By Nick Gonnerman ’19

Colleges and universities should be independent centers of teaching and scholarship—but the ivory tower is increasingly used as a pawn in American cultural politics. Last month, Republican-appointed trustees declined to tenure the 1619 Project’s Nikole Hannah-Jones. In May, Democratic regents forced out the conservative system president. Across the country, faculty firings on the left and the right indicate that campuses are in the midst of a dangerously polarizing moment.

The rising temperature in the academy should concern all of us. Such a controversy-fueled climate risks reducing higher education in the eyes of the American public to just another partisan institution, thereby souring national trust. Fortunately, there is a way forward: viewpoint diversity.

Higher Education Is Becoming a Political Wedge Issue

What happens on campus rarely stays there. The political right has latched on to examples of discrimination towards college conservatives, either because they bear the brunt of ideological attacks (probably true) or because conservative media is better at publicizing these incidents (also probably true).

In March, Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) of the influential Republican Study Committee wrote a memo to GOP leadership articulating key issues for the future. Third on the list after immigration and trade: “anti-wokeness.” Banks wrote, “Wokeness was cooked up by college professors, then boosted by corporations… Nothing better encapsulates Democrats’ elitism and classism.”

Congressional Republicans recently founded a Campus Free Speech Caucus and have introduced the Campus Free Speech Restoration Act, the Stop Critical Race Theory Act, and the Saving American History Act.

That’s not even counting former President Trump’s free inquiry executive order or the free speech themes in Fox News that are becoming, according to Business Insider, “the driving force behind the network’s post-Trump focus.”

At the state level, more than half of legislatures have passed or are considering laws to protect the expression of campus conservatives. Over a dozen states have passed or are considering laws banning critical race theory from the classroom. These are overwhelmingly Republican-led efforts.

While some laws may prove useful for creating an accurate picture of the campus situation—like establishing viewpoint diversity surveys—others are punitive. For example, Idaho lawmakers cut Boise State University’s budget by $1.5 million allegedly “in retribution for its social justice emphasis.”

It’s easy to dismiss these trends in the media and all levels of government as unsophisticated or overreaching attempts to take higher education hostage and force political change. However, we would be wise to pay attention when such measures resonate with a substantial number of Americans.

It’s easy to dismiss these trends in the media and all levels of government as unsophisticated or overreaching attempts to take higher education hostage and force political change. However, we would be wise to pay attention when such measures resonate with a substantial number of Americans. A recent Yahoo/YouGov poll found that 39% of Americans think political correctness is a “very big problem”—seven points more than those who say the same about COVID-19.

This sentiment is not only ubiquitous, it is politically powerful. In his latest book, The Constitution of Knowledge, Jonathan Rauch observes that during the 2016 election, political correctness was

…a godsend to trolls on the right. [It] helped raise the likes of Trump and Breitbart News and even Russian troll farms to new heights of influence… As one study found in 2017, “Temporarily priming [politically correct] norms significantly increased support for Donald Trump” (and not just among right-wingers: the study’s participants were “largely politically moderate Americans”).

Anti-wokeness, congressional intervention, curricular bans, and a reaction against political correctness have a common factor: most conservatives no longer trust institutions of higher education. According to the Pew Research Center, the number of Republican and Republican-leaning Americans who feel that college has a positive effect on the way things are going in the country has plummeted from 54% in 2015 to 33% in 2019. A third of all U.S. adults said in 2019 that they have “not too much” or no confidence that professors will act in the public interest.

Campuses Are Part of the Problem

Trust has diminished for a reason. A recent report on eight surveys from the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom shows that in the United States, 80% of PhD’s are willing to discriminate against right-leaning scholars, 70% of conservative academics report a “hostile departmental climate for their beliefs,” and over one-third of conservative academics have been threatened with disciplinary action because of their views. (Read a critique of this report here.)

Students also feel the chill. While most undergraduates want viewpoint diversity and the freedom to converse about contemporary issues, a 2019 Knight Foundation poll found that 68% of undergraduates say their campus climate precludes students from expressing their opinions because classmates might take offense.

Students also feel the chill. While most undergraduates want viewpoint diversity and the freedom to converse about contemporary issues, a 2019 Knight Foundation poll found that 68% of undergraduates say their campus climate precludes students from expressing their opinions because classmates might take offense.

This isn’t news to those of us who study this space; I have documented a growing tendency of student governments to discipline peers for their speech or politics.

Such a climate effects whether students are gaining the experiences beneficial to functioning in a pluralistic democracy: interacting productively with a political opposite, forming friendships that go deeper than one’s partisanship, or approaching problem-solving from multiple perspectives.

As one 2020 study found, students report increasing reluctance to discuss important topics like politics, gender, sexual orientation, race, and religion. About one in four students don’t want to discuss racial justice, and one in three refrain from talking about the 2020 election. Straight students shy away from discussion of sexuality, same with white students and the topic of race. Reluctance to discuss even “non-controversial” topics rose by over 7% from 2019 to 2020.

The higher education experience can deepen polarizing tendencies. According to The Perception Gap, Democrats’ understanding of Republicans (but not vice versa) gets worse with every additional degree they earn. “This effect is so strong that Democrats without a high school diploma are three times more accurate than those with a postgraduate degree” when describing the average Republican. This is because “Highly educated Democrats are the most likely to say that ‘most of my friends’ share their political beliefs.”

Americans are embarrassingly bad at understanding the political persuasions of their red or blue counterparts. Students graduating into the workforce with a skewed view of their political opposites will only exacerbate polarization. Already, most Americans (62%) say that fear prevents them from expressing their political opinions in their daily lives.

The Viewpoint Diversity Defense

 By “viewpoint diversity,” I mean broadening the availability to students of useful perspectives. A useful perspective is a viewpoint—it can be true, deniable, or false—that highlights weaknesses of an idea or provides a reasonable understanding of a subject. Viewpoint diversity does not mean an intellectual free-for-all that includes any and all opinions. Professor Jones need not include creationism on her evolutionary studies syllabus, since creationism is not a serious scientific contribution to that discipline. But she might include David Belinsky’s critique of Darwin for its discursive value.

More often than not, the need for viewpoint diversity is framed intellectually. While such an approach has its place, two pragmatic reasons, one short term and one long term, also inform why college leaders should heed calls for heterodox academic offerings.

In the short term, institutions that diversify will preempt controversy, eliminating a primary reason for those who would lambaste the school or pass overreaching laws. Mistreatment on the basis of ideology will occur less often in an intellectually balanced and respectful environment, just as a workplace that promotes respect and equality discourages sexual harassment or incidents of racial bias.

Some on the left may object that we don’t negotiate with hostage takers. Why reward conservative activists who have pursued aggressive tactics in their push for a campus beachhead? This objection misses the point. Viewpoint diversity doesn’t mean capitulating to aggressive actors—it means taking away their ammunition. More Americans trusting higher education and believing it is relevant to broad segments of their society means less reason to drag colleges into the political arena. The academy does not have to stop being radical or political, but for its own sake has to be home to a broader political picture.

More Americans trusting higher education and believing it is relevant to broad segments of their society means less reason to drag colleges into the political arena. The academy does not have to stop being radical or political, but for its own sake has to be home to a broader political picture.

In the long term, colleges will create students who have a more comprehensive understanding of society and the different strains within it. It stands to reason that by exposing students to many perspectives, society benefits from a full diagnosis and a comprehensive treatment of its ailments. After all, we know that innovation is born when different academic disciplines meet, and that problem-solving is optimized by diversifying cognitive styles.

Furthermore, viewpoint diversity trains students to have meaningful interpersonal relationships. As Michael Roth, president of Wesleyan University, points out, engaging with other perspectives allows for “open-ended conversations in which people can practice intellectual humility as they realize the fragility of their own preconceived notions and knee-jerk responses.” Such discussions are essential if campuses are to enhance our ability to work with one another.

John Dewey wrote that when society becomes “less motivated by stiff authority and blind passion, educational agencies may be more positive and constructive.” The reverse is also true. When educators create citizens who can thrive in a pluralistic democracy, they not only protect themselves from factiousness, but produce a new generation of open-minded and effective thinkers.

Fortunately, Encouraging Viewpoint Diversity Is Feasible

There are explicit efforts to introduce new viewpoints to campus, such as an affirmative action program for right-leaning thinkers (others like to think of this not as affirmative action but as breaking up liberal monopolies with “the intellectual equivalent of antitrust”), a visiting scholar in conservative thought and policy, or classes on underrepresented intellectual traditions.

Another approach is a class or an event that brings together conservative and liberal intellectuals, such as when Robert P. George tag-taught with Cornell West.

Finally, trustees and faculty can create institutes that accommodate contrasting points of view, like the Institute for Freedom and Community or inject a certain perspective onto campus, like the James Madison Program at Princeton. Having participated in both, I can attest to their ability to round out students’ perspectives and hone critical thinking skills, in addition to letting students explore exciting new territory. (The IFC did not make me write that.)

The role colleges play creating thoughtful, active citizens is worth protecting. Viewpoint diversity not only encourages the development of a type of person, but of a type of people. As properly prepared graduates leave campus and enter the realm of vocation, community, and family, they carry with them experiences that demonstrate higher education’s worth as a force for opening minds and an institution that Americans can trust to make society better. Viewpoint diversity isn’t just good for campus. It’s good for the country.

As an undergraduate, Nick Gonnerman ’19 served on the Director’s Council and the Advisory Board of the Institute for Freedom and Community. He most recently worked at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, D.C., before leaving in August to attend law school at the University of Texas at Austin.