Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse Input for Davidson College Strategic Plan

on October 5, 2023, President Doug Hicks communicated to all Davidson College alumni information on the Strategic Plan process for Davidson that is now underway. The following letter includes recommendations made by Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse and was sent to the Strategic Plan Committees on October 30, 2023. We are hopeful that such recommendations will be taken into consideration as the plan is created and enacted.

Dear Davidson College Strategic Planning Committee Members:


We hope this letter finds you well, and that your strategic planning work is off to a good start. We, the Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse (DFTD), would like to take you up on your invitation to provide feedback on the strategic planning process currently underway. For those who don’t know, DFTD is an independent, 501(c)(3) association of Davidson alumni not affiliated with Davidson College, which partners directly with students and faculty to support a learning environment at Davidson College that is ideologically balanced and promotes a lively and constructive freedom of debate and deliberation.


We believe that the current challenges regarding free expression facing institutions of higher learning nationally are also manifest at Davidson. This core issue ought to be addressed head on. Our beliefs are grounded in data from Davidson students reported by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which routinely surveys college students nationally. This data can be found on our website dftdunite.org. Our aim is to improve and enhance the state of free expression on campus and support ideological diversity at the same time. We believe that these aims are compatible with and supportive of the stronger, healthier Davidson College that you are called to seek.


Considerations that we hope each Committee will include in its deliberations follow.


--

 

Learning for the Future


“The primary purpose of Davidson College is to assist students in developing humane instincts and disciplined and creative minds for lives of leadership and service.” We fully embrace this purpose and believe it should continue to be the guiding principle for the college. From our perspective, there are many struggles right now that students face as they develop their talented minds for leadership. According to the most recent FIRE survey data, 2/3 of Davidson College students feel uncomfortable publicly disagreeing with a professor on a controversial political topic. Like all things in life, good leadership requires practice. If most students feel uncomfortable taking a lead in the classroom and challenging a position that they disagree with, it stands to reason that they will struggle to lead in the board room, the hospital, the courthouse, or government in the future.


We believe that students learn from the behavior that is modeled for them. If students don’t see faculty engaging in regular, healthy, civil debates, they will have trouble engaging in that behavior themselves. Thus, we call upon this sub-committee to focus on hiring faculty whose dissident scholarship challenges the present-day consensus on topical issues, and to find individuals who will bring perspectives to the classroom that do not align with the apparent current majority of faculty.


Within the context of generative artificial intelligence, we believe that this focus on hiring more heterodox faculty will allow the Davidson College community to both maximally leverage new technology such as AI, while simultaneously insulating the college better from its possible threats. Heterodox faculty allow for use of tools such as this that operate outside of the current methods of analysis employed by most faculty members. These fresh, new perspectives would be beneficial to Davidson College.


We believe Davidson would benefit from having a first-class center—such as Princeton University’s James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions and UNC-Chapel Hill’s Program for Public Discourse—to promote solid research and dispassionate discourse unbounded by ideological blinkers. Such a center would help achieve the goal we propose for a more heterodox faculty, and funding for it could almost certainly be obtained from donors who have ceased giving to Davidson, out of disenchantment with the direction the College has taken in recent years. 


--



Discover Passions, Developing Purpose


We agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that “graduates must build the capacities to think critically and creatively, to express themselves in written, verbal, analog and digital ways, to collaborate in diverse groups, and to continue learning throughout their lives and careers.” Given that focus on expression, we are troubled by FIRE’s most recent (2023) finding that over half of Davidson students are uncomfortable engaging in a conversation about any controversial topic with their peers in a common space on campus. We believe that this fear of engagement will have spillover effects on the ways that students express themselves in written, verbal, analog, and digital ways.


We encourage the college to focus efforts on engaging external speakers and alumni of all backgrounds who have modeled exemplary leadership in expression. By intentionally focusing on, and including, external speakers and alumni of all political affiliations, ideologies, and worldviews, we believe that Davidson College students will be encouraged to speak their minds with their peers, and thereby develop and discover their passion and purpose. Without such modeling from speakers and alumni, students may feel isolated, lonely, and unsupported. 


This type of engagement work can also provide a material financial benefit to the college. Connecting and engaging distinguished alumni of all affiliations directly with students, and showcasing their good work and success, could likely lead to increased philanthropic support, which then in turn further supports and enhances the overall student experience. 


--


Building Public Good


The charge of making the world a more “compassionate, sustainable, and just” place is indeed a tall order for any graduate of any institution. With that said, we believe Davidson College can and should continue its record of leadership for improving the world we all inhabit. We would encourage this Committee to consider ways that the college can foster and support contrarian thinkers, while cultivating new scholarship that will solve pressing issues.


According to the most recent FIRE survey, roughly 2/3 of Davidson College students are worried about damaging their reputation because someone misunderstood something they said. This type of fear is unlikely to lead to prodctive conversations that generate new knowledge and insights. We believe that the college should focus on developing a culture where civil debate and discourse is not only welcome but celebrated. The recent development of the Davidson College Commitment to Freedom of Expression Statement, affirmed this year by both the faculty and Board of Trustees, is a strong step towards such a culture. A challenge for this strategic planning committee, we believe, is to map out, concretely, how the ideals of the Statement can be inculcated in practice throughout campus life. We suggest emphasis in New Student Orientation on the Commitment to Freedom of Expression, development of a robust ideologically balanced external speakers program, and balanced debates by experts on controversial issues.


Human civilization has advanced to where it is today because of risk-taking. A student body unwilling to speak or take those risks will likely not generate the advances we all so desperately need. We participate in and encourage growing commitment to Davidson’s Deliberative Citizenship Initiative (DCI). 


--


Engaging Davidson and Greater Charlotte


We agree that Davidson’s geography and proximity to Charlotte give it an incredible comparative advantage relative to peer institutions. We hope to see the college engage with all manner of businesses, non-profits, and government entities. Doing so not only provides new opportunities for students to learn, and work, but also presents new development opportunities for the college itself.


As the College engages with the community, and the world, we hope that it will be cautious about positioning the institution with one-sided official stances on hot-button issues of the day. We note that the 2021 survey of Davidson’s major donors by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni found that 66% of all donors believe that the College should not take public positions on controversial social and political issues in messaging to faculty, staff, and students.


Engaging in official influencing may potentially limit relationships with community partners, and possibly have a silencing effect on the student body and faculty. We believe that a policy of not advocating on issues that do not directly affect the institution itself (as opposed to students) would best serve the college. Commenting on political issues that affect only a subset of students could give the appearance of the institution playing favorites with some individuals over others. In this context, we believe the recent statement from President Hicks regarding the inflammatory violence in Jerusalem and Gaza was appropriately limited for now, with most of its emphasis devoted to the needs of Davidson students. His call for a subsequent open forum on problems of the region appears to anticipate providing a balance of speakers so that opposing views can be respectfully presented and heard.


Individual faculty and student groups should be free, of course, to take advocacy positions that do not speak for the College. 


--


We appreciate and respect the time and work that each Committee is putting into the Strategic Plan endeavor. We have no doubt that writing the strategic planning document is a significant task. If you have any questions about what we’ve written or would like to engage in a direct conversation, please call on us. You have been commissioned with a unique and vital opportunity to shape the future of the College and its programs for the lasting benefit of its entire community. You go forward with our best wishes.


Thank you sincerely,


From the Board and Staff of Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse (DFTD)

Original Letter (PDF) Davidson College Strategic Plan (webpage)

Davidson College Republican and Davidson College Libertarian Presidents: We stand for free speech at Davidson

March 19, 2025
By Gabriel Russ-Nachamie ’27 and Stephen Walker ’26 The Davidsonian March 19, 2025 Davidson’s public commitment to free expression is admirable, but recent anti-speech actions by the College contradict its guarantees to students and set dangerous pro-censorship precedents. This paradox threatens to stifle the open discourse we as a community all grow and benefit from. For context, a 2021 press release announcing Davidson’s commitment to freedom of expression states the College intends “to build a culture where everyone can participate and be heard” and acknowledges that “freedom of expression can’t exist when some people are barred from the conversation” solely on account of allegations that their speech is seen as wrong or offensive. Davidson’s pledge in the free expression statement itself commits the College to upholding protections of student expression for all because “Dissenting voices cannot and should not be censored.” Recent actions against the College Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) chapter and its president, Cynthia Huang ‘25, threaten to undo these efforts in ways harmful to each and every one of us. In a letter published by YAF’s Davidson chapter, the College accused Huang of “Harassment” for publishing political content online and distributing pamphlets that “allegedly includes misinformation” promoting “Islamophobia” and “Transphobia” that made students report feeling “threatened and unsafe on campus.” Davidson offered to “resolve” the matter by forcing Huang to either admit responsibility for the alleged violation and agree to an “Accountability Plan” demanding action to avoid further sanction or a “Code of Responsibility Council Hearing,” which is reserved for actions constituting “serious prohibited conduct in a single incident or a persistent pattern of less severe prohibited conduct,” according to Davidson’s student handbook. The content that triggered this response was political material responding to ideas and policies the YAF chapter disagreed with. It is wrong to classify disagreement as harassment simply because the disagreement “offended” students. The content in question was meant to spark discourse surrounding certain political policies and ideologies. According to Davidson’s own standards, this content should be protected speech. The content that Huang faces potential sanctions for did not explicitly or implicitly promote any action against specific people or groups on account of their identities. For example, the pamphlet from YAF notes the link between Islamic fundamentalist theology and Hamas. However, this is not “Islamophobic” but a historical and scholarly argument about justifications of violence that rely upon religious interpretations. In fact, Hamas is an acronym that stands for the “Islamic Resistance Movement” and the group uses Islamic theology to justify their actions. Discussing the impact of religion on violence, whether it be Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, is protected speech and not bigotry. The club did not in any way target students and the material was freely available for anyone to engage with or ignore. Serious political disagreement on issues always has and will continue to offend individuals who dislike competing opinions. However, a small group of students being “offended” never justifies institutional backlash against political speech. We are not the only individuals or groups concerned about this restriction on speech. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a nonpartisan national organization dedicated to protecting free speech for all Americans, recently sent a letter to President Doug Hicks ‘90. FIRE urged Davidson to drop the charges against the YAF chapter and change its policies to align with the Chicago Principles of free speech, commonly known as the Chicago Statement which Davidson has allegedly committed to upholding. Adjudicative bodies should not base their decisions purely on perceptions motivated by personal feelings and biases. These actions by the college against YAF risk violating Davidson’s commitment to ensuring free speech and robust debate among students. No threats or harassment against students were included in YAF’s content, and anybody who does not like what they have to say is not being forced to engage with their content in any way. The only discernible motivation for going forward with sanctions is that YAF is a political minority that has questioned political orthodoxies in a way that is upsetting to others. The College’s Commitment to Freedom of Expression was made to protect this type of conduct. The Commitment directly states, “Davidson College’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate, discussion, and deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even most members of the college community to be offensive or unwise.” Sanctioning YAF for political arguments violates our rights as students and has dangerous implications. The aforementioned press release announcing Davidson’s commitment identifies “self-censorship” as a problem for Davidson and a motivator for its creation of the Commitment to Freedom of Expression statement. When students see that the only person who has spoken out against the majority in a political debate is facing sanctions because others did not like the content that student shared, said administrative action sends a message that dissent is unacceptable. This potentially triggers more self-censorship among all those who may disagree with this and countless other political ideas. As the presidents of the Davidson College Republicans and the Davidson College Libertarians, we stand for the free speech rights of all Davidson students. As a leading liberal arts school receiving taxpayer dollars, Davidson has publicly committed itself to upholding free speech rights for students and faculty. We call on the College to uphold its proclaimed principles and reject punishing students and political clubs for speech that some might disagree with or find offensive. We call on the College administration to change the Code of Responsibility to align with the Chicago Statement, as FIRE argued is crucial for Davidson in its letter to President Hicks. Finally, we firmly reject the anti-intellectual, adolescent mindset that has motivated the support for YAF’s censorship. Unwillingness to coexist with peers you may disagree with is unbecoming of students at such a prestigious institution like Davidson. You can’t take away your peers’ rights just because people’s feelings are hurt. Gabriel Russ-Nachamie ‘27 is an economics and mathematics double major from Lincolnton, NC and can be reached for comment at garussnachamie@davidson.edu. Stephen Walker ‘26 is a political science and English double major from Philadelphia, PA and can be reached for comment at stwalker@davidson.edu. https://thedavidsonian.news/1063/perspectives/davidson-college-republican-and-davidson-college-libertarian-presidents-we-stand-for-free-speech-at-david son/

Jeff Bezos Note to the Washington Post

February 26, 2025
"I shared this note with the Washington Post team this morning:"

Former Governor Weighs In on the Future of DEI at Davidson

February 26, 2025
By James (Jim) Martin '57 The Davidsonian February 26, 2025 As a loyal alumnus, I love Davidson College. There are few things here that I don’t love. Perhaps you feel the same, for similar or different reasons. While privileged to teach chemistry here for twelve years, I got into politics as a Mecklenburg County Commissioner. For five decades since retiring from the faculty to become a member of the US Congress, I followed Davidson mostly in passive ways. My annual giving was modest until I was in a position to increase my donation and deliver a significant gift from Duke Energy while on its Board. This and generous friends endowed Professor Malcolm Campbell’s multidisciplinary Genomics Program and a chair in chemistry honored to support Professor Erland Stevens. While Governor of North Carolina, I received an honorary degree and spoke at graduation. All this is a self-aggrandizing way to say I’m part of Davidson College and fully committed to helping it become the best it can be. This was tested when our Trustees decided that the President and the majority of Trustees need no longer be Christian. I joined eleven other former Trustees in a statement objecting to what we believed would undermine Davidson’s tradition and Statement of Purpose. This angered some alumni, especially recent graduates. You might be amused at how many defended the change simply by denouncing us as “old white men.” This trifling trifecta of accursed identity was true, but ignored thoughtful reasoning. This drew me to an even smaller, unofficial group of concerned alumni, Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse ( www.dftdunite.org ). Since 2018, its founders had petitioned Davidson College to adopt the Chicago Principles on Freedom of Expression. Pleading from a conservative viewpoint, they got little respect. Even with support from hundreds of alumni representing a wider range of interests, ages and viewpoints, DFTD continued to be disregarded. In 2021, President Carol Quillen heeded a similar appeal from several faculty members, whose interests weren’t aligned with ours. She appointed me to a group of six chaired by Professor Issac Bailey to compose a Davidson vision for academic freedom of expression reflecting Davidson’s commitment to ideals of diversity. The resulting document containing every element of the Chicago Principles was deferred until the arrival of new President Doug Hicks. With his calm inspiration, earnest discussions among faculty won growing acceptance. In early 2023, “Davidson’s Commitment to Freedom of Expression” was affirmed by a nearly unanimous vote. DFTD found ways to support greater diversity of viewpoints on campus. A student chapter of Free Speech Alliance was founded and DFTD was pleased to provide funding for their and others’ invited speakers. This led individual students to entrust us with suspected violations of their academic freedom. Most alarmingly, we heard about several dozen academic courses with syllabi requiring students to confess themselves “oppressors,” repent and atone . . . religious conditions irrelevant to the subject matter. Ironically, DEI is Latin for “gods.” We learned from other students about an astonishing “mandatory” order that all Davidson athletes attend a one-sided, provocative documentary entitled, “I’m not Racist…am I?” Its message? If you are white, you are racist. If you’re non-white, you can’t be racist. Melanin matters. While we don’t object to anyone studying such controversial notions, we protested the coercive way highly partisan objectives were imposed as a condition for participating. After several months with no assurance that our concerns were taken seriously, we reported this to our subscribers. Our purpose was to bring about a remedy, not punish or accuse any individual as was making national headlines at other schools. We figured some may have felt they were doing what was expected of them. One of us mentioned this campus issue in an interview on Fox News. This exploded into far wider circulation than we had foreseen or intended. Faculty and administration were flooded with vile communications from hundreds of anonymous individuals. At the time, this threatened to damage the reputation of Davidson College as well as DFTD, likely among opposing factions. I see no consequent injury against the College today, and DFTD’s standing has become more respected or tolerated even among some who dispute us. We made a point to welcome Dr. Chloe Poston as DEI Vice President at Davidson. She listened to our encouragement to explore ways to reform those abuses. Was it fair, in the cause of including diversity, to blame students for past discriminatory practices for which they bore no personal responsibility? We were pleased to discover, not long after the fall term began, that every course whose syllabus had defamed students as “oppressors” had dropped the insulting indoctrination. To us, this was good news, reflecting a less divisive and more welcoming attitude on campus. We commend those among faculty, administration, and students whose thoughtful contributions led to these corrections. Other reforms may need attention. Do any departments still require DEI allegiance in ways that filter out conservative scholars? Do students or faculty still feel intimidated to self-censor their thoughts and questions? Will Davidson adopt institutional neutrality for ideological controversies? There’s now the question whether Davidson‘s more welcoming, less doctrinaire approach to inclusion of a wider diversity of attributes, cultures and viewpoints will survive the national backlash against DEI. The federal government has declared a campaign to eradicate any trace of it. Among our DFTD membership we’ve learned to respect divergent views among friends, but I can tell you there is division over this. Some are convinced the same old divisive malpractices will simply be continued behind new titles, concealing the enforcement of identity politics. Others trust that Davidson’s new approach can be a positive model for others. Davidson can demonstrate a standard of healthier assurance that every student, without regard to their culture, religion, attitude, politics or appearance, will be genuinely welcomed and encouraged to grow intellectually, socially and spiritually. Large universities with massive DEI staffing must choose to fold or fight. If Davidson can restore diversity’s original ideals without the partisan excesses, other elite colleges might choose to defend this more sensible approach. The Davidsonian 2/26/25 by Davidsonian - Issuu
Show More