Aaup Publication Makes Case Against Intellectual Diversity

We previously discussed how the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) elected an outspoken activist as its president. The selection of Todd Wolfson, a Rutgers University anthropologist, was viewed by many as the AAUP doubling down on support for academic activism and opposition to intellectual diversity. Now the leading AAUP publication, Academe, has run ‘Seven Theses Against Viewpoint Diversity.’ Written by Lisa Siraganian, the J. R. Herbert Boone Chair in Humanities and professor at Johns Hopkins University, the essay repeats the tired rationalizations of faculty members to excuse their purging of schools of dissenting and largely conservative or libertarian voices.

In my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss these arguments to justify the current levels of intolerance and orthodoxy in higher education. Siraganian’s essay is particularly transparent in the effort to dismiss opposing views without seriously addressing the range of objections to the current state of academia. 

Siraganian focuses on the effort of the Trump Administration to force universities to restore greater diversity in faculty hiring and teaching. I opposed some of those efforts. While I agree with the need for such changes on faculties (and do not believe that faculty members like Siraganian will ever embrace diversity of thought), I do not like the government dictating such changes.

For liberals, it is impossible to deny the purging of faculties to create an academic echo chamber.

I discuss the intolerance in higher education and surveys showing that many departments no longer have a single Republican as faculty members replicate their own views and values.

That ideological echo chamber is hardly an enticement for many who are facing rising high tuition costs with relatively little hope of being taught by faculty with opposing views.

There are obviously many reasons why faculty may reject Trump specifically, but this poll also tracks more generally the self-identification and contributions of faculty.

A Georgetown study recently found that only nine percent of law school professors identify as conservative at the top 50 law schools — almost identical to the percentage of Trump voters found in the new poll.

Notably, Roth acknowledged that the current lack of intellectual diversity in higher education had become so extreme that there might be a need for “an affirmative action program for conservatives.”

However, he and others continue to saw feverishly at the branch upon which we all sit in higher education, calling for even greater political advocacy.

There is little evidence that faculty members are interested in changing this culture or creating greater diversity at schools.  In places like North Carolina State University a study found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans 20 to 1.

Not long ago, I had a debate at Harvard Law School with Professor Randall Kennedy on whether Harvard protects free speech and intellectual diversity.

Harvard has repeatedly found itself in a familiar spot on the annual ranking of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE): dead last among 251 universities and colleges.

Harvard has long dismissed calls for greater free speech protections or intellectual diversity. It shows.

The Harvard Crimson has documented how the school’s departments have virtually eliminated Republicans. In one study of multiple departments last year, they found that more than 75 percent of the faculty self-identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.”

Only  5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”

Consider that, according to Gallup, the U.S. population is roughly equally divided among conservatives (36%), moderates (35%), and liberals (26%).

So Harvard has three times the number of liberals as the nation at large, and less than three percent identify as “conservative’ rather than 35% nationally.

Among law school faculty who have donated more than $200 to a political party, a breathtaking 91 percent of the Harvard faculty gave to democrats.

The student body exhibits the same biased selection. Harvard Crimson previously found that only 7 percent of incoming students identified as conservative. For the vast majority of liberal faculty and students, Harvard amplifies rather than stifles their viewpoints.

This does not happen randomly. Indeed, if a business reduced the number of women or minorities to less than 5 percent, a court would likely find de facto discrimination.

Yet, Kennedy rejected the notion that the elite school should strive to “look more like America.”

It is not just that schools like Harvard “do not look like America,” it does not even look like liberal Massachusetts, which is almost 30 percent Republican.

Our students are being educated by faculty taken from the same liberal elite of just 26 percent of our nation. I have never argued for the hiring of Republicans or the imposition of a partisan quota. Rather, the surveys and self-identification of faculty are one of the few objective means to show how lopsided the ideological balance has become in our schools.

Some sites like Above the Law have supported the exclusion of conservative faculty.  Senior Editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” by arguing that hiring a conservative law professor is akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism to teach at a university.

Unable to deny this ideological cleansing of departments, faculty are creating a rationalization for their ideological bias. They declare opposing views as “dangerous” or intellectually lazy.

Notably, Siraganian argues that intellectual diversity can only be defended on “instrumental” grounds. My book criticized “functionalist” or instrumental arguments as rejecting core free speech values based on natural or autonomous values. Adopting functionalist models allows for endless trade-offs in speech.

The same is true for intellectual diversity. Intellectual diversity is not supported as a value in itself but only to the extent that it advances what faculty like Siraganian view as the truth or valid conclusions. Even if one were to confine support for intellectual diversity to its instrumental values, these advocates downplay the value of ideological diversity as key to any institution of higher education.  She dismisses such claims, saying that “the pursuit of truth and the value of different opinions—do not work together seamlessly.”

The result, however, is the virtual jettisoning of real diversity. Higher education is currently “seamless” in running from the left to the far left.

I have spoken with various university presidents who privately admit that they want greater intellectual diversity but that departments refuse to make serious efforts to restore such balance. The AAUP and Siraganian are examples of why faculty members will not willingly diversify their ranks. They are now rationalizing their bias and intolerance through righteous rationalizations, claiming they are simply protecting students from harmful or subpar ideas.

Polling indicates that trust in higher education has hit a record low among the public. More importantly, numerous surveys consistently show that the intolerance of faculty members and the lack of diversity have chilled students, who are afraid to share their views in classrooms or on campuses.

Notably, many of these universities have overwhelmingly liberal faculties and student bodies; however, over 90 percent of students in some schools no longer feel comfortable speaking freely in classrooms. At Harvard, only a third of students feel comfortable speaking freely.

The current generation of faculty and administrators has destroyed higher education by destroying diversity of thought and free speech on our campuses. The effort of the AAUP and faculty like Siraganian to rationalize the basis for this intolerance is evidence of the hold of such bias. Faculty members would prefer to allow higher education to plunge to even lower levels of trust and applications than to allow for greater diversity in their departments.

Once again, we cannot rely on faculty members to restore balance. We will need to focus on donors (as well as public-funding legislative bodies) to withhold money from these departments. Universities will not allow for opposing or dissenting views unless they have little financial choice. In this sense, we need to focus on public universities as the best ground to fight for diversity of thought. These schools, directly subject to First Amendment protections, can offer an alternative to schools like Johns Hopkins and Harvard for those who want to learn in a more diverse environment.