Moderator: Douglas Sprei, Vice President of Multimedia & Campus Partnerships, ACTA.

Panelists: Ilana Redstone, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and Faculty Director of the Mill Institute at the University of Austin; Pamela Paresky, Senior Research Fellow, Network Contagion Research Institute; and Molly Brigid McGrath, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Director of the D’Amour Center for Teaching Excellence at Assumption University.

The post Enlightenment on Campus in the 21st Century appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Functioning properly, tenure protections provide the foundations for academic freedom, robust discussion, and intellectual diversity on campus. Tenure should allow faculty to speak their minds about issues ranging from culture to politics to university governance without fear of losing their teaching positions. There would be even fewer distinguished conservatives and classical liberals on college faculties if they lacked tenure protections.

But overall, the current system is sorely underachieving. Honest citizens of the academy have acknowledged tenure’s flaws. The first is that contrary to the rhetoric of its defenders, it does not protect academic freedom as it should. The second is that it sometimes provides lifetime contracts to underperforming faculty.

The political imbalance of college faculty should be a fire bell in the night that tenure and promotion practices filter out candidates who do not align with prevailing campus orthodoxies. A 2020 National Association of Scholars survey gathered donor information from 12,372 professors and found that “American professors donate to Democrats instead of Republicans by a 95-1 ratio.” The most pernicious recent development , of course, is the notorious use of DEI statements in screening applicants for faculty positions.

Overall, rather than encouraging academic freedom, the six-year probationary period for tenure-track professors is a time when those aspiring to tenure are most unlikely to exercise their academic freedom.

Sadly, the problem of protecting underperforming faculty is one that goes back to tenure’s infancy. The American Political Science Association published a study in which 62% of the department chairs agreed that tenure “has shielded incompetent faculty from dismissal” at their institutions.

Perhaps it is time to move away from the current “up or out” practice of either terminating a professor or awarding a lifetime contract that is essentially an obligation of $3 to $4 million over the future of that professor’s career. Perhaps a system in which there are long-term, 10-year renewable contracts or 15-year contracts would give the institution financial and programmatic flexibility to respond to the needs of the workforce and student interest while still safeguarding the essential freedom of faculty in their teaching and research.

Tenure should be a special status, and post-tenure review should be rigorous. After a predetermined amount of time (preferably no more than five years), tenured professors should be subject to a process similar to the one they went through to get tenure in the first place. That means thorough reviews by committees of their department, outside evaluators, and the institution’s administration.

And arguably most important, trustees need to be involved. They need to examine carefully tenure and promotion policies and practices. Instead of rubber-stamping tenure recommendations, whether positive or negative, they need to have the time to review and inquire.

When faculty committees, provosts, and presidents know that their recommendations face a disinterested and objective final review, there is reason to believe that tenure and promotion decisions will be driven by data and less subject to the force of campus orthodoxy that is nowadays the greatest threat to academic freedom.

This piece appeared on The Washington Examiner on September 28, 2023.

The post <strong>Has tenure outlived its usefulness?</strong> appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Director Andrew J. Taylor remarks, “”The Free and Open Societies Project has been going, in one form or another, for nearly twenty years during which we have elevated and diversified the intellectual climate on NC State’s campus and added significant value to students’ educations.  To have this recognized by ACTA is incredibly satisfying and we hope to make this Oasis of Excellence a place where students and faculty can quench their thirst for ideas for twenty years to come.”   

Oases of Excellence are outstanding programs at colleges and universities across the country that are dedicated to educating students for informed citizenship in a free society by maintaining the highest academic standards, introducing students to the best of the foundational arts and sciences, teaching American heritage, and ensuring free inquiry into a range of intellectual viewpoints. ACTA’s Oases of Excellence network now includes over 80 programs at a wide range of institutions. The network is a forum for sharing ideas and best practices for running an independent liberal arts program and serves as a valuable resource for donors who are committed to supporting academic excellence. 

ACTA is proud of the work of these programs and is grateful to the faculty who make Oases of Excellence possible. ACTA President Michael Poliakoff stated, “At a time when surveys reveal with chilling clarity how little college students understand about America’s free institutions and their history, these centers’ efforts to equip students for informed and engaged life are urgently needed. They model the vigorous, free discourse and intellectual diversity that are the lifeblood of our free society. They also encourage the rich life of the mind through deep engagement in the liberal arts.”   

A complete list of ACTA’s Oases of Excellence can be found here. 

MEDIA CONTACT: Gabrielle Anglin
EMAIL: ganglin@goacta.org

The post ACTA Welcomes the Free and Open Societies Project at North Carolina State University into the Oases of Excellence Network appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni hosted a webinar on August 9, 2023, exploring free expression and intellectual diversity in American higher education. Dr. Steven McGuire, ACTA’s Paul & Karen Levy Fellow in Campus Freedom, moderated the event. Panelists included Marty Kotis, trustee of the University of North Carolina (UNC)–Chapel Hill and former member of the UNC Board of Governors; Dr. Erec Smith, associate professor of rhetoric and composition at York College of Pennsylvania and co-founder of Free Black Thought; Karrin Taylor Robson, founder and president of Arizona Strategies and former member of the Arizona Board of Regents; and Dr. Abigail Thompson, distinguished professor of mathematics at the University of California–Davis and co-founder and secretary of the Association for Mathematical Research. They examined the necessity of free expression and intellectual diversity, threats to these ideals in today’s activist climate, and ways to protect and promote them on campus.

This webinar is part of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni’s Institute for Effective Governance®.

The post Defending Free Expression and Intellectual Diversity: What Trustees Need to Know appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

ACTA’s Steve McGuire sits down with Eric Kaufmann, Professor of Politics at Birkbeck College, University of London. He is the author of several books, including Whiteshift: Immigration, Populism and the Future of White Majorities; Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth; The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America; and The Orange Order. He is co-editor, among others, of Political Demography and editor of Rethinking Ethnicity: Majority Groups and Dominant Minorities. He has also written for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Times of London, Newsweek, National Review, New Statesman, Financial Times, Wall Street Journal and other outlets. 

Download a transcript of the podcast HERE.
Note: Please check any quotations against the audio recording.

The post <strong>Eric Kaufmann: Academic Freedom Under Pressure</strong> appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Join the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) on August 9, 2023, at 2 p.m. EST for a webinar exploring free expression and intellectual diversity in American higher education. Dr. Steven McGuire, ACTA’s Paul & Karen Levy Fellow in Campus Freedom, will moderate the event. Panelists will examine the necessity of free expression and intellectual diversity, threats to these ideals in today’s activist climate, and ways to protect and promote them on campus. Trustees will leave the event with tools and specific action steps to cultivate free expression at their institutions.

PANELISTS

Marty Kotis, trustee of the University of North Carolina (UNC)–Chapel Hill and former member of the UNC Board of Governors

Marty Kotis serves as a trustee for the University of North Carolina (UNC)–Chapel Hill and is the founder and CEO of Kick Ass Concepts, which develops high-end commercial real-estate and concepts. Mr. Kotis has brought his entrepreneurial energy and activator style to UNC–Chapel Hill’s board, helping to initiate proactive reforms, including spearheading the board’s unanimous decision to establish at the university the School of Civic Life and Leadership. This new school will have its own dean and faculty and an ideologically balanced collection of course offerings to help students explore American civic principles with the freedom of expression, intellectual diversity, and open inquiry that such studies require. Mr. Kotis holds an M.B.A from the University of North Carolina–Greensboro and a B.S. in business from the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill’s Kenan-Flagler Business School.

Dr. Erec Smith, associate professor of rhetoric and composition at York College of Pennsylvania and co-founder of Free Black Thought

Erec Smith is an associate professor of rhetoric and composition at York College of Pennsylvania and visiting scholar of politics and society at the Cato Institute. He is also one of the founders of Free Black Thought, a website and journal dedicated to spotlighting viewpoint diversity among black intellectuals. Professor Smith became a leader in the academic freedom movement when he argued that a keynote address delivered at a recent conference in his discipline exhibited the kind of performative politics that fails to effect real change and challenged the speaker’s claim that teaching standardized English to students of color is an act of white supremacy. He developed this argument further in A Critique of Anti-racism in Rhetoric and Composition: The Semblance of Empowerment, a book that dissects the over-reliance of anti-racist initiatives on identity politics and victimization and offers an alternative based on self-empowerment. Dr. Smith holds a Ph.D. in English with a concentration in language, literacy, and rhetoric; an M.A. in English from the University of Illinois Chicago; and a B.A. in English from Ursinus College.

Karrin Taylor Robson, founder and president of Arizona Strategies and former member of the Arizona Board of Regents

Karrin Taylor Robson is a founder and president of Arizona Strategies, a premier land use strategy firm, and has worked with national organizations representing major landowners and stakeholders across the country to advance balanced federal environmental law and policy on endangered species acts and wetlands issues. In June 2017, she was appointed by Governor Doug Ducey to the Arizona Board of Regents, which is responsible for the governance of the state’s public universities. She also serves as the chair of the Joe Foss Institute, a board officer of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, a board member of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and invisionAZ, and a member of the Civic Leaders Group for the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force. As a regent, she helped launch the Regents’ Cup, a debate competition for students at Arizona’s public universities that promotes rigorous, respectful discourse and celebrates free speech and democratic engagement. Ms. Robson holds a J.D. from Arizona State University College of Law and a B.A. in history from Arizona State University.

Dr. Abigail Thompson, distinguished professor of mathematics at the University of California–Davis and co-founder and secretary of the Association for Mathematical Research

Abigail Thompson is a distinguished professor of mathematics at the University of California–Davis and a co-founder of the Association for Mathematical Research. In a 2019 op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, entitled “The University’s New Loyalty Oath,” she chastised the University of California system’s new hiring process for privileging some intellectual viewpoints over others, a violation of the university’s stand against McCarthy-era loyalty oaths. Professor Thompson argued that the rubric for assessing applicants’ diversity statements was not ideologically neutral, infringing on academic freedom and threatening intellectual diversity. ACTA honored her with its 2019 Hero of Intellectual Freedom award for this bold challenge. She holds a Ph.D. in mathematics from Rutgers University.

MODERATOR

Dr. Steven McGuire, ACTA’s Paul & Karen Levy Fellow in Campus Freedom

As ACTA’s Paul & Karen Levy Fellow in Campus Freedom, Steven McGuire leads our Campus Freedom Initiative. He frequently writes and speaks on free speech and academic freedom in the context of contemporary campus issues. Prior to joining ACTA, Dr. McGuire was director of the Matthew J. Ryan Center for the Study of Free Institutions and the Public Good and associate teaching professor in the Augustine and Culture Seminar Program at Villanova University. His academic research focuses on the history of political thought, in particular on the theme of modernity and its critics. He is the co-editor of several academic publications, andhis writing has appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Broad and Liberty, RealClearPolitics, Inside Higher Ed, The Public Discourse, Church Life Journal, Modern Age, Perspectives on Political Science, and the Political Science Reviewer. Dr. McGuire holds a Ph.D. from the Catholic University of America, an M.A. from the University of Saskatchewan, and a B.A. from the University of Lethbridge. He was a Bradley Fellow, an ISI Richard M. Weaver Fellow, and a 2021 Claremont Institute Lincoln Fellow.

This webinar is part of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni’s Institute for Effective Governance®.

The post <strong>Defending Free Expression and Intellectual Diversity: What Trustees Need to Know</strong> appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

The University of Texas (UT)–Austin is a public Ivy that draws applicants from all corners of the United States and beyond. Its motto is, “Education is the guardian of the state.” But is UT–Austin fortifying our pluralistic democracy if its students self-censor and shout down views they do not like? Is it serving citizens, as its mission claims, if political and social views held by large percentages of the population are rarely heard on campus?

The UT System Board of Regents recently adopted the Chicago Principles on Freedom of Expression. This was an important action, signaling a commitment to free speech, but a recent survey of 1,003 UT–Austin students by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) and College Pulse shows that the university needs to do more to build a culture of free expression and viewpoint diversity on campus.

We asked students about their comfort level expressing unpopular ideas, their support for disrupting guest speakers, and their confidence in the university administration’s commitment to protecting free expression, among other topics. We found that undergraduate students are:

• too eager to shout down invited speakers or even use violence to silence them;

• prone to self-censorship; and

• uncertain that the university administration supports free expression on campus.

Our survey also reveals significant differences between the experiences of liberal and conservative students on campus, finding that:

• Conservative students are much more likely than liberals to censor themselves.

• Liberal students endorse censorship tactics at higher rates than conservatives.

• Liberal students are much more likely than conservatives to report having few or no friends who hold political views different from their own.

• Conservative students are much more likely to report having lost friends due to their political beliefs.

These results indicate that UT–Austin should do more to ensure that students routinely hear a wide variety of views and learn how to interact civilly with others.

Key Findings

• Only one-fifth of students (21%) say shouting down a campus speaker is never acceptable.

Every year, guest speakers are shouted down at colleges and universities across the country. These exercises of the “heckler’s veto” violate what U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall termed the “freedom to speak and the freedom to hear.” Our survey shows that a troubling 44% of UT– Austin students believe that it is “sometimes acceptable” or “always acceptable” to use this tactic. We also found significant differences between liberal students, 48% of whom say shouting down a speaker is “sometimes acceptable” or “always acceptable,” and conservative students (23%). Conversely, only 14% of liberals say shouting down a speaker is “never acceptable,” whereas 52% of conservatives say the same.

• Only 6 in 10 students (59%) say it is never acceptable to use violence to disrupt a campus speaker.

A number of campus events featuring guest speakers turned violent this past year. Perhaps most notoriously, former NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines was accosted and trapped for hours after speaking at San Francisco State University. It is stunning that 18% of UT–Austin students say using violence to disrupt a guest speaker is “sometimes acceptable” or “always acceptable.” It is also notable that liberal students (15%) and conservative students (14%) essentially agree with one another on this point, although conservatives are more likely to say that violence is “never acceptable” (70% compared to 59% for liberals).

• Half of all students (47%) and 70% of conservative students report feeling like they could not express themselves at least occasionally.

Given the willingness to stop guest speakers from sharing their views, it is perhaps not surprising that half of respondents (47%) say they have at least occasionally felt like they could not express an opinion because of how students, a professor, or the university administration would respond. While only 14% say they felt this way “fairly often” or “very often,” the experience of liberal and conservative students again diverge, with 9% of liberal students saying they could not express themselves “fairly often” or “very often,” compared to 36% of conservatives. In addition, liberals are four times more likely to say they have never felt the need to self-censor (20% of liberals compared to 5% of conservatives).

• Four in 10 of all students (38%) and 7 in 10 conservative students (68%) report not speaking up at least once a month because they thought their opinion would be unwelcome.

Twenty percent of students say they have not spoken up at least several times a month because they thought their views would be unwelcome. This number is higher among conservatives: 43% compared to just 17% among liberals. Liberals are also four times more likely to say they have never not spoken up because they thought their view would be unwelcome (39% for liberals compared to 11% for conservatives). Taken together, the responses to this question and the previous one show that too many students are refraining from sharing their views, and that the campus community is particularly deprived of contributions from conservative students.

• Two-thirds of the UT–Austin student population (65%) identifies as liberal, and only 10% identifies as conservative.

It is especially concerning that conservative students are more likely to remain quiet when we consider how few of them there are on campus. Asked to place themselves on a nine-point ideological scale, most respondents (65%) said they were “very,” “somewhat,” or “slightly liberal.” Only 10% selected “very,” “somewhat,” or “slightly conservative.” In addition to “moderate,” respondents were given the opportunity to select “I do not identify as a liberal or a conservative” or “Haven’t thought much about this,” which we grouped as “other” in the chart below.

• Seven in 10 liberal students (71%) report having few to no friends with different political beliefs. Only 1 in 5 conservative students (21%) say the same.

Given the ideological composition of the student body at UT–Austin, it is not surprising that liberal students are not likely to have many friends with different political views. Eighteen percent of liberal students say they have no friends with different political views, compared to just 3% of conservatives. Conversely, 50% of conservatives say that many to all of their friends have different political views, whereas only 19% of liberals say the same.

• Conservatives (30%) are twice as likely as liberals (14%) to say that they have lost friends because of their political beliefs.

While conservative students are likely to have more friends with political views that are different from their own, they are also more likely to say they have lost friends due to their political beliefs. This is another indication that some students at UT–Austin struggle to get along with others who have different political views. Overall, 16% of UT–Austin students report having lost friends due to their political beliefs.

• Only one-third of students (30%) say it is “extremely clear” or “very clear” that the university administration protects free speech on campus.

When asked if it is clear that the university administration protects free speech, most students answered “somewhat clear.” There is only a slight gap between conservatives (25%) and liberals (33%) who say it is “extremely clear” or “very clear.”

• Students who self-censor more often are more likely to find the university administration’s stance on free expression “not very clear” or “not at all clear.”

Not surprisingly, those who report that they self-censor very often are more likely to be unsure about the administration’s willingness to protect free speech on campus. Forty-nine percent of these students say the administration’s position is “not very clear” or “not at all clear.”

Conclusion

Our data suggest that UT–Austin must do more to promote free expression and viewpoint diversity on campus. The university should also be concerned about students’ willingness to shout down speakers or even use violence to disrupt them. ACTA lauds the UT System Board of Regents for adopting the Chicago Principles on Freedom of Expression and encourages the UT–Austin administration to take decisive actions to build on this foundation. If UT–Austin implements free expression programming during freshman orientation, adopts a statement of institutional neutrality, and creates more opportunities (such as campus debates) for students to hear a variety of views, it will be poised to strengthen a culture of freedom and tolerance for all members of the campus community.

Appendix A: Methodology

This survey was designed and conducted by College Pulse. Interviews were conducted in English among a sample of 1,003 undergraduate students who were enrolled at the University of Texas–Austin during the 2022—23 academic year. Survey panel members were recruited by a number of methods to help ensure diversity in the panel population, including web advertising, permission-based email campaigns, and partnerships with university organizations.

To reduce the effects of any non-response bias, a post-stratification adjustment was applied based on demographic distributions from the 2017 Current Population Survey (CPS). The post-stratification weight rebalanced the sample based on the following benchmarks: age, race and ethnicity, and gender. The sample weighting was accomplished using an iterative proportional fitting (IFP) process that simultaneously balances the distributions of all variables. Weights were trimmed to prevent individual interviews from having too much influence on the final results.

The margin of error for this survey is ±3%. Margins of error are typically calculated on probability-based samples and are not technically correct for non-probability online samples. We supply them here to provide a general assessment of error ranges that may be associated with the data.

Appendix B: Survey Questions in this Report

Q1: How acceptable would you say it is for students to engage in the following action to protest a campus speaker: Shouting down a speaker or trying to prevent them from speaking on campus.

1) Always acceptable
2) Sometimes acceptable
3) Rarely acceptable
4) Never acceptable

Q2: How acceptable would you say it is for students to engage in the following action to protest a campus speaker: Using violence to stop a campus speech?

1) Always acceptable
2) Sometimes acceptable
3) Rarely acceptable
4) Never acceptable

Q3: On your campus, how often have you felt that you could not express your opinion on a subject because of how students, a professor, or the administration would respond?

1) Never
2) Rarely
3) Occasionally
4) Fairly often
5) Very often

Q4: How often have you not spoken up on campus because you thought your opinion would be unwelcome?

1) Weekly
2) Several times a month
3) Once a month
4) Less than once a month
5) Never

Q5: Using the following scale, how would you describe your political beliefs?

1) Very liberal, somewhat liberal, or slightly liberal
2) Moderate/middle of the road
3) Slightly conservative, somewhat conservative, or very conservative
4) I do not identify as a liberal or a conservative, or haven’t thought much about this

Q6: How many friends on campus do you have who adhere to a different political ideology?

1) All
2) Most
3) Many
4) About half
5) A few
6) Just one or two
7) None

Q7: Have you lost friends on campus because of your political beliefs?

1) Yes
2) No

Q8: How clear is it to you that your college administration protects free speech on campus?

1) Extremely clear
2) Very clear
3) Somewhat clear
4) Not very clear
5) Not at all clear

The post Free Expression and Viewpoint Diversity at the University of Texas—Austin appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Key findings:

• Only 6 in 10 students (59%) say it is never acceptable to use violence to disrupt a campus speaker. Eighteen percent say it is always or sometimes acceptable.
• Only one-fifth of students (21%) say shouting down a campus speaker is never acceptable. Forty-four percent say it is always or sometimes acceptable.
• Half of all students (47%) and 70% of conservative students report feeling like they could not express themselves at least occasionally.
• Seven in 10 liberal students (71%) report having few to no friends with different political beliefs. Only 1 in 5 conservative students (21%) say the same.

ACTA President Michael Poliakoff remarked, “We are seeing meaningful breakthroughs in the Texas capital. However, the political divide in our nation is widening, and our survey suggests one of the catalysts of polarization is happening right on campus, where friendship and positive interaction should build understanding. There is clearly quite a distance to travel to restore intellectual diversity on campus and relearn what it means to engage in civil discourse. The regents are firmly on the path of embracing best practices for building campuses that—to borrow the words of the UT System—promote ‘fearless freedom of debate and deliberation.’”

“The University of Texas System Board of Regents should be commended for adopting the Chicago Principles last fall,” stated ACTA’s Paul & Karen Levy Fellow in Campus Freedom, Dr. Steven McGuire. “But our survey shows that more needs to be done to create a culture of free expression and viewpoint diversity at UT–Austin. It is especially disturbing to see how many students say it is acceptable to use violence to stop someone from speaking. A university campus should be a refuge from threats of violence where people can freely and openly debate ideas and exchange views. Leadership at UT–Austin should take further steps to educate its students about the importance of free expression while also establishing policies that protect it and promote viewpoint diversity. ACTA’s Gold Standard for Freedom of Expression has tools to help rectify this imbalance and make its campus more open to diverse viewpoints.”

The survey report can be found here.

MEDIA CONTACT: Gabrielle Anglin
EMAIL: ganglin@goacta.org
PHONE: (202) 798-5425

The post <strong>New Survey of UT—Austin Students by ACTA Reveals Disturbing Trends in Self-Censorship on Campus </strong> appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

The post Dr. Dorian Abbot appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Key findings:

• Thirty-five percent of students said that it is “always acceptable” or “sometimes acceptable” to shout down an invited speaker.
• Forty-five percent of conservative students said they do not speak up at least several times a month because they fear their opinion would be unwelcome, compared to just 16% of liberal students.
• Seven in 10 liberal students (71%) reported having few to no friends with different political beliefs. Only 1 in 3 conservative students (33%) said the same.
• One-third of all students (32%) and half of conservative students said it is “not very clear” or “not at all clear” that the university administration protects free speech.
  
  

ACTA President Michael Poliakoff remarked, “A university should be a sanctuary where the free exchange of ideas thrives, and viewpoint diversity isn’t just tolerated but encouraged. Instead, the cultures on American university campuses are increasingly characterized by fear, intimidation, and ideological conformity. The Buckeye state’s flagship university has a chance to reverse that trend and right the ship, but it must act with purpose and urgency. If OSU takes these findings seriously, it can be a model for free expression and intellectual diversity on campus and truly educate for citizenry.”

“Our survey suggests that the OSU administration needs to do more to encourage free expression and intellectual diversity on campus,” stated ACTA’s Paul & Karen Levy Fellow in Campus Freedom, Dr. Steven McGuire. “Too many students are self-censoring, and too many are willing to stop others from sharing their views. By surveying over 2,000 students, we heard from a significant number of self-identified conservative students, and it is clear that they experience a campus that is less friendly to them and their views compared to their liberal peers. OSU should seek to rectify this imbalance and make its campus more open to diverse viewpoints by implementing the recommendations in ACTA’s Gold Standard for Freedom of Expression.

The survey report can be found here.

MEDIA CONTACT: Gabrielle Anglin
EMAIL: ganglin@goacta.org
PHONE: (202) 798-5425

The post <strong>New Survey of OSU Students by ACTA Reveals Disturbing Trends in Self-Censorship on Campus</strong> appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.