Incubate Debate: Offering an antidote to GenZ mind poisoning

By Sean Paige Alumni Free Speech Alliance December 12, 2024 When North Carolina Congressman Greg Murphy convened the first Campus Free Speech Roundtable on Capitol Hill four years ago, few outside of the hearing room probably noticed. The issue seemed so “back burner,” the cause so hopeless, and the prospects of meaningful change so remote that attendees probably wondered whether it would be the first and last such congressional hearing. But a lot has changed in four years. This year’s panelists — including 4 with ties to the Alumni Free Speech Alliance, or AFSA — voiced guarded optimism that their efforts to steer the ship away from the rocks were seeing results. And the lawmakers who launched the effort — most notably Murphy, Education & the Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC), and Utah Republican Rep. Burgess Owens — surely must have felt some measure of vindication, seeing that these formerly “back burner” issues are now squarely front and center in Congress and high priority agenda items for an incoming Trump administration. That doesn’t mean participants were brimming with bravado and confidence. All who work on higher education reform understand that the crisis is real, the problems are deeply rooted, and small victories can be short-lived if constant and consistent efforts aren’t applied. But notes of cautious optimism could be heard as representatives of the Alumni Free Speech Alliance , Young America's Foundation , Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression , American Council of Trustees and Alumni , and Speech First spoke and fielded questions. "Free speech on campuses across the country has been under attack for decades," Murphy told participants. "Progressive political ideologues have infiltrated and overtaken college administrations and faculties. Rampant anti-Semitism and egregious DEI programs have replaced the principles of civility, freedom of expression, and equality on which institutions of higher education were founded. Students, in record numbers, self-censor in classrooms. Faculty force their own political ideologies on students. Administrators abuse their position of authority to push a political agenda. Congress plays a role in oversight of public universities and must protect students' First Amendment rights. I appreciate the ongoing commitment of groups who fight for free speech so that we ensure our nation's colleges remain robust learning environments that cultivate tolerant, well-rounded individuals capable of contributing to our dynamic society." ASFA’s affiliation with four of those who spoke is an impressive measure of the momentum and visibility the movement has gained in just 3 years. Our grassroots network has grown to nearly 30 chapters, stretching from coast to coast. Our active and engaged alumni are proving to be a potent force for constructive change at the schools where our groups exist — and more are on the way. AFSA affiliates who spoke and fielded questions were (pictured below, left to right) Princetonians for Free Speech Co-Founder and Executive Committee Member Edward Yingling, AFSA Chairman and Jefferson Council Board of Advisors Member Tom Neale, Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse Chairman John Craig, and Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse Executive Director Kenny Xu. The Roundtable can be replayed here in its entirety . (Please note that the opening statements begin at the 18-minute mark.) The opening statements of AFSA participants are below. JOHN CRAIG REMARKS FOR DECEMBER 11, 2024 ,CONGRESSIONAL FREE SPEECH ROUNDTABLE. Good morning, My name is John Craig, and I am the chairman of Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought & Discourse. Thank you, Congressman Murphy, for chairing this important annual Roundtable, and to the other members of Congress present. Also, thanks to Congressman Murphy for his strong support of our work to promote freedom of expression and viewpoint diversity at our shared alma mater Davidson College. Let me say upfront that we are making some progress in the struggle for campus free speech & viewpoint diversity. At Davidson, we achieved adoption of a Commitment to Freedom of Expression Statement and have rallied students to form the student Free Speech Alliance and rebirth the Young Americans for Freedom and Libertarians chapters. And just two weeks ago, the students brought supply-side economist Art Laffer to campus—something that would have been unheard of even a year ago! In the wake of last year’s Congressional Hearings post-October 7th , leadership changes occurred at Harvard, Penn, and Cornell. Harvard’s interim president has just endorsed the recommendations of the Harvard Working Group on Open Inquiry and Constructive Dialogue, which, among other things calls for a required course for new undergraduates on constructive disagreement and review of policies for investigating alleged violations of discrimination, bullying, and harassment. And misguided and ineffective DEI programs in the corporate world and in some universities are being dismantled. So, to some degree, the campus free speech movement is currently riding a wave. But make no mistake about it, the forces for one-sided ideological intolerance and speech control on many American campuses are entrenched and are using every tool at their disposal to maintain the status quo and combat us freedom fighters. This is why, in the possibly narrow window of opportunity before us, we need the Federal government to use every instrument possible to support freedom of expression and viewpoint diversity. We need help especially in tackling the Critical Race Theory/oppressed vs. oppressor mentality that underpins DEI programs and many courses. The most important tool, of course, is the power of the purse. So, I suggest that Congress rid all NIH, NEA, NEH, etc. grant applications of DEI requirements. Make federal grants for research and teaching contingent on the absence of DEI loyalty oaths — obvious screening devices—in faculty recruitment and promotion documents. Mandate that institutions receiving federal funds publish on their websites all course syllabi. The biggest money, of course, is in the Federal Student Loan Program, whose thorough reform will be a big undertaking. But certainly the recent loan forgiveness excesses should be scrapped, and I hope that some way can be found to make universities and colleges liable for substantial portions of defaulted loans. I emphasize the urgency of reforms like these. We out in the field need every ounce of support that Congress can provide. We saw this time last year how powerful Congressional hearings can be in shining light on the fault lines in US higher ed. We need more such hearings, and our hats are off to you members of Congress for the courage and leadership you are demonstrating in this battle for the American mind. Thank you. The Opening Statement of Davidsonians for Free Thought and Open Discourse Executive Director Kenny Xu A dental school student formerly enrolled at Columbia University School of Dentistry tells me that one of the first questions he was told to ask a pregnant mother dealing with pelvic pain was whether she wanted to keep the baby. An NC State transfer student at the Poole College of Management reports to me that the first two weeks of her business school experience was spent listening to seminars on DEI and SDGs, which stands for “Sustainable Development Goals,” instead of the basics of business such as how to make a proposal and how to receive funding for your idea. If not reflected in policy, the academic experience for a young conservative student is full of slights, subtle degradations, and the constant threat of harassment. As a result, nationally, the free speech of conservative and other politically nonconforming students is impaired. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) nationally compiled and found that about 70 percent of students nationwide (out of a sample size of over 30,000) state that they feel uncomfortable sharing a disagreeing view with a professor in class. The American Association of Medical Colleges, which helps state medical boards evaluate and license physician schools, put out a release of 72 criteria based on Critical Race Theory-related social justice tenets for schools to follow in order to be deemed accreditation-worthy. Such acts caused prestigious medical schools like UNC Medical Schools to issue large-scale social advocacy platforms that ultimately proved needlessly distracting and even discriminatory to their future doctors’ medical education. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents discrimination according to race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, and a whole host of other factors. It’s time to add political orientation to that list. The whole purpose of American education is to teach people to be empathetic creatures capable of seeing multiple viewpoints and sides. If that is not the purpose of diversity, then diversity has no purpose. Today’s higher education system, with its relentless liberal/progressive orientation and disregard for indulging alternative viewpoints, is the opposite of that. Tolerance, it now is obvious, it only for the tolerated. DEI statements in hiring, mandatory DEI trainings, and surveillance of “harassment” complaints through anonymous reporting agencies are now used to discriminate against conservative students for simply stating and defending their beliefs. This creates reticence among conservative students to pursue their academic and career goals, leading to a dearth of those students in essential fields like education and healthcare, which require continuing education. This, of course, leads to the one-sided political bureaucracy that we all know and hate. The only way to stop the march of higher ed against conservative students is to aggressively promote intellectual diversity and protect conservative students who speak out. There needs to be at every public college in America a contingent of the school that aggressively and openly defends the right of ideologically nonconforming students to speak. Whether that is an actual school or a part of the administration, it must be given broad leeway to call out, for lack of better word, “higher education B.S” where they see it. Stocking universities with such people must be a new civil service mandate at the new Trump administration. I believe as much as anybody in people’s ability to speak and reason freely. What I don’t believe in is using one’s powers of speech to exercise raw power over others and making people conform to your ideologies and beliefs. America is a nation built on the capacity to see that other perspectives exist. President Trump, you must take the lead and ensure that the presence of those who believe in you and your education agenda is felt in the places that most hate conservatives. You must ferociously and tirelessly enforce all civil rights protections to apply to conservative students as well as any other student. Cautious Optimism Was the Keynote at a Capitol Forum on Campus Free Speech

By Mark McNeilly James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal April, 22 2024 I f you are up on the latest trends in academia, you’ll know that “institutional neutrality” is in the news as more universities consider or adopt it. In my view, this is a good thing, as it maintains the role of the university as a neutral arena in which faculty and students can freely express and debate a wide range of viewpoints constructively rather than feel stifled when their university takes a public stance on a political or social issue. However, there is confusion within academia on what institutional neutrality means and how to implement it. What Is Institutional Neutrality? The free-speech organization FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) defines institutional neutrality as “the idea that colleges and universities should not, as institutions, take positions on social and political issues unless those issues ‘threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry.’ Instead, these discussions should be left to students and faculty.” Most point to the adoption of the Kalven Statement by the University of Chicago in 1967 as the seminal moment for institutional neutrality. During the turbulent Sixties, when debate over the Vietnam War and civil rights rocked the United States, the Kalven Statement outlined the proper role of a university in terms of societal change: The instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student. The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic. It is, to go back once again to the classic phrase, a community of scholars. To perform its mission in the society, a university must sustain an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry and maintain an independence from political fashions, passions, and pressures. A university, if it is to be true to its faith in intellectual inquiry, must embrace, be hospitable to, and encourage the widest diversity of views within its own community. It is a community but only for the limited, albeit great, purposes of teaching and research. It is not a club, it is not a trade association, it is not a lobby. Since the university is a community only for these limited and distinctive purposes, it is a community which cannot take collective action on the issues of the day without endangering the conditions for its existence and effectiveness. Why Universities Are Adopting Institutional Neutrality For decades, Chicago was the sole university that had committed to institutional neutrality. That changed in 2022 when University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill trustees passed a resolution adopting institutional neutrality. That action raised the visibility of the subject in academia, as it ran counter to the usual flurry of political statements being made by university leaders on what seemed like every political and social event or issue. Nevertheless, there are a myriad of good reasons for university leaders to follow UNC’s lead and adopt institutional neutrality, as I laid out in this article on the Heterodox Academy blog. The propensity to take stances on every issue was reexamined by higher-ed leaders after the October 7 Hamas terrorist attack that killed hundreds of Israeli civilians and the disastrous House hearings featuring the presidents of Harvard, UPenn, and MIT. Pushback from alumni, donors, and the public, combined with internal tensions on the left that fractured the usual ideological unity, led many college presidents and chancellors to reconsider the wisdom of continually making political statements. While there is still a long way to go, this list from FIRE of universities that have formally adopted the Kalven Statement shows progress. To encourage more universities at this propitious moment, FIRE, Heterodox Academy, and the Academic Freedom Alliance have joined forces to issue a joint call to institutions to stop taking political stances and instead adopt institutional neutrality: It is time for those entrusted with ultimate oversight authority for your institutions to restore truth-seeking as the primary mission of higher education by adopting a policy of institutional neutrality on social and political issues that do not concern core academic matters or institutional operations. Institutional Neutrality Simplified Institutional neutrality seems like a simple concept, but implementing it raises many questions and often leaves faculty and university leaders confused. Some faculty think institutional neutrality means they cannot speak out on issues, when in reality it exists to make faculty feel more comfortable in speaking out (as long as they make clear they are not speaking for the university). University leaders, meanwhile, are not sure what they can and cannot say. For example, what is considered an internal issue (those on which the university can take a stance) as opposed to an external social or political issue (on which the institution should stay silent to allow faculty and students the ability to speak freely)? My goal here is to try to make the concept more understandable with a short explanation and a visual. First, let’s separate the internal campus issues from the external social and political ones. Internal campus issues refer to matters that directly pertain to the university’s core functions and responsibilities, including education, research, and the maintenance of a community where academic freedom is protected and fostered. These issues might involve policies on admissions, faculty governance, curriculum development, academic standards, campus safety, resource allocation, and the establishment of an environment conducive to learning and inquiry. The Kalven Report suggests that the university is not only justified but also obligated to engage in and take positions on these internal matters, as they directly affect its ability to fulfill its educational mission. External social issues of the day, on the other hand, encompass a wide range of political, social, and economic concerns that exist outside the university’s immediate academic and administrative responsibilities. These issues might include national or international policies, social-justice movements, political elections, and other societal debates not directly related to the university’s primary mission of education and research. The Kalven Report advocates for the university to maintain a position of neutrality on these external matters, arguing that taking institutional stances on such issues would compromise the university’s commitment to academic freedom and its role as a platform for open inquiry and debate among individuals with diverse viewpoints. Given those definitions, the following visual illustrates my interpretation of who is allowed to make statements on the two types of issues. When external events occur about which university leaders feel some type of statement should be made despite the commitment to institutional neutrality, I offer the following template. External Event Statement Template: [University name here] follows a policy of institutional neutrality. This means our university will not take a position or make statements on the domestic or international issues of the day. However, we recognize that the [external event here] may be affecting faculty, staff, or students on campus. For those affected by these events, university leadership has made the following resources available for your assistance [resource list here]. Next Steps on the Path to Institutional Neutrality Institutional neutrality is the best way forward for a university to encourage its faculty and students to speak freely on issues of the day, stay true to its mission of the pursuit of truth, and maintain support from alumni, donors, and the public. More institutional leaders must take UNC’s step of formally adopting those principles and explain to their constituents what the concept means. To help do so, there are many resources now available. A more in-depth examination of the principles of institutional neutrality and how to implement it is offered by Heterodox Academy in its Model Statement of Neutrality. FIRE also has excellent resources on the implementation of institutional neutrality here. I recommend both highly. The time has come for universities and colleges to embrace institutional neutrality as a core principle. University leaders and governing bodies should formally adopt policies of neutrality to return our institutions to being bastions of diverse thought and debate and to restore trust among students, faculty, alumni, and the wider community. We can prioritize truth-seeking and intellectual freedom by adopting institutional neutrality today. Mark McNeilly is a professor of the practice at the UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School. The views expressed are his own and are not meant to represent the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. In Praise of Institutional Neutrality in Academia — The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal