BY JOHN TOMASI

I like lamb vindaloo super hot and spicy. Or rather, as my family delights in pointing out, I like the idea of vindaloo prepared that way. In truth, when faced with a wildly overspiced vindaloo platter, I gasp and sputter, munch down every naan in reach, quaff all the water on the table, and finish the meal in a hot and undignified sweat.

I feel much the same way about John K. Wilson’s recent critique—published here on Academe Blog—of a letter to the Trump administration by Heterodox Academy (HxA) on Inauguration Day. Wilson is a member of Heterodox Academy, a preeminent historian of academic freedom, and one of our most valued critics. I am grateful that HxA has so many brilliant members who care enough about the organization to engage deeply with our work, pushing us to raise our standards, elevate our thinking, and improve our ability to provide principled leadership on the topic of open inquiry, especially in moments of stress and public uncertainty. However, Wilson’s blog post misunderstood our arguments and mission, leaving me, well, cold.

Wilson describes our letter to President Trump as “dangerous anticipatory deference” to his administration’s agenda. Further, Wilson describes the letter’s recognition that President Trump has, in words and in actions, sometimes championed free speech as “appalling.” He claims that HxA gives the Trump administration “a blank check to engage in censorship in the name of free speech” and even asserts that HxA advocates “stricter” limits on speech. The greater argument underlying his critique is that speech regulations on campus should be a function of “shared governance and persuading people to embrace free speech” rather than the “false shortcut” of federal legislation.

First, Heterodox Academy has never and will never defer to any president, administration, lawmaker, or political party on issues of open inquiry or anything else. As I state in the opening paragraphs of my letter to the Trump administration,

HxA’s membership includes academic insiders with strong views across the political spectrum (which makes us unusual for academia). What unites us is a commitment to returning our universities to their traditional purpose of searching for the truth, rather than behaving as political partisans. So when we find areas in which our policies and goals in the realm of higher education reform overlap with those of your administration, we would be happy to unite with you to refine and support such measures. If issues arise on which our goals diverge, you can count on us to point that out to you as well, and to urge you to change course.

Wilson states two alleged actions of deference by HxA: first, as mentioned, that we acknowledged that President Trump has at times “championed free speech on college campuses”; second, that we urged the administration “to support congressional efforts to require public institutions to reform their speech policies to reflect judicial definitions and standards for time, place, and manner regulations. It should also insist that institutions use those policies when unprotected conduct creates a hostile environment.”

We agree that President Trump’s actions have been decidedly mixed when it comes to free speech on campus, For example, President Trump issued an executive order protecting free speech during his first administration, while his efforts to require institutions to use the IHRA definition of antisemitism in campus disciplinary hearings are a threat to free speech. But if lack of purity on free speech negates instances when individuals properly advance it, then free speech could boast few champions.

The suggestion that HxA is advocating “stricter” restrictions on speech is also misplaced. We instead urge reforms of time, place, and manner policies to protect the learning and teaching environment of our universities by embracing speech policies to reflect judicial definitions and standards. These standards only allow regulations of speech in traditional or designated public forums when they are content- and viewpoint-neutral, narrowly tailored to advance a significant government interest and leave open ample alternative means of communication.

Underlying these critiques is a difference of view on how reform and protection of academic freedom can be exercised on our nation’s campuses. This diversity is welcome, and our many members have varied perspectives on how such reforms can best occur. At HxA we take two mutually beneficial approaches. The first consists of supporting our members through community action to drive grassroots change on their campus. This is often through the shared governance channels that Wilson advocates. The second consists of shaping policies—federal, state, and institutional—that protect freedoms. As we state in our letter, “while the federal government’s ability to shape campus culture is more limited, it can and should set the appropriate legal framework by codifying free speech protections on college campuses.” Without the groundwork of case law protections for speech, grassroots changes by faculty on campus will be at risk of legal challenge. They also sometimes lack remedies that only law can provide.

Heterodox Academy welcomes debate about whether our policy recommendations are wise or foolish from the perspective of promoting open inquiry and viewpoint diversity in the academy. There are several routes to protecting these principles, and we agree that deference to anyone over our principles would be wrong. But HxA’s policy statements and recommendations defer to no one. Instead, HxA is consistently guided by our commitment to defending the principles of open inquiry, as we have made clear in our statements on Trump’s actions since he took office (including the disruption of federal grant funding, the impact of the various executive orders that have been issued and their threat to academic freedom, and the ordered withdrawal of research manuscripts).

Wilson is right to believe that higher education is in a highly precarious position right now. However, supporting higher education reforms that advance open inquiry and opposing those that do not will require prioritizing our principles over politics. Our duty is to evaluate each proposal and action in a fair and principled way, no matter which political party or personality issues them. I fear that Wilson’s critique of HxA falls short in this dimension. Still, I look forward to his next offering. Bring on the vindaloo!

John Tomasi, the president of Heterodox Academy, was for many years the Romeo Elton 1843 Professor and professor of political science at Brown University.