BY JOHN K. WILSON

In the war of words between advocates of the AAUP and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), we need to recognize the value of both organizations. I wrote an essay at Inside Higher Ed, “In Defense of FIRE,” responding to Joan Scott’s critique of FIRE. FIRE president and CEO Greg Lukianoff has just published a post, “The Fall of the AAUP” which begins, “One of the great disappointments of my professional life has been watching the decline of the American Association of University Professors, formerly the gold standard for defense of academic freedom on campus.” I want to respond to Lukianoff’s similarly misguided six points attacking the AAUP.

1) “The AAUP have championed a stark distinction between free speech and academic freedom, which is dangerous to both.”

I agree with Lukianoff’s defense of the similarities between free speech and academic freedom. But arguing that academic freedom and free speech are radically different is not a left-wing view. It’s a traditional viewpoint within the AAUP and among conservatives outside the AAUP. In recent years, this idea has been embraced by a few leftists such as Jennifer Ruth, but that doesn’t turn this conservative view into a left-wing theory, and it certainly doesn’t lead the AAUP to abandon academic freedom or free speech.

2) “The AAUP have publicly supported political litmus tests for professors.”

No, the AAUP issued a statement opposing bans on faculty adopting diversity statements for hiring candidates. The AAUP has never supported political litmus tests for professors. FIRE’s legislation against this is a bad idea because it involves politicians ordering faculty to ban any consideration of any “statement regarding diversity, equity, [or] inclusion.” Whether or not you think diversity statements are a good idea (I’m very skeptical), banning faculty from considering diversity is a dangerous step. The AAUP is correct that diversity statements are not inherently evil and should not be banned by politicians.

3) “The AAUP came out in favor of academic boycotts and then lied about it.”

No, the AAUP ended their blanket opposition to any academic boycotts, and they didn’t lie about it. According to Lukianoff, “If all they meant was that an individual professor could ‘boycott’ Israel, they didn’t need a statement for that because it’s obvious.” It’s not obvious, not when antiboycott laws have been passed in 38 states since the original statement appeared. When the AAUP officially denounced academic boycotts, it could easily be seen as a violation of professional norms for an individual professor to engage in a boycott. Would Lukianoff claim that organizations and universities don’t need to issue statements in support of academic freedom and free speech because it’s “obvious”? Lukianoff is wrong to assert that the AAUP’s neutrality on some types of academic boycotts is an endorsement of academic boycotts, and he is particularly wrong to accuse anyone who challenges him of having “lied about it.”

4) “The AAUP supported a book that proposed a gaping partisan exception to academic freedom.”

It’s a particularly terrible argument of guilt by association to blame an entire organization for the views of two members expressed in a book. Even if Michael Bérubé and Jennifer Ruth’s book, It’s Not Free Speech, was the worst book ever written, the AAUP would not be blameworthy for supporting it, nor should we say that it “undermined their credibility.” I disagree strongly with Bérubé and Ruth on many points, but it’s an important book that deserves to be argued with rather than banished. Lukianoff’s argument that the AAUP “supported a new exception to academic freedom” is wrong as a summary of that book and unquestionably incorrect as an extrapolation from the AAUP’s alleged (and unproven) “support” for the book. We should not be afraid of books, and we should not denounce organizations for encouraging people to read books.

5) “The AAUP failed to defend professors who got in trouble for speech unpopular with the left.”

Just as I criticized Scott for wrongly claiming that FIRE’s failure to speak out in a particular case is evidence of malicious intent, I must criticize Lukianoff for the same error in condemning the AAUP. Silence is not evidence of complicity. Lukianoff cites a handful of conservative cases where he says the AAUP didn’t intervene, and then lists a few cases with leftist faculty where both the AAUP and FIRE spoke out. We have no evidence that anyone asked the AAUP to get involved or that they refused (or why). FIRE has vastly greater resources than the AAUP, and so it’s not surprising that they would be involved in more cases. FIRE searches the internet for any cases it can comment on while the AAUP has a much more limited approach. It’s notable that all of the left-wing faculty Lukianoff mentions were suspended or fired, while most of the conservative cases he cites involved no punishment by the university and no basis for the AAUP to take action. So when Lukianoff claims that his personal dataset of six examples proves that the “the AAUP’s favorite groups and individuals almost always happen to represent speech popular with the political left,” I am not persuaded.

6) “The AAUP lied about its most effective competitor—FIRE.”

I don’t agree with most of Scott’s critiques, but I do think FIRE is a free-speech absolutist group, and that’s a compliment to them. And while FIRE has fought against some bad legislation, it has also supported politicians exerting greater control over universities. Lukianoff claims that FIRE receives money from across the political spectrum, but it is difficult to believe that FIRE is equally funded by leftists and conservatives—which in no way invalidates their work or arguments. Both the AAUP and FIRE feel wrongly maligned, but unfair criticism is not the same as lying.

Lukianoff is upset that a now-deleted tweet from the AAUP called FIRE an “elite” organization, because he thinks he is a “counter-elite.” I think everyone involved in this dispute is part of a very small elite—the people working hard to defend academic freedom and free speech against its numerous and growing threats. Sometimes this passion can generate defensiveness when views about the best tactics and ideals diverge. I would say this to the AAUP and FIRE: There are many people who want to repress free inquiry on campus, but these two organizations—despite all of their arguments and occasional mean-spirited sniping at each other—are both part of the solution.

John K. Wilson is the author of eight books, including Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies and the forthcoming book The Attack on Academia.