Government intervention is not the solution (opinion)

I'm tired of this repetitive drama. The president of a prestigious university is summoned to Congress and faces intense, politically motivated questioning from lawmakers. They respond to accusations that the venerable school, one of the best in the world, has fallen prey to an ideological takeover and that its corruption is so severe that it can no longer fulfill its mission of teaching, learning and disseminating truth. I am forced to do that. Such corrosion and corruption requires government intervention.

However, this scene unfolds differently from the loop of destruction that we seem to be experiencing today. In the face of government restrictions on what is said and taught in universities, this university leader articulates a time-tested truth: “Policies of ideological suppression do not work, and never have worked. Their replacement is the long and difficult path of education.”

So is the testimony of Robert M. Hutchins, president of the University of Chicago, in 1949, at the beginning of the McCarthy era, when many people, including Harvard professor Helen Wendler Markham and academics like Christopher, argued against communism and the state. He was suspected of being unfaithful to. Director Nolan recently reminded me of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Currently, a frontal attack on higher education alleges rampant anti-Semitism and the failure of current diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. The question behind the modern Inquisition remains the same: Will active state and federal intervention destroy the efforts that were supposed to save higher education?

It is true that some of the ways DEI initiatives are implemented on campuses undermine free inquiry. Despite good intentions, it has prevented a legitimate set of perspectives and opinions that a truly diverse academic community should respect. But just as in times of anti-Red paranoia, the government itself has suppressed intellectual diversity, intimidated higher education leaders, and institutions dedicated to the search for truth and knowledge should be held sacred. We should refrain from cooling down various ideas and discourses. The much-needed solutions to the problems that stifle the speech of certain his DEI initiatives do not exist in Congress or the state legislature, but on campuses themselves.

Anti-Semitism and its sibling, Islamophobia, are currently serious problems on college campuses. Integrating the values ​​of diversity and inclusion in a way that strengthens higher education's core knowledge-based mission is also a serious challenge. Both concerns are directly related to the first practical principles of serious academic enterprise: free inquiry and expression, and they deserve a careful and nuanced approach if we are to respond successfully to this moment.

While last week's congressional hearing focused on anti-Semitism at Columbia University, the state Legislature's proposal primarily targets DEI. The scope is staggering: 84 bills have been introduced in 28 states and the U.S. Congress since the beginning of last year. Twelve were passed in Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. A key force in making this happen is the Manhattan Institute, which has announced plans to eliminate the DEI office and staff, eliminate mandatory DEI training and diversity statements, and eliminate identity-based admissions. and developed a smart model bill focused on repealing hiring priorities. This strategy is carefully different from Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' “stop-wake” action, which directly violates faculty members' free speech rights and is a naked frontal assault on academic freedom.

This approach has so far failed, blocked by a district court injunction in November 2022. Judge Mark E. Walker issued an unrelenting order, citing a George Orwell decision. 1984 He then pointed out the absurdity of DeSantis' patent position. “Defendants claim that under this law, professors enjoy 'academic freedom' as long as they express only state-approved views. This is definitely a dystopia.”

The conservative truism that state regulation does more harm than good has somehow become offensive to many on the political right. Until recently, Robert Zimmer, the last president of the University of Chicago, was clear on this point. Opposing former President Trump's then-anticipated 2019 executive order regarding free speech on campus, he spoke out in advance testimony before the U.S. Senate about campus speech policies and the inevitable government bureaucracy. He warned of the dangers of setting a precedent that would give the state the role of regulating. That continues. This bureaucracy regarding campus speech is at least as harmful to opposing views as university speech committees, and perhaps even more so as an instrument of official government. That leads directly to the Orwellian situation Judge Walker clearly saw.

Similarly, the irony is rich if the drive to create a more inclusive campus environment leads to policies and practices that effectively squelch diversity and discourage open inquiry. Beyond speech that is not legally protected, such as inciting imminent violence or harassment, or meeting legal standards for creating a hostile environment, expressions that require a job applicant diversity statement or It must not be forced by demands, restricted by speech codes, or discouraged. Promote academic debate by discouraging the use of terms deemed harmful.

When teachers morally disapprove of terms that seem completely harmless to 99.9 percent of Americans and explicitly abhor the use of such terms, they deny the free and open discussion that should flourish in the classroom. will be suppressed. As these practices become more prevalent, they foster a campus culture that is strange and virtually unrecognizable to everyday American experience, further alienating higher education. Examples of overreach that I personally encountered included deterrent terms such as “poor,” “blind spot,” “landlord,” and “American.” Renowned political philosopher Daniel Allen correctly states that “DEI bureaucracies are responsible for many attacks on common sense.”

But Allen is also correct that these observations in no way erode the need for diversity and inclusion as fundamental values ​​for educational institutions. The robust inclusion of diverse perspectives, in an environment where all are encouraged and prepared to participate, is a key factor in facilitating the decision-making of good and bad ideas, and a great university… This issue is at the heart of our mission. However, this problem is not one that the state can solve. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of higher education leaders to uphold the true principles of free inquiry and expression. This would reduce the temptation of government overreach. That is the higher principle on which we must rely.

oscar award winning movies oppenheimer It depicts the fundamental tragedy of Robert J. Oppenheimer's life. Therein lies the sad reality that he was unable to successfully appeal to any higher principles during his testimony before the Atomic Energy Commission. It is worth asking leaders of top universities why Hutchins succeeded while we are currently failing. The University of Chicago was not taken over by communist ideology and was not exposed to government encroachment. Hutchins held his ground to the principles of free and open inquiry, principles that are at the core of what higher education is and should remain. It's worth fighting for. OK?