The essential ingredient in “freedom” is choice. Slaves lacked freedom since they had no choice of for whom they worked. East Berliners prior to 1989 lacked the freedom of their countrymen to the west of the Berlin Wall because they could not move freely. The destruction of that wall in November 1989 was perhaps the single most symbolic action promoting freedom in the 20th century.
Academic freedom, to me, involves giving people choices regarding ideas and values: People can migrate to the professors, disciplines, schools, and the like that they prefer, and, ideally, savor alternative viewpoints and reach their own conclusions about right and wrong, facts and fiction, etc. As applied in academia, academic freedom allows faculty to offer alternative views to conventional wisdom, ending monopolies on ideas.
Universities in the old Soviet Union were largely mediocre because competition in the market of ideas was lacking. Many say the strength in American higher education lies in its diversity—different types of institutions for different human preferences. Students attending Reed College in Oregon are different than those attending Hillsdale College, or Brigham Young or Notre Dame, but all offer legitimate choices.
One big problem, however, is that in the social sciences and humanities, where ideas (as opposed to the dissemination of vocationally related knowledge) flourish, American academics are surprisingly homogenous in their thinking. Daniel Klein and colleagues have demonstrated countless times that the ratio of Democrats to Republicans, for example, is extremely lopsided—as high as 30 to 1 in anthropology departments—and 3 to 1 in the most conservative of the social sciences, economics. At many schools, the perspective that market forces work to better humankind and that government policies often have adverse unintended consequences, is often seldom presented to students. These students have few true choices, and thus are robbed of some academic/intellectual freedom.
Enter the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. When it started years ago to give money to support conservative/libertarian scholars at American universities, I was overjoyed. They were trying to reduce this lack of intellectual diversity, to allow students to hear truly different perspectives, thus making universities and colleges more vibrant marketplaces of ideas.
Now a huge brouhaha has broken out at Florida State. The economics department there took a good hunk of money from Koch to hire a couple of assistant professors, but the conditions of the grant gave Koch some means of assuring that donor intent was being met. I think the restrictions are reasonable. The faculty picks who fills the slots, but an advisory committee with a Koch representative will have veto power over appointments that clearly fail to meet donor intent.
Florida State is a better place because of these appointments. FSU sources tell me that these positions were designed to strengthen their already-strong standing in such fields as public choice and experimental economics. Students have more choices as to courses and instructors they take. Bruce Benson, department chair, is quoted as saying the department had a hard-core conservative wing of about 20 percent of the faculty. In theory, these appointments could have increased that to about 25 percent. No big deal, but from what FSU sources tell me, not even that has happened.
Why the fuss? I strongly suspect that persons on the political left were worried that their large dominance as the conveyor of ideas at FSU was being threatened. I also suspect that this is being used by ideologically intolerant individuals to attack a group that is trying to reduce the lack of academic freedom caused by the left-dominated nature of American academia.
But above all, this is about donor intent. If a group of Catholics wants to start a college promoting Catholic perspectives and views, we accept that. If a group wants to create a college that excludes students on certain biological characteristics (their gender), we accept that. If the Sierra Club wants to create a chair in environmental economics at FSU with similar conditions to those the Koch Foundation placed, we would almost certainly accept that. It is almost always when conservatives want to do the same thing that those wanting to maintain a monopoly on ideas scream about academic freedom and faculty rights. Koch wants to promote libertarian ideas, just as others wish to promote progressive ones (including many of the larger charitable foundations). Koch has the right to see that its intent is honored. Not only is this intent legitimate, I think it is one that strengthens higher education.
One final note: I have enormous respect for the FSU econ department, and hire their graduates and send my own students there. One is now on a Koch Fellowship. Arguably the most senior faculty member, Jim Gwartney, is not only a great economist but one of the most honorable men of integrity I have ever known. David Rasmussen, the dean (and no conservative) is a man of good will. The attacks on some of these persons have been despicable, and strengthen my belief that the Koch Foundation (from whom I am receiving no money) is serving the nation well.
