More than three in five students (63%) expressed worry about damaging their reputation because of someone misunderstanding what they have said or done, and just over one in five (21%) reported that they feel a lot of pressure to avoid discussing controversial topics in their classes.
Twenty-two percent reported that they often self-censor.
Roughly three in five students reported they would feel discomfort publicly disagreeing with a professor about a controversial topic or expressing an unpopular opinion to their peers on a social media account tied to their name.
At this link, you can download FIRE's brand new report.
The Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA) today released a statement urging institutions of higher education to desist from demanding “diversity statements” as conditions of employment or promotion. The AFA’s statement responds to the rising trend of academic institutions requiring members or prospective members of faculties to sign pledges or make statements committing themselves to advance “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) or to detail the ways in which they have done or will do so.
“Academics seeking employment or promotion will almost inescapably feel pressured to say things that accommodate the perceived ideological preferences of an institution demanding a diversity statement, notwithstanding the actual beliefs or commitments of those forced to speak” said Janet Halley, co-chair of the AFA Academic Committee and Eli Goldston Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.*
Today’s statement, which is available in its entirety here, further warns, “This scenario is inimical to fundamental values that should govern academic life. The demand for diversity statements enlists academics into a political movement, erasing the distinction between academic expertise and ideological conformity. It encourages cynicism and dishonesty.”
Regarding the AFA’s statement, Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University*, said, “The danger that mandatory DEI statements would function as ideological loyalty oaths worried academic freedom advocates and other civil libertarians from the start. Experience, far from diminishing that worry, has heightened it.”
“A legitimate debate exists regarding how to promote equal access to higher education, as well as ensure a diverse intellectual community of learners. When the very terms of discussion (e.g., equality, equity, color blind, and meritocracy) are contested concepts, to prevent diversity statements from being used as ideological litmus tests, universities should refrain from requiring DEI statements.” said Lucas Morel, co-chair of the AFA Academic Committee and John K. Boardman, Jr. Professor of Politics and Head of the Politics Department at Washington and Lee University.*
The AFA position dovetails well with Jonathan Haidt's analysis that universities must choose between truth or "social justice," not both:
Weiss, who cited the “illiberal environment” at the Times as reason for her departure from the paper two years ago, first told the story while interviewing Scott on a Wednesday episode of her podcast, Honestly With Bari Weiss. Weiss recalled:
Weiss: Here’s what happened. I was at the New York Times and you or your staff sent in an op-ed about the bill, and why it fell apart. And this is the part I’m not sure if you know — there was a discussion about the piece, and whether or not we should run it, and one colleague, a more senior colleague, said to a more junior colleague who was pushing for the piece, ‘Do you think the Republicans really care about minority rights?’
Scott: Wow.
Weiss: And the more junior colleague said, ‘I think Tim Scott cares about minority rights.’ And then — and here’s the pretty shocking part — the more senior colleague said, ‘Let’s check with Senator Schumer before we run it.’
Scott: Wow.
Weiss: And the colleague, the younger one, refused. Because he said — because that colleague said — it wasn’t an ethical thing to do.
Many Republicans believe that progressives are running Google or other big firms, and these executives are making censorship choices about how to elect more Democrats or foist health choices on the public. They do this, so goes the theory, even if it means making less money. While it's certainly the case that plenty of conservatives get knocked off big tech platforms, so do many others with all sorts of viewpoints (like pro-choice advocates marketing abortion pills on Instagram). More importantly, Google executives are heavily motivated by money, and they would vastly prefer not to have to deal with difficult censorship decisions that amount to which politically powerful customers to piss off.
What is really happening is that these firms are trying to monopolize a market, and then exploit their resulting power to generate cash. Only, in speech or cultural markets, fostering a monopoly means not only that you are able to extract profits. It also means, willingly or no, you become a powerful influence over speech. Large publishing houses choose who gets published and who doesn’t, and that confers significant power. The more dominant the publishing house, the more power. Search engines or social networks are vastly more concentrated, but a similar dynamic exists. Once you control society’s single search engine or social network, editorial choices, whichever direction they lead, help determine what is heard in the public square. So what these executives are doing isn’t trying to censor, but trying to ensure that they have market power in targeted advertising, search advertising or book sales. They simply end up as speech police, because that’s what it means when you build a monopoly that can determine who gets to be heard and who doesn’t.
So, you know, I, perhaps like many in the audience, have lost money. I was going to say investing in cryptocurrencies, but I'll just say gambling and speculating. And one of the things that's kind of fun about, it's just learning about the blockchain and decentralized finance and realizing that the technology makes it possible to have all kinds of things without anybody in charge.
Many have observed this began in 2015. So I co-founded Heterodox Academy with some other social scientists. Some of our members from Eastern Europe were saying, this is just like what we had in the communist countries: the fear of speaking up the witch trials, the purity spirals.
People ever since then have been using his metaphors like what's happening on campus, what's happening in the world is somehow like the totalitarian countries. But yet, there was no dictator. There was no totalitarian person or authority or office. I think what we have is you might call "De-Tot" It's decentralized totalitarianism. The difference between totalitarian and a dictator is that a dictator tells you what he wants, and he'll kill you if you don't do it. But totalitarianism means it gets into the totality of your life. "We're going to control how you raise your kids what to think the food you eat, the science, everything, control everything." That's very hard to do. It's only been tried a few times, certainly the Russians, the Chinese. Only a few countries have been tried to control everything of your life. And in a way this thing that we call wokeness has elements that are totalitarian, but there's no person. There's no authority. So what you have when everybody can record everybody, when everybody can shame everybody, you get human behavior reacting as if you were in a totalitarian country, but yet there's no totalitarian
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
