In recent decades, the intellectual climate in higher education has been toxic, resulting in predictable effects on society. This toxicity is seen in an explosion of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) statements and staffing, plagiarism and replication scandals, and the frequent silencing of conservative views and harassment of conservative scholars. Clearly, academia’s intellectual environment needs to be more judiciously conceived, defended, and managed.
One simple solution that could greatly improve the situation is to require all those who are involved with the academic enterprise to pledge to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with a healthy intellectual environment. It should not be confused with a “loyalty oath” to a particular creed, dogma, or political perspective. Instead, it is the very opposite of that: it is a pledge to support the free exchange of ideas, respect for the academic rights of others, and agreement with ethical approaches to scholarship and research.
This type of pledge should be included in all employment contracts and all foundational documents such as by-laws or handbooks. For faculty, it could be akin to a professional code of conduct, such as the Hippocratic Oath taken by physicians or the Oaths of Admission—to the Bar— taken by lawyers. After all, if they are not willing to abide by the best-conceived rules of intellectual discourse, then maybe academia should not employ them. Additionally, it should be mandatory not just for professors but for administrators, pertinent staff members, trustees, and especially students—there is a tradition of students being required to take pledges to “honor codes” at many colleges, most notably at the military academies.
The pledges should address three components of a healthy intellectual environment: protections for free speech, a proper definition—and implementation—of academic freedom, and a universal agreement to honor reasonable rules of conduct for investigating the nature of existence and humanity. While there may be considerable overlap between the three, there are also differences.
[RELATED: Academic Freedom is Not an Academic License]
The first of the three components, freedom of speech, is a legal right. Specifically, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that no government body may make laws against a person’s right to express themselves. However, this right is not unbounded. It has legal restrictions, such as a limitation on “fighting words.” In higher education, an institution can impose further restrictions on speech, such as those on time and place. Nor is it a right to employment; one may not suffer legal repercussions for speech, but an employer can refuse to employ somebody on account of it.
The second component, academic freedom, is a condition of employment rather than of legality, conferred by the institution rather than by the First Amendment. Because it is considered extremely important for scholars and scientists to have the ability to openly investigate the nature of existence, academic freedom extends certain free speech rights into the academic workplace. These freedoms are also not unbounded. The institution has a legal right to determine classroom content. There is no protection for academics to teach their own opinions on controversial matters as facts. They may, however, discuss controversial subjects as long as they allow open discussion and present alternate views without aggressively taking sides.
Again, one has a First Amendment right to spout unsupported, irrational nonsense but not a right to be employed as a professor while doing so.
Where academic freedom really offers the strongest protection is for research, scholarship, and extramural—not in an official capacity—comments. An academic has the right to freely explore ideas or engage in a public dialogue about controversial topics. However, this right is somewhat limited, for, if an academic’s extramural comments are unhinged, unnecessarily venal, or wildly inaccurate, he or she may be deemed unfit to teach at an institution of higher education. Again, one has a First Amendment right to spout unsupported, irrational nonsense but not a right to be employed as a professor while doing so.
The third component focuses on scholars’ and students’ responsibilities. First, it posits that if one is granted free speech and academic freedom rights, he or she must honor those rights for others. Second, it promotes acceptance of and adherence to appropriate rules of scholarship and research, such as logic and the scientific method, and a willingness to follow the truth wherever it may lead—even if it contradicts presuppositions.
The benefits of mandating such pledges will not only help ensure a healthy academic environment but it will put a powerful arrow in the quiver of those officials who oversee the intellectual climate on campus. Recent campus headlines concerning the behavior of protesters illustrate the utility of such a pledge. It is obviously not acceptable to forcibly occupy campus facilities, physically intimidate others, or shout down invited speakers. While there may already be rules in place to handle these situations, officials have greater justification to punish offenders who have signed an agreement to refrain from such uncouth behavior.
[RELATED: The Limits of Academic Freedom]
Additionally, although one may assume that highly trained academics steeped in the traditions of proper method and discourse will automatically adhere to accepted standards of research and scholarship, that is not always the case. Forcing the entire academic community to acknowledge the free spirit of inquiry may help to instill a mindset of devotion to proper methodology and widely accepted rules of discourse.
As stated above, the pledge does not bind the signatory to specific political perspectives. It is also not a statement of personal neutrality. While academics should aspire to neutrality in the classroom, it is acceptable for them to publicly propose controversial and widely criticized theories, such as, on the left, “standpoint epistemology,” which “argues that knowledge stems from social position,” and on the right, the idea that colonialism benefited third-world societies. Occasionally, such initially scorned ideas emerge to become universally accepted truths.
But academics must accept the rules of dialogue and method and accept that others may challenge their ideas.
The reform movement in higher education has gained momentum in the last few years. For instance, there has been considerable pushback in recent months against DEI policies. Dozens of other reform initiatives are being discussed in state legislatures and on governing boards across the nation
This momentum suggests that some sectors of higher education are currently fertile ground for a pledge to free inquiry. I first proposed a loyalty pledge to free inquiry in July 2020 in a report on board governance. In that same month, Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center proposed that legislators pledge to appoint board members at public universities who will support reform initiatives. More recently, the George Mason University economics faculty created a “Statement of Commitment to Academic Freedom and to Intellectual Merit” that was signed by a majority of department members. And, there may be other attempts along the same lines in academia of which I am unaware.
If colleges and universities wish to reverse academia’s ongoing decline into dogma, political expediency, activism, cronyism, and mediocrity, installing an oath to intellectual freedom and standards could be a major step forward. It defends the academy’s highest and most treasured values, ones that clearly promote fairness and honesty in the pursuit of truth. The time to push for this type of pledge is now.
Image designed by Jared Gould using assets from Adobe Stock: Puchongart (Asset ID# 578726400) and Viktor Koldunov (Asset ID# 554099110).
This article was originally published at www.mindingthecampus.org
