Ideological orthodoxy & viewpoint discrimination are two sides of one coin.
It's embarrassing, but many administrators & faculty don't get this - or pretend not to.
🧵1/
It's embarrassing, but many administrators & faculty don't get this - or pretend not to.
🧵1/
Faculty condemn viewpoint discrimination against an NHJ, even as their own departments issue partisan statements on contested ethical & political issues.
Such institutional statements establish a clear ideological orthodoxy.
It's the very essence of viewpoint discrimination! 2/
Such institutional statements establish a clear ideological orthodoxy.
It's the very essence of viewpoint discrimination! 2/
Partisan institutional statements on contested ethics & politics betray the university's mission.
They subordinate truth to power, inquiry to conformity.
They substitute a narrow, contested vision of justice for pursuit of truth, including truth about what counts as justice. 3/
They subordinate truth to power, inquiry to conformity.
They substitute a narrow, contested vision of justice for pursuit of truth, including truth about what counts as justice. 3/
Such statements deploy institutional power.
They carry an implicit threat: Dissent not welcome; Conform, or else.
That's why @GlennLoury responded as he did to Brown's letter on racism: it was *functionally* a partisan institutional statement. 4/ tinyurl.com/ya47t7m6
They carry an implicit threat: Dissent not welcome; Conform, or else.
That's why @GlennLoury responded as he did to Brown's letter on racism: it was *functionally* a partisan institutional statement. 4/ tinyurl.com/ya47t7m6
Institutional viewpoint neutrality is *essential* to academic freedom & rejecting viewpoint discrimination.
Universities must remain neutral b/w competing reasonable ethico-political views.
That's what *secures* maximal freedom for faculty to inquire & teach as they see fit. 5/
Universities must remain neutral b/w competing reasonable ethico-political views.
That's what *secures* maximal freedom for faculty to inquire & teach as they see fit. 5/
As individuals or in groups *speaking in their own voices* faculty can & should say what they want, however partisan or controversial!
But to speak in that way *as/for an institution* establishes an orthodoxy & enacts viewpoint discrimination. 6/
But to speak in that way *as/for an institution* establishes an orthodoxy & enacts viewpoint discrimination. 6/
So, a group of faculty *in their own voice* may avow Catholic, libertarian, or BLM ideology.
But they can't declare *the institution* committed to these while remaining a secular research university. 7/
But they can't declare *the institution* committed to these while remaining a secular research university. 7/
Even unanimous votes on such ethical & political topics don't change things.
Academic freedom & rejecting viewpoint discrimination aren't up for a vote.
They're conditions for the possibility of inquiry & require institutional neutrality.
Today's heresy is tomorrow's truth. 8/
Academic freedom & rejecting viewpoint discrimination aren't up for a vote.
They're conditions for the possibility of inquiry & require institutional neutrality.
Today's heresy is tomorrow's truth. 8/
You can't have it both ways.
It's one & the same wrong to nix NHJ for her views, as to declare her views (or another ideology's) those of a department or university.
The university should be a site to debate our deepest differences, not another player in the culture wars. fin/
It's one & the same wrong to nix NHJ for her views, as to declare her views (or another ideology's) those of a department or university.
The university should be a site to debate our deepest differences, not another player in the culture wars. fin/
All of this, by the way, is addressed in detail in the University of Chicago's 1967 Kalven report on academic freedom.
www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/07/pd…
www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/07/pd…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
