While some of those involved in shouting down Ms. Coulter were reportedly disciplined, it is critical that the university demonstrate its unwillingness to allow such an egregious offense against its mission to stand. In the words of Provost Kotlikoff, “Cornell must be a place where the presentation of ideas is protected and inviolable. Shielding students or others in our community from viewpoints with which they disagree, or filtering campus speakers based on the content of their presentation, undermines the fundamental role of a university.”

While shouting Ms. Coulter down, one protester yelled, “Your words are violence!” But words are the opposite of violence, and the university is one of the great gifts of human civilization precisely because it is a place where we are free to persuade one another without the threat of force. The protesters did not resort to violence, but they demonstrated their disregard for this valuable gift when they forced Ms. Coulter from the podium. As she said in an exclusive statement to ACTA, “at the better schools . . . students have too much intellectual self-respect to scream and carry on. They want to beat you in Q&A.” But the protesters at Cornell chose to embarrass themselves and their school while violating the rights of Ms. Coulter and their fellow Cornell community members. The university is correct to right this wrong.

But now members of the Cornell community are accusing the administration of hypocrisy because it has cracked down on protesters who have disrupted campus spaces in violation of the university’s policies. These critics apparently fail to see the consistency in refusing to accept the disruption of campus events and spaces where students study and learn. Both are defenses of the fundamental purpose of the university.

Moreover, while Cornell faculty and staff—many of whom never said a word in defense of Ms. Coulter but have been greatly concerned about protecting a colleague who found a terrorist attack “exhilarating”—are protesting for academic freedom and free speech, one of them has begged Provost Kotlikoff in a letter to the editor of the Cornell Daily Sun to disinvite Ms. Coulter. Are the students at Cornell really so fragile? Ms. Coulter is known for making statements that many find offensive, but if a professor who sympathizes with Hamas still has a job, then surely Cornellians can tolerate having a provocative conservative on campus for an hour or two.

Cornell must show both its campus community and the country that it can and will respect diversity of thought and freedom of speech. We agree wholeheartedly with Provost Kotlikoff: “there could be few more powerful demonstrations of Cornell’s commitment to free expression than to have Ms. Coulter return to campus and present her views.”

The post Cornell University Invites Ann Coulter for a Return Engagement appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

The author of T: The Story of Testosterone, the Hormone that Dominates and Divides Us, Dr. Hooven served as the former codirector of undergraduate studies in the Department of Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University. Her research focuses on how hormones shape human behavior (and vice versa), specifically related to sex differences. Her Hormones and Behavior class was named one of the “top ten tried and true” by the Harvard Crimson.

In 2021, she appeared on Fox and Friends to discuss the pressure some faculty feel to refrain from using terms such as “pregnant woman” and “male and female.” After her appearance, the director of her department’s diversity, inclusion, and belonging task force, a graduate student, published a Tweet calling her remarks “transphobic” and “dangerous.” The incident went viral, and a petition was circulated against Dr. Hooven. While facing intense attacks on her reputation and academic work, she received no support from the Harvard administration.

“Some say cancel culture isn’t real. What happened to Carole Hooven at Harvard is proof that it is,” said Steven McGuire, ACTA’s Paul & Karen Levy Fellow in Campus Freedom. “She was denounced and ostracized by students and other faculty members for daring to discuss matters related to her scientific expertise on a television program. Abandoned by all but a few of her colleagues, she refused to apologize or yield to the vicious attacks, and she took a stand for academic freedom, science, and the pursuit of truth. She truly is a hero of intellectual freedom, modeling for others the courage it takes to resist the whims of ideological censors.” Dr. McGuire recently engaged in a lively conversation with Dr. Hooven on ACTA’s podcast, Higher Ed Now.

“Carole Hooven was attacked for mentioning ideas that can be found in an introductory biology textbook. How can we hope to see progress in science if scholars cannot discuss even the basics of their fields without fear of reprisal from ideologues?” stated ACTA President Michael Poliakoff. “As Albert Einstein said, ‘freedom of communication is indispensable for the development and extension of scientific knowledge.’ Harvard abandoned its duties to science and to a member of its community when it refused to defend Dr. Hooven. We at ACTA take pride in honoring her. She has shown great courage and resilience and, unlike Harvard, has demonstrated her unwavering commitment to scientific integrity during this trial.”

ACTA will honor Dr. Hooven in Washington, DC, at our annual ATHENA Roundtable Conference on October 27, 2023. She joins a distinguished group of Heroes of Intellectual Freedom from previous years, including Professor Erec Smith of York College of Pennsylvania (2022), Professor Dorian Abbot of the University of Chicago (2021), and Joshua Katz, formerly of Princeton University (2020).

MEDIA CONTACT: Gabrielle Anglin
EMAIL: ganglin@goacta.org

The post Carole Hooven to be Honored as ACTA’s 2023 Hero of Intellectual Freedom appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Dr. Ben-Porath says that the predicate for healthy discourse is a “shared epistemic foundation,” or a set of incontrovertible facts that can be used by both sides to develop their arguments. Weaving in political science research on in-group affirmation of facts, she finds that “the significant practical overlap between the civic and truth-seeking goals of the university are reflective of the increasingly blurred line between expertise and popular views.” In a 2019 study, the Pew Research Center found that only 33% of Republicans (and Republican leaners) believe that colleges and universities are having a positive effect on the way things are going in America (among Democrat leaners, it is 67%). To that point, Dr. Ben-Porath devotes a chapter to the subject of inclusion and harm. As she defines it, “Inclusion, broadly understood, means that members of a community see themselves as having equal worth and equal standing and that all members are welcomed into the community as equals.” Sounds simple enough. But the author doubts the value of free expression and believes it should subordinate when someone claims to have been harmed by others’ speech. She disagrees, for example, with the 2021 case Meriwether v. Hartop, where the federal Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of a professor who was punished by his state university employer for refusing to use a student’s preferred pronouns in classroom discussions. She thinks that “civility overlooks power differentials for speech,” which can result in “epistemic injustice.” The political overlay of the Meriwether dispute is real, but the chapter does not address it directly. 

There are strengths and weaknesses to Dr. Ben-Porath’s arguments. Liberal democracy flourishes when norms of civility are respected. Yet there is evidence that faculty in many disciplines need to tread more cautiously than they used to. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s Scholars Under Fire Database shows that “the number of targeting incidents against professors has risen precipitously since 2015.” To give one example, the University of Florida embarrassed itself in late 2021 when it initially forbade three political science professors from testifying about recent legislation that would have changed state voting requirements (its president later reversed course and allowed them to testify). What is more likely, that professors have been behaving more offensively of late, or that the student body is primed to take greater offense to usual course content?  

The author’s chapter on inclusion and harm also discusses the importance of tolerating those with differing political views to overcome political polarization. Citing a story of a man who was raised in a white nationalist environment but now works to combat racism, she writes, “Some studies show that a personal and nonjudgmental exchange of narratives on a political contentious topic [] can foster more tolerant attitudes.” The Hidden Tribes project, whose team of social scientists conducts research about the forces driving political polarization, issued its Perception Gap study in 2019. The study found that partisans of one side are likely to think of most partisans of the other side as “holding extreme views,” even though most do not. Classroom discussions can help reduce distrust and help students gain a greater understanding of why others think differently than they do. Better in-class dialogue can calm students’ threat sensitivity about “harmful” ideas and improve the learning process for all. 

The final chapter proposes helpful ideas for how universities can promote democracy and foster free speech. Dr. Ben-Porath approvingly quotes free expression expert Nadine Strossen on hate speech laws: “Even if constitutionally protected ‘hate speech’ did notably contribute to the feared harms, and even if ‘hate speech’ laws would meaningfully help to reduce them, we still should reject such laws because non-censorial measures can effectively counter the feared harm.” The author believes that “campuses can serve as both anchors and models for revitalizing democracy by creating spaces where common ground can be found.” She recommends that campus leaders resist the urge to act rashly in response to controversies and to instead make statements that express campus values. Faculty ought to plan discussions for sensitive topics and use a “five-minute rule” that requires discussion participants “to consider the perspective on its merits, looking to understand and make the case for it before offering any criticism.” Students should be curious and not judgmental; they should seize opportunities to learn from others who don’t think like they do.  

These are helpful recommendations, yet Dr. Ben-Porath does not clarify how a university should act when a speaker expresses views that some in the campus community think are opposed to institutional values. This dilemma can be solved by adhering to the precepts of the 1967 Kalven Report, authored by a University of Chicago committee tasked with preparing “a statement on the University’s role in political and social action.” Sociologist and committee chair Harry Kalven, Jr., wrote, “The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.” Institutional neutrality “arises . . . not from a lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity. It arises out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints.” University administrators are not responsible for endorsing or condemning viewpoints held by speakers invited to campus by various student groups. That means they do not need to make statements that “some members of the community pay a price for this protection” of core First Amendment values and liberal discourse. I do not know how the author would answer the following question: Is it better to err on the side of allowing too much speech or on the side of making sure no one in a room feels offended or harmed?  

Cancel Wars explains some of the tensions surrounding free expression on the modern college campus and offers some proposals for reform. However, the author does not offer explicit recommendations for precisely how administrators should act when protected First Amendment speech is subjectively perceived as offensive by others. Unpleasant dilemmas like these will require a resolution: if not in scholarly writing, then in federal courts.

The post Cancel Wars Confirms the Crisis on Campus Without Prescribing a Cure appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

The University of Texas (UT)–Austin is a public Ivy that draws applicants from all corners of the United States and beyond. Its motto is, “Education is the guardian of the state.” But is UT–Austin fortifying our pluralistic democracy if its students self-censor and shout down views they do not like? Is it serving citizens, as its mission claims, if political and social views held by large percentages of the population are rarely heard on campus?

The UT System Board of Regents recently adopted the Chicago Principles on Freedom of Expression. This was an important action, signaling a commitment to free speech, but a recent survey of 1,003 UT–Austin students by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) and College Pulse shows that the university needs to do more to build a culture of free expression and viewpoint diversity on campus.

We asked students about their comfort level expressing unpopular ideas, their support for disrupting guest speakers, and their confidence in the university administration’s commitment to protecting free expression, among other topics. We found that undergraduate students are:

• too eager to shout down invited speakers or even use violence to silence them;

• prone to self-censorship; and

• uncertain that the university administration supports free expression on campus.

Our survey also reveals significant differences between the experiences of liberal and conservative students on campus, finding that:

• Conservative students are much more likely than liberals to censor themselves.

• Liberal students endorse censorship tactics at higher rates than conservatives.

• Liberal students are much more likely than conservatives to report having few or no friends who hold political views different from their own.

• Conservative students are much more likely to report having lost friends due to their political beliefs.

These results indicate that UT–Austin should do more to ensure that students routinely hear a wide variety of views and learn how to interact civilly with others.

Key Findings

• Only one-fifth of students (21%) say shouting down a campus speaker is never acceptable.

Every year, guest speakers are shouted down at colleges and universities across the country. These exercises of the “heckler’s veto” violate what U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall termed the “freedom to speak and the freedom to hear.” Our survey shows that a troubling 44% of UT– Austin students believe that it is “sometimes acceptable” or “always acceptable” to use this tactic. We also found significant differences between liberal students, 48% of whom say shouting down a speaker is “sometimes acceptable” or “always acceptable,” and conservative students (23%). Conversely, only 14% of liberals say shouting down a speaker is “never acceptable,” whereas 52% of conservatives say the same.

• Only 6 in 10 students (59%) say it is never acceptable to use violence to disrupt a campus speaker.

A number of campus events featuring guest speakers turned violent this past year. Perhaps most notoriously, former NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines was accosted and trapped for hours after speaking at San Francisco State University. It is stunning that 18% of UT–Austin students say using violence to disrupt a guest speaker is “sometimes acceptable” or “always acceptable.” It is also notable that liberal students (15%) and conservative students (14%) essentially agree with one another on this point, although conservatives are more likely to say that violence is “never acceptable” (70% compared to 59% for liberals).

• Half of all students (47%) and 70% of conservative students report feeling like they could not express themselves at least occasionally.

Given the willingness to stop guest speakers from sharing their views, it is perhaps not surprising that half of respondents (47%) say they have at least occasionally felt like they could not express an opinion because of how students, a professor, or the university administration would respond. While only 14% say they felt this way “fairly often” or “very often,” the experience of liberal and conservative students again diverge, with 9% of liberal students saying they could not express themselves “fairly often” or “very often,” compared to 36% of conservatives. In addition, liberals are four times more likely to say they have never felt the need to self-censor (20% of liberals compared to 5% of conservatives).

• Four in 10 of all students (38%) and 7 in 10 conservative students (68%) report not speaking up at least once a month because they thought their opinion would be unwelcome.

Twenty percent of students say they have not spoken up at least several times a month because they thought their views would be unwelcome. This number is higher among conservatives: 43% compared to just 17% among liberals. Liberals are also four times more likely to say they have never not spoken up because they thought their view would be unwelcome (39% for liberals compared to 11% for conservatives). Taken together, the responses to this question and the previous one show that too many students are refraining from sharing their views, and that the campus community is particularly deprived of contributions from conservative students.

• Two-thirds of the UT–Austin student population (65%) identifies as liberal, and only 10% identifies as conservative.

It is especially concerning that conservative students are more likely to remain quiet when we consider how few of them there are on campus. Asked to place themselves on a nine-point ideological scale, most respondents (65%) said they were “very,” “somewhat,” or “slightly liberal.” Only 10% selected “very,” “somewhat,” or “slightly conservative.” In addition to “moderate,” respondents were given the opportunity to select “I do not identify as a liberal or a conservative” or “Haven’t thought much about this,” which we grouped as “other” in the chart below.

• Seven in 10 liberal students (71%) report having few to no friends with different political beliefs. Only 1 in 5 conservative students (21%) say the same.

Given the ideological composition of the student body at UT–Austin, it is not surprising that liberal students are not likely to have many friends with different political views. Eighteen percent of liberal students say they have no friends with different political views, compared to just 3% of conservatives. Conversely, 50% of conservatives say that many to all of their friends have different political views, whereas only 19% of liberals say the same.

• Conservatives (30%) are twice as likely as liberals (14%) to say that they have lost friends because of their political beliefs.

While conservative students are likely to have more friends with political views that are different from their own, they are also more likely to say they have lost friends due to their political beliefs. This is another indication that some students at UT–Austin struggle to get along with others who have different political views. Overall, 16% of UT–Austin students report having lost friends due to their political beliefs.

• Only one-third of students (30%) say it is “extremely clear” or “very clear” that the university administration protects free speech on campus.

When asked if it is clear that the university administration protects free speech, most students answered “somewhat clear.” There is only a slight gap between conservatives (25%) and liberals (33%) who say it is “extremely clear” or “very clear.”

• Students who self-censor more often are more likely to find the university administration’s stance on free expression “not very clear” or “not at all clear.”

Not surprisingly, those who report that they self-censor very often are more likely to be unsure about the administration’s willingness to protect free speech on campus. Forty-nine percent of these students say the administration’s position is “not very clear” or “not at all clear.”

Conclusion

Our data suggest that UT–Austin must do more to promote free expression and viewpoint diversity on campus. The university should also be concerned about students’ willingness to shout down speakers or even use violence to disrupt them. ACTA lauds the UT System Board of Regents for adopting the Chicago Principles on Freedom of Expression and encourages the UT–Austin administration to take decisive actions to build on this foundation. If UT–Austin implements free expression programming during freshman orientation, adopts a statement of institutional neutrality, and creates more opportunities (such as campus debates) for students to hear a variety of views, it will be poised to strengthen a culture of freedom and tolerance for all members of the campus community.

Appendix A: Methodology

This survey was designed and conducted by College Pulse. Interviews were conducted in English among a sample of 1,003 undergraduate students who were enrolled at the University of Texas–Austin during the 2022—23 academic year. Survey panel members were recruited by a number of methods to help ensure diversity in the panel population, including web advertising, permission-based email campaigns, and partnerships with university organizations.

To reduce the effects of any non-response bias, a post-stratification adjustment was applied based on demographic distributions from the 2017 Current Population Survey (CPS). The post-stratification weight rebalanced the sample based on the following benchmarks: age, race and ethnicity, and gender. The sample weighting was accomplished using an iterative proportional fitting (IFP) process that simultaneously balances the distributions of all variables. Weights were trimmed to prevent individual interviews from having too much influence on the final results.

The margin of error for this survey is ±3%. Margins of error are typically calculated on probability-based samples and are not technically correct for non-probability online samples. We supply them here to provide a general assessment of error ranges that may be associated with the data.

Appendix B: Survey Questions in this Report

Q1: How acceptable would you say it is for students to engage in the following action to protest a campus speaker: Shouting down a speaker or trying to prevent them from speaking on campus.

1) Always acceptable
2) Sometimes acceptable
3) Rarely acceptable
4) Never acceptable

Q2: How acceptable would you say it is for students to engage in the following action to protest a campus speaker: Using violence to stop a campus speech?

1) Always acceptable
2) Sometimes acceptable
3) Rarely acceptable
4) Never acceptable

Q3: On your campus, how often have you felt that you could not express your opinion on a subject because of how students, a professor, or the administration would respond?

1) Never
2) Rarely
3) Occasionally
4) Fairly often
5) Very often

Q4: How often have you not spoken up on campus because you thought your opinion would be unwelcome?

1) Weekly
2) Several times a month
3) Once a month
4) Less than once a month
5) Never

Q5: Using the following scale, how would you describe your political beliefs?

1) Very liberal, somewhat liberal, or slightly liberal
2) Moderate/middle of the road
3) Slightly conservative, somewhat conservative, or very conservative
4) I do not identify as a liberal or a conservative, or haven’t thought much about this

Q6: How many friends on campus do you have who adhere to a different political ideology?

1) All
2) Most
3) Many
4) About half
5) A few
6) Just one or two
7) None

Q7: Have you lost friends on campus because of your political beliefs?

1) Yes
2) No

Q8: How clear is it to you that your college administration protects free speech on campus?

1) Extremely clear
2) Very clear
3) Somewhat clear
4) Not very clear
5) Not at all clear

The post Free Expression and Viewpoint Diversity at the University of Texas—Austin appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Dr. Mansfield stands out not just for his scholarship and longevity. His conservatism also sets him apart on a campus that has veered increasingly leftward over time. He recently gave his final lecture, and the accolades from former students and colleagues rolled in. But it is the message Dr. Mansfield sent to recent graduates, published by the Harvard Crimson, that deserves wider attention here, given that its topic was the “woke” ideology that threatens free speech and free thought on that and other campuses.

“On Self-Censorship” deserves to be read in its entirety. You can do that here. Below, we cherry-pick some of the best passages for those just wanting the highlights. 

“Is anything lost by being woke? Yes, let me suggest there is. Instead of arguing the point, one begins to search for character defects and pounce when they are found. You blind yourself by taking offense because in doing so you are led to simplify the justice you think is so unquestionable. Instead of thinking about what justice might require, you try to shame opposition out of existence.

“Believing that justice is easy to think, you begin to believe it is easy to apply. You conclude that slavery was as easy to abolish as to denounce today after it is abolished. You regard those who gave their lives in a Civil War to gain that end as less just than we are now, bravely changing names and pronouns. You agree that Harvard has a legacy of slavery rather than the legacy of anti-slavery you can see every day with a glimpse of Memorial Hall.”

Here is what strikes us most about the piece, aside from the timeliness and forcefulness of the message. It is arguably directed at the wrong audience. Dr. Mansfield’s essay will of course be of interest to recent graduates. But after years of treading water in the woke monoculture, they are already all too aware of the problems he highlights. His message is much more helpful to first-year students, who are just wading into the “woke” maelstrom. By being forewarned, they will also be forearmed against the pitfalls of self-censorship. 

Our recommendation, therefore, is that “On Self-Censorship” be included in the orientation packets received by Harvard freshmen. We also urge the Harvard Crimson to republish the piece at the beginning of each academic year, not at the end. It is just not as relevant to recent graduates, to whom the damage it describes has already been done.

The post Retiring Harvard Scholar Warns of “Woke” Self-Censorship appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Key findings:

• Thirty-five percent of students said that it is “always acceptable” or “sometimes acceptable” to shout down an invited speaker.
• Forty-five percent of conservative students said they do not speak up at least several times a month because they fear their opinion would be unwelcome, compared to just 16% of liberal students.
• Seven in 10 liberal students (71%) reported having few to no friends with different political beliefs. Only 1 in 3 conservative students (33%) said the same.
• One-third of all students (32%) and half of conservative students said it is “not very clear” or “not at all clear” that the university administration protects free speech.
  
  

ACTA President Michael Poliakoff remarked, “A university should be a sanctuary where the free exchange of ideas thrives, and viewpoint diversity isn’t just tolerated but encouraged. Instead, the cultures on American university campuses are increasingly characterized by fear, intimidation, and ideological conformity. The Buckeye state’s flagship university has a chance to reverse that trend and right the ship, but it must act with purpose and urgency. If OSU takes these findings seriously, it can be a model for free expression and intellectual diversity on campus and truly educate for citizenry.”

“Our survey suggests that the OSU administration needs to do more to encourage free expression and intellectual diversity on campus,” stated ACTA’s Paul & Karen Levy Fellow in Campus Freedom, Dr. Steven McGuire. “Too many students are self-censoring, and too many are willing to stop others from sharing their views. By surveying over 2,000 students, we heard from a significant number of self-identified conservative students, and it is clear that they experience a campus that is less friendly to them and their views compared to their liberal peers. OSU should seek to rectify this imbalance and make its campus more open to diverse viewpoints by implementing the recommendations in ACTA’s Gold Standard for Freedom of Expression.

The survey report can be found here.

MEDIA CONTACT: Gabrielle Anglin
EMAIL: ganglin@goacta.org
PHONE: (202) 798-5425

The post <strong>New Survey of OSU Students by ACTA Reveals Disturbing Trends in Self-Censorship on Campus</strong> appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

A recent College Pulse survey sponsored by Princetonians for Free Speech, an alumni group, found that 54% of Princeton University students believe they would feel uncomfortable disagreeing with the university or their department on a controversial topic. And when the respondents self-identify as Republican or Independent-leaning Republican, that figure rises to 79%. The Daily Princetonian’s recent survey of Princeton’s graduating seniors shows a steep political divide: 84% of students who identify as leftist/socialist feel comfortable sharing their views on campus as do 82% of those identifying as very liberal, but for Princeton seniors of libertarian outlook, that figure drops to about 13%; for the very conservative, the figure is 21%. It is no surprise that 45% of Princeton’s graduating seniors say their college years moved them more to the left; only 17% report a move to the right. Going back to the Princeton alumni survey, 41% of the total student body believes that some faculty and administrators attempt to indoctrinate students with their own beliefs.

“They cause desolation and call it peace,” wrote Roman historian Tacitus 20 centuries ago. And in a statement that could be at home in Potemkin Village, Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber recently wrote, “We have civil discourse on this campus.”

No. Even acknowledging that such surveys rely on self-reporting, that last finding would have horrified the distinguished philosophers John Dewey and Arthur Lovejoy, who founded the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in 1915. The AAUP Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure reads, in part: “The university teacher, in giving instruction upon controversial matters, while he is under no obligation to hide his own opinion under a mountain of equivocal verbiage, should, if he is fit for his position, be a person of a fair and judicial mind; he should, in dealing with such subjects, set forth justly, without suppression or innuendo, the divergent opinions of other investigators.” That needs to be written on the wall of every faculty and administrative office.

The findings from surveys at two flagship public universities, The Ohio State University (OSU) and the University of Wisconsin (UW)–Madison, the former as part of the Campus Freedom Initiative of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, and the latter initiated by the University of Wisconsin System, suggest that the free exchange of ideas is limited on those campuses, too. At OSU, 50% of students reported self-censoring either occasionally, fairly often, or very often for fear of how other students, their professors, or their administration would respond. For students who self-identify as conservative, that figure rose to 76%. At UW–Madison, 53% of students reported some degree of self-censorship in class, and 35% said they feel pressure to agree with an instructor’s political or ideological viewpoint.

Like Princeton, the student bodies at OSU and UW–Madison lean significantly to the left/liberal, outnumbering conservatives 2:1 at OSU and 3:1 at Madison. Fifty-three percent of OSU students report having a small number of friends with a different political ideology, with 24% reporting none or at most one or two. At his inauguration in 1800, Thomas Jefferson famously declared, “We are all republicans, we are all federalists.” Based on the survey findings at these three major universities, that embrace of unity across political difference has not been a campus priority.

Illiberal behavior appears intertwined with the breakdown of political discourse. In the Princetonians for Free Speech survey, 40% of Princeton students favor barring an athlete from a school team for expressing views that teammates find offensive. Only 24% of the Princeton students would agree that it is never acceptable to shout down a speaker. Five percent say using violence to stop a speech is at least sometimes acceptable. OSU students are only marginally more hesitant about shouting down a speaker, with 32% declaring it always unacceptable. Forty-one percent of UW–Madison students believe that views they deem offensive cause significant harm to vulnerable people. Not surprisingly, 43% deem it right to disinvite speakers they find “offensive,” and, yet more extreme, 14% favor the disruption of such speeches, and 5% find forcing the speaker off the stage appropriate.

The causes of campus illiberalism are complex, but sometimes there are evident self-inflicted wounds that reinforce it. That quite a few Princetonians hold onto shout-downs and even violence in their toolbox of acceptable responses to viewpoints they do not want to hear should also occasion no surprise. The persecution and ultimate firing of Princeton Professor Joshua Katz after he raised objections to such measures as special privileges for faculty of color or a faculty panel to evaluate colleagues’ publications for signs of racism made clear that Princeton would punish those who strayed from campus orthodoxy. That President Eisgruber vilified Dr. Katz for his words and that an official university website places his essay in a context of minstrel shows is surely a signal to students and faculty that there are severe consequences for challenging campus shibboleths. Civil discourse beyond the anodyne will take more than wishful presidential assertions.

In his powerful concurrence in the 1927 Whitney vs. California decision, Justice Louis Brandeis argued: “Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties . . . They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; . . . that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty.” It would be the worst of ironies for universities to fail to be the cradle of citizens who would take up the duty of discussion and debate.

This article originally appeared in Forbes.

The post Are The Kids At Princeton—and Ohio State And UW–Madison Really OK? appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

The post ACTA Letter to University of Pittsburgh Board of Trustees Regarding Transgenderism appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

The EHLI already included a plan to provide “financial rewards for finding/reporting” the use of such language. At a recent faculty senate meeting, Juan Santiago drew attention to another bureaucratic invention at Stanford, the Protected Identity Harm (PIH) Reporting system. It allows anyone to report anonymously any incident that “adversely and unfairly targets an individual or group on the basis of one or more . . . actual or perceived characteristics,” including “race,” “sex,” “disability,” “gender identity or expression,” and other categories. The website says the process exists to address “situations involving real or perceived incidents” and even encourages students to report incidents that “may involve constitutionally protected speech.”

Stanford claims that the PIH is “not a judicial or investigative process,” but don’t count on it. Maybe the alleged offender is merely pressured into “a path to resolution,” which can include, among other options, “mediated conversation,” “indigenous circle practices,” or an “outdoor/nature based healing experience.” A complaint could also lead to an investigation, since “a matter involving conduct that rises to the level of a hate crime or unlawful discrimination or harassment may be referred to law enforcement or another appropriate process on campus.” It is difficult to believe that any student (or faculty member) notified of a complaint through this system would not feel that he or she is being investigated.

In private communications, several Stanford faculty members expressed concerns about the impact of the PIH on teaching and learning at the university. Stephen Haber, who has won multiple teaching awards, said the fundamental problem is that it “erodes trust” when “universities function on the basis of trust.” Faculty and students must be free to experiment with new ideas, he explained, but the rational response to a system such as the PIH is to avoid saying anything that someone might report.

Iván Marinovic agreed that the PIH “creates a chilling effect in the classroom where people feel permanently observed and morally judged.” He added that the reporting system “promotes the lowest tendencies of human beings” because it “provides a low-cost tool for cowardly and resentful people to attack their (ideological) opponents’ reputation behind their backs.”

Adding to the looming threat of the PIH, Santiago also noted in his presentation that it relies on an external vendor, “who collects the information.” A quick look at the PIH form reveals that the reporting system uses student-conduct software produced by Maxient, which, according to the company’s website, is used by over 1,300 colleges and universities, including the University of Florida, MIT, and Ohio State University, to give just a few examples.

Blending beneficence and discipline like the World State in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, Maxient’s website tells prospective users that its “Conduct Manager has you covered for all things related to a student’s conduct and well-being.” It can be used to store and track all sorts of student information, including some that is useful and benign, but also some — such as anonymous bias complaints filed through reporting systems like Stanford’s PIH — that can create a sense of fear and mutual suspicion on campus that undermines the free exchange of ideas.

There are clearly privacy and security issues that arise from using third-party software to collect and store sensitive data (Maxient was hacked by a competitor several years ago). Worse than that, however, is that the software is designed to help bureaucrats monitor and discipline students for conduct violations in a system that favors complainants over respondents.

As Marybeth Sydor, a Title IX and Higher Education consultant with Nesenoff and Miltenberg, observed, several elements of the reporting form are prejudiced against respondents. The very fact that “Stanford specifically named their Maxient reporting ‘Protected Identity’ and not ‘Anonymous,’ as other schools do” is an indication of this. She also noted that “the Stanford form repeatedly uses the word ‘targeted’ to describe the alleged behavior, indicating a prejudicial presumption of intent by the accused.”

Most students are probably not even aware that their schools are using Maxient or other software to keep detailed files on them that can include notes on their behavior. When they do become aware, it is unclear how much of the information in their files they can access. Sydor said that “schools rarely provide Maxient reports to accused students,” and added that “most schools allow students to ‘view’ their educational files but not necessarily receive a hard copy of the entire file.”

An anonymous source familiar with the use of Maxient at Stanford and elsewhere reports witnessing at another institution “a situation when the Title IX disciplinary person started to refer to past reports,” and when the student asked to see them, he “was told that information is confidential and he is not allowed to see it.” Asked about this, attorney Raul Jauregui, who works on Title IX cases, said, “Definitely this has happened to me during conversations with Title IX investigators and directors.”

Student-conduct officers can use the files, including complaints students do not even know about, as well as ones for which they are found not responsible, to establish patterns of behavior that can be used against them. Sydor noted that, “Stanford also states on the form that ‘This process was set-up to collect data’ which we know can be misinterpreted to create a pattern.” The anonymous source reported that, “If a student is accused of anything, the records are typically pulled up and then used in initial meetings with the student, in assembling a case for discipline and prosecution including Title IX but other disciplinary matters as well, and may often then even be brought to the hearing officers or hearing panels for the prosecutors to show this is a pattern and practice by the accused student.” Jauregui explained that student-conduct officers will do this to discourage respondents from defending themselves: “They try to discreetly mention that there is a pattern so you better just give up now before a hearing.”

The information collected might also be reviewed when students apply for housing, resident-assistant positions, or other perks or jobs at their university, the anonymous source also suggested. Asked if he had ever seen something like this, Jauregui responded, “Yes. All the time. I’ve seen it go as far as the TIX office forcing students to resign from jobs that are at employers not owned by but certainly doing business with the school.”

Student-conduct investigations often fail to meet reasonable standards of due process. The anonymous source gave another example of how the way the software is used can prejudice this issue. This person had experiences in which “correspondence from the Title IX office and the relevant deputy dean was always being copied to Maxient, but when the student and his lawyer asked that their material also go to Maxient, they were told that only university people can make entries.” As a result, “accusatory information, whether correct or false, makes it into a student’s files but the exculpatory information often does not.”

Jauregui backed this up as well. Asked if it has happened to him, he again responded, “Yes. All the time. Either denied or they sort of forget for some reason to add it.” He went on to recount a case in which he found a “massive flaw in the complaint” and told the Title IX office about it. “Yet all the record of that, which we provided, has for some reason been left out of the report. We can respond to the report and add it, but still. . . .”

Maxient’s software, which is made by bureaucrats for bureaucrats, is designed to serve the interests of the administrators who use it. “Under investigation?” the website asks. “Let us help you compile data. Our team works tirelessly to make you look good and your processes run smoothly.” It is not speaking to the students who will find themselves subjected to unfair investigations for issues ranging from Title IX violations to saying the wrong thing on the quad.

Maxient can also be used to produce reports on the incidents it tracks. Stanford notes that “a record of PIH reports will be maintained and analyzed by the Office of Inclusion, Community and Integrative Learning” and that “data will be carefully evaluated to provide a deeper understanding of the campus climate regarding diversity, intolerance and free expression, so that appropriate educational tools for students, faculty and staff can be created.”

But there is another possible use for these data. As the anonymous source observed, “There’s a direct or indirect incentive to increase the number of concerns and/or complaints on file: It helps justify current budgets and proposed increases in budgets, and it helps the schools tell the media, advocates and others that the school is being very diligent with alleged sexual assaults, etc.” Jauregui observed that, “The biggest exacerbator of unfairness in student conduct management is the very clear career advantage that a strong student conduct record provides the employee who otherwise has no reason to be promoted. Maxient just makes it easier for them to maintain and memorialize their goals.” In short, bureaucrats can use this software to justify and expand their roles while encouraging behavior that damages the main activities of the university.

Russell Berman, who also expressed concern about the “solicitation of anonymous denunciation” via the PIH, raised the issue of bureaucratic rule at Stanford in the same recent faculty senate meeting at which Juan Santiago presented. Berman said that the creators of the EHLI (none of whom were faculty members) have “no appreciation for academic values” and argued that restoring academic freedom at Stanford depends on “asserting faculty oversight in a university run solely by administrators.”

Students are also concerned about bureaucratic rule at Stanford. Julia Steinberg, a Stanford sophomore, does not believe that most Stanford attendees know about the PIH, and even fewer are invested in using it. But, in a recent article about two students who were reported for posting a photograph of one of them reading Mein Kampf, she said that the incident “reveals how fast the Stanford community will jump on the censorship train in the name of fighting oppression.” She explained that among students there is a “general mood of lack of faith in the administration.” Mentioning the “war on social life” as another example, she agreed that there is a problem of “over-bureaucratization of the university.”

If the faculty and students at Stanford want to restore campus freedom, they will have to fight against an army of bureaucrats who not only do not understand or care about the principles of the academic enterprise but also have entrenched interests that work against it. Perhaps a few others will come forward to help expose the corruption. They could start by asking to see their files.

This was posted on National Review on February, 24 2023.

The post Stanford University’s Pernicious Snitching Apparatus appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Download a transcript of the podcast HERE.
Note: Please check any quotations against the audio recording.

The post Lauren Noble: Strengthening Genuine Intellectual Diversity appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.