3 Ways That Colleges Suppress a Diversity of Viewpoints

John W. Tomac for The Chronicle

As colleges adopt an ever-growing array of diversity programs, one form is still in woefully short supply, with little effort being directed toward a remedy: diversity of viewpoints. The lack of an array of freely voiced perspectives on social and political issues is buttressed by a strict set of largely unwritten rules constraining the opinions that can be expressed on campuses, the research that can be performed, the discussions that can be held.

Complaints of “political correctness” in academe go back decades. But recently the dynamic has changed: Social media are increasingly employed as a tool both for direct censorship and for strengthening the pressures to self-censor, significantly narrowing the range of permissible academic discourse.

The problem, of course, is not the very existence of social media, but rather that when pressured by social-media mobs (or in-person mobs convened by social media), colleges and academic journals often fail to practice what they preach: Academic freedom exists and needs protection precisely because there are opinions that can both generate offense and have value. This does not mean that all offensive ideas have value. But it does mean that the value of an idea cannot be judged solely on the basis of whether it offends.

What are some of the features of the sociopolitical lens that circumscribes academic discourse?

1. The belief that disparate outcomes across groups can be due only to discrimination, a view that is pervasive in the social sciences in particular. This closes the door to discussions of whether factors such as preferences or (with respect to gender) biology may play a role. Examples of this include the 2017 decisions of two mathematics journals to backtrack after initially accepting a paper on the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis, which asserts that men are overrepresented both among geniuses and among people of very low intelligence.

We emphasize that we are not advocates of the hypothesis; we believe that the distribution of genius is uncorrelated with gender (or race, etc.). But we also believe that the best way to strengthen and win an argument is to defeat the counterarguments through rebuttal as opposed to rescinding an accepted paper.

Another consequence of this belief is that it has become perilous to praise the concept of meritocracy, because meritocracy is deemed an unachievable myth in light of persistent prejudices in American society. A few years ago, the University of California system published a document on microaggressions. In a section titled “Myth of Meritocracy,” one of the supposedly offensive remarks listed was “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.” That statement, according to the document, is a “snub” or an “insult.”

2. An insistence on the primacy of identity, which is most often invoked through race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity. This view highlights shared characteristics and experiences within identity groups, reducing opportunities to explore commonalities across groups. It is reflected in, among other examples, identity-group-focused student housing, student orientations, and commencement ceremonies. This also makes it difficult to offer a well-meaning critique of a proposed new identity-focused diversity program without being accused of harboring bias, which is probably why such programs have mushroomed in recent years.

3. A tendency to view the world in terms of absolute good and bad, exacerbating both a false sense of truth and feelings of virtue. When the world is divided this way, praise and condemnation are mutually exclusive, with no room to acknowledge the possibility that sometimes both are merited.

This explains why, for instance, it is becoming unacceptable on campuses to say that the country’s founders were both visionary (for enshrining the freedoms of speech, religion, the press, and more in the Constitution) and terribly flawed (for their participation in slavery and other grievous wrongs).

With this mind-set, the sins of the founders preclude finding inspiration in anything else they did or said. As a result, even though Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia, he can no longer be quoted there without controversy.

The much-discussed issue of free expression on campus is a direct consequence of this sociopolitical lens. In fact, limitations on freedom of expression are a means through which the rules of the lens are reinforced. The mechanisms vary. In some cases, it is through speaker shoutdowns or disinvitations, typically spurred by social-media campaigns, and sometimes motivated by misconceptions regarding the scope of protection provided by the First Amendment.

In other cases, it is through administrators who — after coming under social-media pressure — become passive enablers or even active supporters of attempts to suppress expression on their campuses. Sometimes it occurs through faculty members who declare, “I believe in freedom of expression, but …" and then add yet another caveat to a rapidly growing list.

More subtly, enforcement occurs through self-censorship. A 2017 survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found that 54 percent of student respondents have curtailed their own expression in class.

What can be done to improve tolerance of a broader range of perspectives in higher education? We don’t claim to have all the answers, but one component of the solution is through teaching. One of us (Akresh) will offer a new viewpoint-diversity course at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign this spring called “Bigots and Snowflakes: Living in a World Where Everyone Else Is Wrong.” The course will include readings from across the political spectrum and introduce students to the value of examining multiple perspectives, exploring nuance, questioning assumptions, and thinking critically in all aspects of their education and elsewhere. Perhaps courses like this can be part of a growing effort to challenge the climate that limits debate in contemporary academe as well as, increasingly, in Silicon Valley and beyond.

In the long run, however, it will take more than a few courses. We need college faculties that are diverse racially, ethnically, religiously, and in terms of gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and the viewpoints they bring to their research, teaching, and engagement with their communities.