Our head politician wants to use political leverage to fix higher education’s semi-censorship problem. Universities should be ashamed that it has come to this — those universities, at least, that do not have healthy free-speech cultures.
Of course politicians already use their power — financial threats and regulatory compulsion — to make universities do what they want. That politicization of education is part of the ongoing struggle between two competing ideals: (a) universities as autonomous, self-regulating institutions, and (b) universities as a branch of the administrative state.
So I say again what I said in 2017 when similar proposals were floated.
Should politicians force diversity at universities?
By diversity I mean the intellectual kind. Numerous surveys (e.g., here and here) show that university faculties lean left, often far left in humanities departments.
A purely democratic argument says Yes, politicians should force diversity. Government-funded universities are paid for with tax monies, and in a democracy politicians are responsible to their constituents to ensure that their funds are spent appropriately. But biased faculties cannot deliver quality education, especially on important controversial issues about which students need to hear and weigh all sides of the arguments. Therefore, it is democratically appropriate that politicians either withdraw government funding or intervene to mandate intellectual diversity and balanced presentation.
The other side of the argument says No, even state universities should be self-governing institutions free of political pressure. The ideal of liberal education holds that knowledge seeking and transfer require intellectual freedom to pursue politically unpopular lines of thought in research, publication, and in the classroom. But governments are institutions of compulsion, and any thought policing by politicians must be rejected vigorously in the name of academic freedom. So government-funded universities should not be seen in purely democratic terms but — true to their medieval roots — more in feudal terms, as part of an overall political structure but with special privileges and rights not necessarily granted to other sectors.
But what if the universities — or significant portions of them — become captured by professors, administrators, and/or student groups actively opposed to liberal education? That is, what if they willfully engage in biased teaching or even indoctrination? What if they suppress the academic freedom of those they disagree with? What if they tolerate the use of physical threats or engage in acts of compulsion against dissenters and intellectual minorities? If the case for academic freedom is part of the ideal of liberal education, but a university rejects or subverts liberal education, then the politicians who fund the government universities face a dilemma.
Politicians must then choose either (1) to fail in their responsibilities to taxpayers by continuing to spend their money on educationally irresponsible institutions, or (2) to use their political power to interfere with or override the self-governance of universities. The dilemma is worsened by the government’s being an institution of compulsion: it either uses compulsion to get people to pay their taxes to fund the universities, or it uses compulsion to force the universities to reform (or it does both).
The tension between liberal education on compulsory funding thus becomes explicit.
If politicians choose the route of imposing reforms on the state universities, they have a number of sub-options:
* Eliminate tenure in order to speed up the process of replacing faculty.
* In the hiring of new faculty, require a kind of affirmative action for under-represented perspectives.
* Threaten to or actually withdraw funds unless specific politically-decided reform targets are met.
* Tie political funding to demonstrated educational responsibility, including ideological balance, but leave it up to the universities how they will achieve that.
But history shows that politicians’ controlling education is a worse outcome. In politically authoritarian societies, uniformity and fear replace independent thinking and debate. And in politically democratic societies, political control means that education becomes a football kicked back and forth across the field depending on who won the last election.
Preserving the autonomy of universities should therefore be the priority. And that means that the needed diversity reforms have to be effected by other interest groups that care about education — students, administrators, boards of trustees, donors, accrediting agencies, media, and, perhaps most importantly, those faculty who are genuinely committed to liberal education.
Despite the worrying current trends, there is also encouraging evidence that the pushback against intellectual intolerance has momentum:
* Students marching with their feet to avoid the most politicized universities, e.g, the significantly declining enrollment at University of Missouri in response to out-of-control events the previous year.
* Donors who withhold their much-needed funds when educational bias increases, as the examples of Amherst, Yale, and other institutions show.
* Reporting by widely read publications such as The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Education to highlight the seriousness of the problems.
* National and international groups of professors joining with other professors to reinvigorate the ideal of genuine knowledge-seeking and liberal education.
There’s no obvious answer to the question of which side will prevail — liberalism versus authoritarianism is an age-old, multi-front battle. But when there is still hope that the universities can heal themselves, precedence should be given to the principle of keeping separate the spheres of intellectual freedom and political compulsion.
* * *
[First published in 2017 at The Right Insight.]
Assuming universities are taking money from taxpayers those universities have a responsibility to represent whomever is paying the bill. If that means taking a balanced approach and engaging in a diversity of thought and encouraging free and open discussion then so be it. If however an institution believes this is an infringement of their academic freedom then let them not accept any taxpayer funds and support their work solely by tuition.
Thank you, Stephen. This may be right, but I’d like to present a different view.
If preserving the autonomy of our universities should be the priority so that other interest groups can determine their course, it might be argued that the government should withdraw funding to fully expose universities to various kinds of market forces.
When the government offers unconditional funding to universities, it appears to empower administrators—not faculty, parents, and other interested parties—to determine outcomes.
Unconditional funding insulates administrators from those market forces that might set it on another course.
It appears to increase the autonomy of administrators and reduce the autonomy of other stakeholders, including faculty and students, whose autonomy might be prioritized above all else.
Also, I believe there were implicit and explicit social contracts involved with this funding, that it was never unconditional, so politicians and citizens need to evaluate whether continued funding is in their interests.
But withdrawing funding is not my preference, so I’d like to suggest that liberal political control, despite the vagaries of democracy, is preferable to either defunding or a more anarchical approach.
I have in mind these words from John Stuart Mill:
“Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.”
https://goo.gl/eJdfcP
We don’t have too much to fear from the government when it comes to free speech yet, but increasingly we are exposed to a civil authoritarianism that limits legitimate forms of speech with various kinds of threats and punishments.
Our situation is perhaps worse than Mill imagined as this university-borne illiberalism has as its ultimate goal control of the government, and it has already begun to realize this goal in some cases.
So it seems we are left with Karl Popper’s “paradox of tolerance,” which suggests liberal political control to stem the tide of intolerance.