BY JOHN K. WILSON
On August 14, the Cornell Free Speech Alliance (CFSA) issued a report, “Lifting The Fog: Restoring Academic Freedom & Free Expression At Cornell University,” that made policy recommendations for how Cornell can improve its climate for free speech. Keith Whittington at Reason called the report “a valuable agenda for faculty across the country.” Carl Neuss, the chair of the Cornell Free Speech Alliance board, declared that the “recommendations themselves sort of read like mom and apple pie—it’s hard to not agree with them.” While it’s a thoughtful approach that includes some good ideas, the report also includes an alarming number of calls to suppress free expression. Sadly, it’s not all mom and apple pie.
The core of the CFSA report is that Cornell should adopt the exact words of the Chicago trifecta (Chicago Principles, Kalven Report, and Shils Report), which I have previously criticized for their flaws restricting free expression. Colleges should improve upon the Chicago trifecta rather than thinking intellectual freedom is a copy-and-paste operation.
The CFSA report urged a bizarre ban on “reference to facility in the lexicon of critical studies” in evaluating faculty. But what happens to a professor with expertise in critical studies, if no one is allowed to mention their scholarly work about this topic? This seems to be an attempt to ban experts in critical studies from being hired or promoted at Cornell, which would be an attack on academic freedom. Simply put, a free university does not establish policies that explicitly ban certain intellectual approaches. A free university does not ban words, and certainly does not ban an entire “lexicon.”
It’s precisely this kind of unnecessary and misguided prohibition that raises suspicions about the whole approach of CFSA. If a report claiming to protect “free speech” attempts to ban an entire scholarly approach because it is deemed too leftist, does the rest of the document include an implicit ban on disfavored ideological views?
The CFSA report declared that any “statement of personal support or opposition to any political ideology or movement, should not form any part of the evaluation of an individual’s fitness for a faculty position. Such DEI statements shall not be suggested or requested (nor considered if voluntarily submitted).” The proposed ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statements is based on the false premise that DEI statements merely express support for a political ideology rather than a set of skills and experiences that could be deemed relevant by a faculty committee. Banning voluntary references to DEI is an alarming policy, one made worse by the broad range of this proposal to cover support of any political “movement.” For example, if I applied to Cornell and noted my work supporting the movement for campus free speech, this statement would have to be excluded from consideration for any job at Cornell, including a job running a campus free speech institute. There is an important debate to have over mandatory DEI statements and proper academic standards, but there should never be a prohibition on voluntary statements made by a campus job candidate.
The CFSA report claimed that “Cornell Administration policies, practices, actions, and inactions have allowed persons whose views are unpopular among some on campus to be canceled or shouted down at Cornell through heckling, personal character attack, career impairment, and other means.” The CFSA’s notion that the Cornell Administration should be banning any “personal character attack” is an assault on free speech, not a defense of it. Sounding much like the leftists they attack, the CFSA report complained that someone might be allowed to “impugn the personhood and views of others at Cornell.” But everyone should be free to impugn others and their views, as this CFSA report itself does.
Another flaw in the CFSA proposals is what they omit. They fail to address the problem of the administration calling for a ban on controversial matters unrelated to courses. Despite some good language protecting due process and requiring “immediate dismissal of any complaint that involves protected speech,” the proposal fails to address one of the most serious threats to campus freedom, the use of “interim suspensions” to punish people who express controversial ideas. Colleges need to establish that suspensions (even with pay) are a form of punishment that should be imposed only after a determination of guilt. With very few exceptions (such as an immediate threat of physical harm) that include careful reviews and appeals, colleges should never suspend anyone pending an investigation. It’s not sufficient to have policies that say protected speech won’t be investigated, because there will always be cases where the facts are disputed, false allegations are made, or the question is debated about what speech is protected–colleges also need to prohibit suspensions during the investigation process. Even if cases are adjudicated within thirty days as CFSA correctly advocates, a month-long suspension from classes is incredibly disruptive to faculty and students.
One of the most alarming parts of the CFSA report is this request for the board of trustees to seize control and purge personnel that CFSA dislikes: “To the extent the University retains personnel who resist, ignore, or undermine existing University free speech and academic freedom protections, the Cornell Board of Trustees and Administration must not shrink from making the personnel changes needed to redirect the University to prioritize Open Inquiry, Academic Freedom, Free Expression, and Viewpoint Diversity.”
This is a disturbing attack on free speech and academic freedom. Calling for the firing of faculty and staff who “undermine” existing free speech policies is no different in principle than calling for the firing of faculty and staff who resist or undermine diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. Colleges should never require all faculty and employees to agree wholeheartedly with every campus policy. Calling upon the board of trustees to personally remove faculty and staff for their views is a violation of shared governance, due process, and free speech.
The CFSA report includes some valuable ideas for improving free speech policies at Cornell that ought to be debated. Unfortunately, these useful reforms are intertwined with attacks on academic freedom that need to be rejected.
John K. Wilson was a 2019-20 fellow with the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement and is the author of eight books, including Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies and the forthcoming book, The Attack on Academia.
I see some further threats to the erosion of free speech. I recognize that controversial subjects SHOULD be studies at Universities, and that the lively exchange of ideas is how we build on our knowledge base. Thus I also see the following: The suggestion to ban any “personal character attack” can be interpreted very broadly. Over time, institutions may begin censoring any criticism or dissent, fearing it might be seen as a “character attack”. This could stifle genuine critiques and discussions.
In my mind, any research has in it the seeds of controversy: that is how the scientific method works. Thus any attempt to limit the number of disciplines taught or allowed is a limitation on our ability to introduce novel concepts into the academic discourse. If certain academic approaches or fields are discouraged, researchers might avoid pursuing groundbreaking or controversial research topics due to fear of institutional backlash or career repercussions.
To me, even more pernicious is the continued theft of academic freedom and control of the curriculum by boards of trustees. If boards of trustees are given the authority to remove faculty based on perceived non-alignment with certain policies, it demonstrates further centralization of power and concomitant erosion of shared governance. This could lead to an environment where faculty are hesitant to voice dissenting opinions or critique administrative decisions, thereby undermining academic freedom.
My (I guess) 3 cents.
dbs
Whoa, glad to learn about this and agree with your concerns. I particularly like the way you put this: “The proposed ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statements is based on the false premise that DEI statements merely express support for a political ideology rather than a set of skills and experiences that could be deemed relevant by a faculty committee.”
The language about the Boards is esp. disturbing at this moment in which political appointees are being mobilized as activists on their Boards.
Thank you for your thoughtful critique. You raise many important concerns. I wholeheartedly agree, for example, that the use of interim suspensions is out of control in higher education, often violating due process, as well as the principles of proportional and progressive discipline.
While I am in accord with many of your concerns, I diverge in my interpretation of the political ideology provision. I don’t read it as assuming that all “DEI statements merely express support for a political ideology rather than a set of skills and experiences that could be deemed relevant by a faculty committee.” On the contrary, the provision is clearly limited to political ideology or movement, not to academic work itself. “DEI statements (by any name), or other pledge of allegiance or statement of personal support or opposition to any political ideology or movement, shall not form any part of the evaluation of an individual’s fitness for a faculty position.” This provision doesn’t forbid critical studies programs or critical studies faculty. Nor does prevent a critical studies scholar from discussing, teaching, researching, or publishing their work, during a job interview or while on the job. But it does forbid a university from requiring that scholar to prove that their personal politics is acceptable.
More importantly, the provision is directed at the conduct of the institution, not the individual. Recommendation 3a demands that “faculty . . . should be evaluated on their individual contribution . . .” As quoted above, DEI statements . . . shall not form any part of the evaluation . . .” Recommendation 3b provides that “Faculty and staff should not be compelled, under any circumstances, to directly or indirectly express as their own, opinions they do not hold . . .” Other writers have made a good case that DEI statements have this effect; they act as ideological litmus tests. While a university is barred from considering an individual politics, candidate or professor is free to mention their politics without repercussion. The provision does no more than insist such a statement be ignored by the institution in personnel decisions.
Thanks again for your thoughts, and for your free expression work.