The following first appeared in Public Square Magazine.
Cover image via Ahmed Zayan on Unsplash.
Letâs not dance around this. Something creepy and dangerous is happening on our college campusesâand which has now been effectively exported to workplaces and social media everywhere.
New York University professor Jonathan Haidt often speaks of 2014 as a turning point where he saw students move from protest and frustration about unpopular views (which had been normative and common) to beginning to claim that being exposed to these views was âpsychologically damagingââand that such speech ought to be equated with âviolence.â
That prompted Jon to join Greg Lukianoff in writing âThe Coddling of the American Mind,â and to start Heterodox Academy, which has gathered thousands of professors, administrators, and students grappling with the increasingly illiberal atmosphere on campus.
In sharp contrast to this worrisome trend, the spirit at the national convenings of Heterodox Academy is riveting and refreshingâ celebrating “viewpoint diversity” and embodying the beauty at the heart of the academy which I experienced in my own university education. After working to help thousands of students across major universities to appreciate healthy disagreement, Liz Joyner, national director of the Village Square and I have been offering a workshop for Heterodox Academy called âfostering ideological diversity (without it blowing up in your face),â where we try and provide practical support for professors and graduate students in tough situations.
I donât think most people realize how difficult it is on college campuses today. Some of these anonymous comments are illustrative:
- âMy school is slowly moving toward an âif you don’t share our values then you have no place in our schoolâ mentality.â
- âI used to expect that professional arguments needed to rely on credible and appropriate evidence, but that expectation seems to be the exception now. Instead, my discipline expects a specific set of values and political ideologies, and publicly vilifies anyone who questions or misaligns with these perspectives.â
- âTo question this activism (and the âcult of safetyâ and âkindnessâ infecting many schools today) is equated with opposing it (with all the requisite negative characteristics applied to one who would dare oppose such righteous acts).â
- âSince I am willing to run a classroom that allows these students to express their views and celebrates viewpoint diversity over âcultural diversity,â âsafety,â or âkindness,â I’m constantly concerned about losing my job.â
Another professor spoke of constant âworry about offending a student and having to meet with upper administrationââwith still another admitting she felt âpowerlessâ and was tired of âwalking on eggshells all of the time.â
Those fears are not naiveâwith reports every day of another professor losing their job because of outrage over certain questions asked or comments made (see here and here and here and here). This is something activist groups are well aware ofâand all too willing to leverage with social media as their megaphone and media outlets incentivized to amplify grievance.
In this way, a vindictive, merciless campaign of condemnation gets passed off and re-packaged as a morally virtuous attempt to reach for a better society.
Those speaking with such ferocity see themselves as advancing a noble cause and fighting for injustice in all its forms. Iâll never forget one lunch meeting with students at a major midwestern university, where they were going around proudly reporting recent instances of confronting âmicroaggressionsâ from fellow students reflecting what they perceived as racial or sexist bias. At one point, I chimed in to validate their attempts to improve the world, before adding, âI canât help but imagining though, what would happen if, out of a desire to improve my marriage, I went home today determined to implement a similar plan of confronting my wife on anything she might say or do â however minor the infraction â that did not align with my own higher ideals. Despite my positive intentions, how well do you think that would really work to help my relationship grow?â
These students, of course, werenât thinking about ways their actions could be making things worse. Why would they, when similar abrasive efforts were held up all around them (by professors, social media, mass media) as central to working towards a more just society? In this way, a vindictive, merciless campaign of condemnation gets passed off and re-packaged as a morally virtuous attempt to reach for a better society.
Is the real news story, in any of these cancellation attempts, the fact that an inartful or challenging comment was made by someone somewhere OR is it the over-the-top “what a terrible person…off-with-his-head” onslaught that we’ve sadly all come to expect?
Explaining some of the larger forces that encourage this kind of an outward display of outrage and growing pressure among students, journalist Thomas Edsall quotes Jonathan Rauch, a senior fellow at Brookings, who summarizes:
- âThe younger generation (wrongly) perceives free speech as hazardous to minority rights.â
- âThe purist side has had more passion, focus, and organization than the pluralist side.â
- âUniversities are consumeristic these days and very image-conscious, and so they have trouble withstanding pressure from their âcustomers,â e.g., activist students.â
- âThe use of social pressure to manipulate opinion is a powerful and sophisticated form of information warfare. Anyone can be dogpiled in minutes for any reason, or no reason.â
- âActivists have figured out that they can have disproportionate influence by claiming to be physically endangered and psychologically traumatized by speech that offends them.â
In the same article, Randall Kennedy, a law professor at Harvard recounts how activists have learned to âdeploy skillfully the language of âhurtâââas in âI donât care what the speakerâs intentions were, what the speaker said has hurt my feelings and ought, therefore, to be prohibited.â He encouraged leaders on campus to âbecome much more skeptical and tough-minded when encountering the language of âhurtâââso as to avoid incentivizing âthose who deploy the specters of bigotry, privilege, and trauma to further diminish vital academic, intellectual and aesthetic freedom.â
Jessica Bennett wrote in the New York Times recently about the âcultural capitalâ that comes from âdeploying the language of trauma, or of harmâ for even seemingly minor incidents, precisely since those seen as âvictims of wrongdoing tend to be perceived as more âmoralâ or âvirtuousâ than others.â She goes on to cite Shantel Gabrieal Buggs, a sociologist at Florida State University, who points to a similar creep in language wherein âgaslightingâ is now âthrown out anytime someoneâs perception of something is challenged.â
Among other things, all this has the effect of chilling speech on (and off) campus. Why would anyone take a risk of making a mistake in such an accusing, reactive atmosphere? And what does it really mean for our collective ability to learn and progress together when so many people are scared of sharing what they really think?
Imagine a home where children are not allowed to make mistakes without being immediately condemned and chastised. For far too many, no imagination is needed â having experienced for themselves the emotional toll that comes from growing up in a hellish environment like this and witnessing the way this can stunt development at every level. Contrast that with a home permeated by the spirit of forgiveness and grace, where everyone knows that mistakes are going to happen â and that this is not a problem, since âin this family, we can all keep learning and growing together.â
Isnât that the kind of atmosphere encouraged by the message of Jesus? And isnât this a thrilling aspiration for us to reach towards in our homes, communities and campuses? As one black student told Ben Pacini this last week, âSome people ask how I can forgive when it comes to race and racism. Simple. Iâm a Christian. Forgiveness is what I do.â
The good news is that for a university wanting to foster an atmosphere like this, there are positive and proactive steps they can take. A new review of data across campuses confirms the extent to which courageous leadership by administrations can help deter a pattern of cancellation and provide cover for academics and students to engage in the open pursuit of knowledge. By contrast, when administrations cave to activist demands, the frequency of cancellations and censorious efforts increases predictablyâlike parents caving into a toddlerâs tantrums. Time for administrations to be the adult in the room!
This is not a âconservativeâ or âliberalâ position. Itâs an âacademic freedomâ and âopen inquiryâ and âtruth seekingâ position. After a Georgetown professor was placed on leave over some tweets critical of President Bidenâs promise to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court, itâs been striking to see the political diversity of people rallying around the professor, including liberal commentators like Michelle Goldberg. Even people who find his comments repulsive have raised their voices, such as The Atlanticâs Adam Serwer who wrote, âIâve made my feelings about what he said clear but itâs impossible for academic institutions to fulfill their missions if they fire or punish people under circumstances like these.â
Even so, amidst the unforgiving cultural ferment, many administrators remain fearful to do anything proactive. As a result, most professors are left having to navigate on their own what to do next. As one professor told us, âI am seeking skills to keep instilling love of thinking in my students, which implies questioning and listening, without fear of terrible retributions.â
When those attacks come, sincere apologies are sometimes offered to do better, as happened with Brother Wilcoxâconsistent with the gospel encouragement toward âdaily repentance.â Thatâs a good thing. In many other cases, however, as Dan Ellsworth pointed out this week, public statements of contrition often resemble âforced confessions among people who are terrified for their personal safety and well-beingââ what Sonia Sodha calls, âhostage notesâ involving what Ellsworth describes as:
Abject apologies that speak to the ideas of people they fear. They employ quasi-religious language: my heart has been awakened to realities I was not able to perceive before. I now see the light and I apologize for my actions before I came to this new understanding.
None of this, of course, is to deny the importance of doing what we can to advance greater equity and justice in societyâsomething prophets have confirmed as important. Ben Pacini explored facets of a more classic and compassionate form of anti-racism last week that has the potential to unite people across the political divide. And last year, Hanna Seariac explored ways the gospel of Jesus Christ could become a âfoundation for common ground on social justice.â
Why try and bring faith into this conversation at all? Maybe because none of these efforts towards achieving greater social justice seem to work all that well without it. As Dan Ellsworth argued this week, âThe Zion vision of social justice is only possible among the authentically convertedâânoting, âWithout the unifying power of real Christian conversion, attempts to imitate egalitarian Zion usually resort to winner-take-all politics or violent coercion to achieve their visions.â
Isnât this exactly what weâre seeing around us? Maybe this helps explain why schools with some kind of a religious foundationâfar from the repressive environment some pretend them to beâmay soon become the only places where open exploration of ideas is even possible (although the new University of Austin may prove otherwise). One professor who had taught as a visiting professor at BYU told me that she âactually felt freer there to express diverse opinions than at my home university.â
Hillsdale College is another encouraging example of religiously-grounded university education fully aligned with constitutional principles, which has been inspiring families across the country with their online offerings. Donât hold your breath to see distinctive advantages on religious campuses featured in headline news anytime soon! (But then again, the full truth never is).
May the beauty of the academy and its unabashed pursuit of truth burn bright. And may we continue to raise our voices and never stop working to preserve the ideals of free expression and pluralism that are foundational to the American experiment.
Note: If youâre concerned about these trends, consider joining me and many others from across the nation at the upcoming Heterodox Academy conference in Denver, Colorado, June 12-14.
JamesFebruary 15, 2022
People can't say whatever they want and then blame others for "getting offended" Even Christ says that in Matt 12:37.
L.N.February 12, 2022
I agree with the author of this article. I have had multiple encounters with BYU Grad students at a major University, whose feelings were hurt by me while teaching a Gospel Doctrine Class. Instead of just walking out, we had to hear about their tender feelings unable to live with my comments. If they were my kid (I have Grandkids their age) I would have verbally straighten them and taken away their cell phone for a year. What self centered babies are being raised and educated these days.