling free speech-based opposition to DEI policies "incredibly frustrating." If these university presidents cannot see the fundamental contradictions between the censorship demands of DEI policies and free expression, their commitments to free expression should not be taken seriously.
Finally, we should make sure that universities commit to teaching students to refrain from behaviors that undermine the culture of free expression on campus. Specifically, universities should discourage students from moralizing factual claims, which is perhaps the greatest barrier to civil discourse today. It has become all too common on campuses to label information as racist, sexist, or offensive when it is unflattering to a group of people or their ideals. This is antithetical to the spirit of free expression, especially in an academic context.
Free expression is supposed to promote the discussion of all information and facts to arrive at truthful conclusions, regardless of whether those facts and conclusions are appreciated by current social trends. This goes for researchers as well—universities should encourage professors and students to be open to reaching conclusions in their research that are unpopular, and for others on campus not to "shoot the messenger" when such research is produced.
These tests are a start and by no means exhaustive. Premature celebration of the Campus Call for Free Expression initiative risks endorsing empty sentiments that avoid addressing the underlying problems. Only if universities make real advances in free expression, even when doing so is unpopular, should we celebrate their progress.
Neetu Arnold is a Research Fellow at the National Association of Scholars and a Young Voices contributor. Follow her on Twitter @neetu_arnold
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
