James D. Herbert’s Feb. 11 column, “Are We Just Another Echo Chamber?” drew less attention than one due to the University of New England’s president. It evoked just 18 comments and a single letter of support. The column argued that the political right’s characterization of American Academia as “plagued by liberal bias and elitism” has merit, and undermines public confidence in institutions of higher education. He supports his first thesis by citing studies documenting an imbalance in academics political views and partisan identification, e.g., a 2016 survey of more than 7,000 professors found that liberals outnumbered conservatives 11.5 to 1 nationally and 28:1 in New England. He cites a Gallup Survey and Pew Study to support his anxieties about declining confidence.
President Herbert asserts a familiar principle: “The marketplace of ideas can’t function optimally without a range of perspectives in the mix.” The belief that in the need for a free competition of ideas was first expressed by John Milton in 1644 and further developed by John Stuart Mill’s book On Liberty in 1859. Liberals and libertarians have been nearly unanimous in upholding the Mills view in my lifetime. The “market place” metaphor has been repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court and may be called the dominating idea in America’s free speech law.
Herbert’s case against the “echo chamber” comes from his belief in the value of ideological diversity and, more importantly, the value of debate. He clearly believes that minds enclosed in conformist bubbles, where no contradictory ideas are never heard except in the form of caricature, will deteriorate. He proposes that our universities make intellectual diversity an institutional priority, select ideologically diverse search committees, train “search committees to become aware of their own biases,” and seek talent by targeting publications, organizations, conferences popular among conservatives.
Some of these suggestions might prove useful, but they don’t promise a real transformation. University presidents are not generally notable for displaying the kind of courage required to enforce a diversity priority. The overwhelming predominance of left-lurching faculty makes it difficult to form a diverse search committee, and the idea of “training” faculty whose resumes are already adorned with bachelors, masters and doctoral degrees seems a little odd. Exposing the faculties to the sources of conservative thinking is more promising. At the very least it will make them aware of the existence of such oddities.
Some remarks in the PPH comments thread show how tough a row the UNE president has chosen to hoe. None of them directly deny the value of competition. None boldly deny that diversity is a good thing. Although not numerous, the hostile responses fall into four familiar categories, all useless as debate material.
Indignant Abuse: “…a bunch of garbage” “…Hogwash” “…fearmongering” “…alt-right meme spreaders” “….a horrifying column from a university president”
The Urge to Purge: “It seems that he may be in the wrong state and the wrong institution with these views” “….maybe he ought to step down in favor of somebody with more imagination “…any plans I had to donate to the school will now be pushed till James is out as president”
Flat Denial: “I have NEVER once had a professor that has talked about their political and/or personal views” “….Political leanings are irrelevant” “….a tremendous amount of ideological diversity”
Invincible Smugness: “There is an imbalance liberals want to help others, conservatives want to help themselves” “…social justice warriors have been the heroes in our civic history” “Republicans distrust education?—How am I not surprised”
Herbert is acting according to one of his prescriptions by offering a President’s Forum presentation on March 19. “Making Sense of Jordan Peterson” has two faculty who will debate the ideas of University of Toronto psychologist Jordan B. Peterson, the mere mention of whose name makes social justice warriors incandescent with fury. His YouTube videos are viewed by millions. He habitually defies the canons of political correctness and far-left intolerance. He welcomes controversy with gusto.
President Herbert believes he has a duty to teach students that the heckler’s veto is incompatible with the free exchange of ideas. If that this is not the plain duty of every university president, than an argument must be made to explain why it is right to silence some opinions while allowing free expression for others.
Fabulous article john! May i point out a college with a more conservative view ,that welcomes actual real debate, not just a one sided conversation.
“Hillsdale college ” i would consider donating to them instead. They also do not take any government funding. And ALSO give FREE ONLINE courses on the constitution, and more. I encourage anyone to check out this fine college!
I know it is over said but teach them how to think, not what to think. Get over the false left vs right distraction people.
Well written piece here.
IMO, I truly hate to say this but Debate maybe DOA. Think of the last time you had an open honest debate with someone who holds opposing views, online or in real life. Personally I’ve seen longer and longer times between finding people who are open to honest conversation and debate. People have willingly assumed their boxes and have no desire to be considered as an outside the box type person even when they have to be intellectually dishonest in order to remain in their box.
Innovation has been on its deathbed for awhile now due to the same constraints, there are so few people or corporations willing to take a chance on anything, I saw pictures of a driverless car prototype the other day- it looked like any other car you have ever seen sans the steering wheel, pedals and instrument cluster! I thought then and there it was a glaring example of what’s wrong with America today. (The most recent ghostbusters movie would have been my other example)
The hard right tends to draw a line at questioning the military or certain republicans. The hard left goes a step further where you cannot question the party ideology at all and must support any and all members of said party, this has been going on for so long it’s hard to remember when it started.
Now our “Debates” center around FEELINGS on the right you have fear of terrorism and on the left you have fear of everything else. The problem with Feelings is that you can’t debate feelings, their emotional responses and usually that doesn’t work real well. You can’t be honest without people feeling something.
I heard somewhere recently that Free speech is protected, but not hate speech….other than something someone’s deems as hate speech, what kind of speech would ever need protected. In other words- if speech is hated by no one than it never needs protected in the first place.
It wouldn’t be so bad debating the left, if they were actually versed in the art of debating. Any subject of choosing from gun rights to abortion to the freedom of speech, liberals truly are remiss on these current hot button issues. They cite false facts, and get upset when true facts counter their false ones. The other day I was talking to a liberal about abortion, they equated abortion to unethical banking practices, you can’t have an educated debate with people like that, because they don’t understand the subject matter. Teachers do this sort of thing all the time as well. They teach that Vikings slaughtered people, they don’t even mention why the Vikings were so upset. So students get the impression that the Vikings were savage barbarians. They attacked those who posed a threat to them, Catholics. The Catholics had a kill or convert philosophy back then. The Vikings had their own way of life. Who wouldn’t attack foreigners for killing those who didn’t believe the things they taught? The left needs to learn how the things we have came to be, and the laws that govern them, because they are clueless about such things.
Mill’s quote about conservatives is as true today as when it was written.
Great comments mentioned by all!
Not to stir a “terd” so to speak, or change the topic. But id like to touch on the subject of all the high school children , with all the “walk outs” regarding the school shooting in F.L. . They seem to be protesting “gun violence” , and yes, this gets into a WHOLE HUGE list of other things. But it just seems to me, what they should be talking about is the fact that the armed policeman that was at the school, FAILED to do his job and protect them. But instead did nothing. But somehow , it gets turned into a political football about gun’s. We protect and guard almost everything in this country. But not our kids schools? Theres not ONE politician, movie star or other 1%’er , that dosent have armed guards , walls or gates , safe room’s above or underground, around their property to protect them. Why would we not do the same for our under age school children.?
Good article John. I’m afraid though that there isn’t much hope in the near future. Postmodern liberalism denies the correspondence theory of truth. I’m sure that this is the case with most of the professors- at least in the social sciences and humanities. They’ve created their own little unreality bubble with its own pseudo-morality where they can demand nonbinary pronouns and hold anyone who doesn’t agree to share in their delusions in utter contempt. I doubt courses in logic are much in demand nowadays.
Someone mentioned Hillsdale- it IS a great school- which we call consevative but in reality is one of the last true holdouts for classical liberalism.
Hello dan. Can you explain “classical liberalism “? Thank you .
Craig it’s pretty much what we call conservatism today.
Copied this from something called Chegg Study-
Classical Liberalism
Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets — as well as limited government. It developed in 18th-century Europe and drew on the economic writings of Adam Smith and the growing notion of social progress. Liberalism was also influenced by the writings of Thomas Hobbes, who argued that governments exist to protect individuals from each other. In 19th- and 20th-century America, the values of classical liberalism became dominant in both major political parties. The term is sometimes used broadly to refer to all forms of liberalism prior to the 20th century. Conservatives and libertarians often invoke classical liberalism to mean a fundamental belief in minimal government.
I think it is simplistic to reduce this issue to “Left” and “Right”. I am a left winger and I am not impressed at all by the present academic climate because it offends my civil libertarian viewpoints in silencing dissenting views. Meanwhile some of the views tolerated are anti-science, undermine equity, and promote identity politics which in my view set back the cause of true equity for women, Indigenous peoples, and people of colour a generation at least.
I think you all will be happy to know that debate and vigorous polite disagreement is still alive and well at UMF, where there are active college Democrat and Republican contingencies. We tell students, “disagreement is good,” that it is the basis for democracy. Without disagreement, there is no checking of what one believes, no ability to reap the benefits of an open democracy. Democracy needs disagreement. We also try to model and get students to recognize respect for different views, even ones that arouse emotion, is really important. Left needs right, and right needs left. It would not be good if one side “won” all the time. Democracy rests on a culture that accepts the legitimacy of the other side, and that it’s good when power transfers from one party to another at reasonable interviews. Our students internalize this, Republicans and Democrats usually get along very well. Alas, the rest of the culture doesn’t always follow suit.
News flash the marketplace of ideas is open and thriving. Evidence the existence of this article and responses. But maybe in that marketplace some ideas sell better than others. If I don’t like the outcome it’s my job to do a better job presenting my case . Let us not sit on the ground and tell sad tales rather though we are not as we once were let us yet strive (stolen poorly from better men than I)
LINDAR: Nothing I can disagree with. I don’t know whether he would agree with me that the silence of left-wingers who disagree with the “present academic climate” is a barrier to academic debate.
SCOTT ERB has a point. UMF has some conservative and libertarian faculty. The GOP club there has been active and effective. Kalikow and I have enjoyed e-mail discussions which mixed civil disagreements with agreements about educational methods. The biggest problem is the lack of organized debates and, worse, failure ever to invite speakers who reflect conservative or libertarian views. Or did I miss one or two?
CITIZEN’S argument seems to be that there’s proof that the columns by President Herbert and myself were not needed—because the appearance of the columns shows that it was not necessary to write them. There seems to be a subordinate argument that right-wing points of view are not heard because right-wing points of view aren’t fit to be heard. If this interpretation is incorrect it’s at least partly his fault.
How do you ever debate this…
Liberals believe that by age 18 (or younger) you are old enough to make your choice to have consensual sex, an abortion – or Even choose your gender.
You are old enough to leave home, get married, have a job, buy a house, sign legal contracts, vote, drive a vehicle, have a child, move anywhere you like, even give your life for your country.
But no way is it safe for you to have even a single legal bottle of beer or glass of wine or own a rifle or handgun and you’re never old enough to come to a consensual agreement with an employer about what you are willing to accept for a job salary for any low wage job; the government must set wages for you.