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

The post Nadine Strossen: Free Speech in a Time of Campus Crisis appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Initially celebrated as the first black woman to serve in the role, she will be remembered as a serial plagiarist and free speech hypocrite who presided over the punishment of heterodox thinkers but was unable to condemn calls for the genocide of Jews.

Most of all, she will be regarded as a symbol of the folly of hiring for diversity without regard for merit — another hard lesson on affirmative action for Harvard just six months after it was told by the U.S. Supreme Court to stop racial discrimination in admissions.

Harvard responded to that decision with arrogance, or what it called “resolve,” indicating that its desire to discriminate remained unhindered. The university’s ultimate response to the current fiasco remains to be seen. Will it finally learn the right lesson? Will it take this opportunity to reform itself, abandoning ideology and repression to embrace truth and freedom? Will it retreat into the ivory tower and refocus on the intellectual life after getting walloped in the political arena?

Gay’s resignation is barely an occasion for hope. While it is remarkable that the president of Harvard — a rich, powerful, and independent institution — was compelled to resign, neither she nor the Harvard Corporation, the board that elected her president, have shown any sign of true remorse.

Instead, Gay has portrayed herself as a victim. In the New York Times, she wrote, “Trusted institutions of all types . . . will continue to fall victim to coordinated attempts to undermine their legitimacy and ruin their leaders’ credibility,” without any apparent reflection on how her own history of plagiarism and her failed leadership at Harvard does just that.

And no member of the Harvard Corporation has accepted any responsibility, including Senior Fellow Penny Pritzker, who led the search that resulted in Gay’s selection. Unlike her counterpart at the University of Pennsylvania, Scott Bok, who resigned immediately after Liz Magill did, she has announced she will not resign.

Worse than the lack of remorse, there is little indication that anyone in charge recognizes or cares about the deeper problem Harvard faces, of which Claudine Gay was an avatar.

As two eminent Harvard professors, Harvey Mansfield and James Hankins, independently observed, the very selection of Gay as president illustrated the fundamental problem: Harvard wants to be a political actor advancing progressive ideology rather than an institution dedicated to the life of the mind. Gay said as much in her first speech as president-elect, pronouncing that “the idea of the Ivory Tower, that is the past, not the future, of academia” and that she wanted Harvard “to be engaged with the world.” As Mansfield quipped, that “turned out to mean having to face Elise Stefanik in Washington and answer her questions.”

Not only is Harvard ill-equipped to play such a political role, but, as Professor Hankins points out, “the path of political engagement . . . undermines its true mission.” Harvard’s motto, which it still parades around on shields like a war prize, is Veritas, or truth. The key to fixing Harvard is returning to that motto and recognizing that Harvard is an institution whose purpose is not political activism, which demands ideological conformity, but truth seeking, which depends on openness to heterodoxy.

Whether Harvard will be reformed ultimately depends on the Harvard Corporation. The immense pressure from donors, alumni, journalists, and even Congress, all of which have played essential roles so far, should continue, but the necessary changes will take place only when those who bear fiduciary responsibility for the university accept their duty and exercise their authority to lead.

One cause for the slimmest of hopes is a reported dinner between two members of the corporation and a few faculty representatives of Harvard’s Council on Academic Freedom. That group included Jeffrey Flier and Steven Pinker, two long-standing defenders of free expression and intellectual diversity. Professor Flier has defended institutional neutrality and urged the board to live up to its responsibility. Professor Pinker has laid out a five-point plan for Harvard that includes embracing free speech and viewpoint diversity and seriously curtailing DEI work on campus.

As donor Bill Ackman has learned, that last point is critical. DEI offices and programs have had a pernicious effect on American campuses, including Harvard’s. The explosion of anti-Semitism last fall fueled by the “oppressor-oppressed” framework advanced by DEI made that plain to see. Campuses should be open and welcoming to anyone admitted through merit and initiative, regardless of background or immutable characteristics.

The free and open pursuit of truth cannot coexist with an ideology that favors some groups over others and expects everyone to think the same.

Claudine Gay’s resignation creates a small opening that could lead to reform at Harvard, but it is more likely that Harvard will continue down the same path it has been on. Now is not a time for those who care about the future of higher education in this country to rest satisfied but to keep pushing — not to destroy Harvard but to reform it before it destroys itself.

This post appeared on Blaze Media on January 5, 2024.

The post Her truth, her Harvard, her failure appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

“The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic,” stated the University of Chicago’s Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action, issued at the height of protests over the Vietnam War and the need for civil rights. The report further stated, “to be true to its faith in intellectual inquiry, (a university) must embrace, be hospitable to, and encourage the widest diversity of views within its own community.”

But that’s not happening at many universities. Viewpoints are either morally superior or wrong, shout-downs replace debates and dissenting speakers are canceled or heckled. Most recently, Hamas’ terrorist attacks against Israel ignited firestorms on campuses. As a result, fear and anger have spread on campuses. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s College Free Speech Rankings revealed that 26% of college students censor themselves at least a few times a week in conversations with friends. One in four are more likely to self-censor now than when they started college.

To ensure freedom of speech and safety on campuses, Gov. Glenn Youngkin convened a summit of Virginia’s public and private college presidents and asked VMI’s superintendent, Major General Cedric Wins, U.S. Army (retired), to address VMI’s program for promoting civil discourse through debates. The debates are not competitive, nor seek to change minds. Their purpose is to enlighten and show how to disagree thoughtfully and respectfully. This is in keeping with VMI’s leadership development, which emphasizes service, respect and civility.

The debates have examined such divisive topics as diversity, equity and inclusion, social media, women in combat and divides between student athletes and nonathletes. Debates follow a light parliamentary format that promotes discussion, listening and critical thinking. Following presentations, speakers and audience members may address comments to the trained debate moderator, thus avoiding personalizing clashing viewpoints.

In November, VMI pushed the program’s bounds. It invited students from Mountain Gateway Community College, Southern Virginia University and Washington and Lee University to participate in an intercollegiate debate on book banning in K-12 schools. The debate attracted over 100 participants from these schools. The following student comments attest to the program’s value:

“I have never in my life been involved in such a thought-provoking discussion, getting to understand the ideas and thoughts of not only other VMI cadets but also students from other colleges. Braver Angels has helped me gain a new perspective on discussion and communication in my generation,” said VMI cadet Isabella Bruzonic. “I got to hear perspectives I would have never thought of. I gained respect for the people who were willing to have a conversation without anger and animosity.”

“I was grateful for the opportunity to speak my mind candidly in an environment where candid opinions were welcome,” said Jared Smith, a Southern Virginia University student. “During this time of political and ideological polarization in America, we need more events like these! We have the freedom of speech in America, but it hardly serves our society if we do not implement the structure and activities that give people the opportunity to exercise it productively and peacefully.” 

VMI initiated the program in 2021, based on the acclaimed College Debates and Discourse Program, jointly sponsored by Braver Angels, American Council of Trustees and Alumni and Bridges USA. In January 2023, VMI was named one of 10 colleges in the country in the program’s Community of Practice, enabled by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. These institutions are collecting data on the debates, which the University of Delaware will use to assess students’ performance, and leadership skills.

Alex Morey of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression states, “The college campus is the place to have people’s different authentic views come together, where we can have discussions in a scholarly and civil way.”

That’s VMI’s civil discourse program and universities need similar programs. But VMI provides another example. VMI “introducing Braver Angels debates and civil discourse to other colleges in the surrounding area is exemplary for the nation,” said Doug Sprei, director of the College Debates and Discourse Alliance. Higher education needs more champions of civil discourse.

This post appeared on the Richmond Times-Dispatch on January 2, 2024.

The post Now, more than ever, civil discourse is critical. VMI is leading the way appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Ms. Hirsi Ali is a Somali-born Dutch-American human rights activist, best-selling author, and former member of the Dutch Parliament. She has advocated for the rights of Muslim women and has called upon the Islamic world to embrace democratic values of freedom and self-determination from which human flourishing can arise. As campuses explode with virulent antisemitic support for Hamas terrorism, Ayaan’s message, based on her personal escape under harrowing circumstances from radical Islam, is urgently important.

The post Free Minds, Free Lives: The Escape from Islamism appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

The statement affirms that “open inquiry and spirited debate” are “the lifeblood” of the institution, serving to “promote discovery and creativity.” It continues, “As a great public university guided by the letter and spirit of the First Amendment, we enthusiastically embrace our responsibility to stimulate and support diverse ideas and viewpoints in our classrooms and labs, lecture series and symposia, studios and performance halls, and among our entire community of students, teachers, researchers, and staff.” It further outlines that “Every member of our academic community should expect to confront ideas that differ from their own, however uncomfortable those encounters may be.”  

ACTA President Michael Poliakoff remarks, “As an alumnus of the University of Michigan (Ph.D., 1981), I am proud of the university for its commitment to vouchsafe the free exchange of ideas in teaching, research, and campus life. The regents have vigorously confirmed that the future of this university—renowned for its contributions to the arts and sciences and for its eminent schools of law and medicine—depends on the unfettered freedom to question, challenge, and debate. With the University of Michigan Principles, the Wolverines join the ranks of the leaders of higher education in a victory for enlightenment and progress.”   

When it adopts the principles, the University of Michigan will join 104 institutions that have affirmed the Chicago Principles on Freedom of Expression or a similar statement. And while it will be a significant step in the right direction, the next, yet more important step is for university leadership to model the principles for the rest of the campus community.

The post ACTA Commends University of Michigan’s Draft Statement Setting Standards for Free Speech and Intellectual Diversity on Campus appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

The school in two weeks was scheduled to house the Palestine Writes Literary Festival, billed as a celebration of Palestinian culture and arts, but criticized by some for invitingspeakers who had a history of making antisemitic remarks.

He wanted it canceled. As is now widely known, Liz Magill, Penn’s president, didn’t comply, citing academic freedom and free speech.

That set off one of the biggest — if not the biggest — backlashes from donors that an American university has ever seen.

Chief among the critics was Lauder, who told Magill in an Oct. 16 letter that he was re-examining his financial support of the university. He wrote that he “had two people taking photos and two more who listened to the speakers” at the festival and found them to be “both antisemitic and viscerally anti-Israel.”

Lauder, a Wharton alumnus, gave Magill a directive involving the Lauder Institute of Management and International Studies that he and his brother, Leonard A. Lauder, also a Wharton grad, founded at Penn in 1983 with a $10 million gift. They created the institute in honor of their father, Joseph H. Lauder, co-founder of Estée Lauder Inc.

“Let me be clear as I can,” he wrote, “I do not want any of the students at the Lauder Institute … to be taught by any of the instructors who were involved or supported” the festival. He also wrote to Steven J. Fluharty, dean of Arts and Sciences, asking to meet with students and faculty involved in the festival, though he said in the letter that he never heard back.

In effect, a member of one of Penn’s biggest donor families gave an order on how personnel at the Ivy League institution should be deployed.

A spokesperson for Lauder, 79, said he was not available to comment.

Penn has declined to comment on Lauder’s letter specifically, but the sentiment expressed has raised concerns on and off Penn’s campus about how much influence deep-pocketed donors should have.

“Let us be clear,” wrote the tri-chairs of Penn’s Faculty Senate. “Academic freedom is an essential component of a world-class university and is not a commodity that can be bought or sold by those who seek to use their pocketbooks to shape our mission.”

The chairs — political science professor Tulia Falleti, law professor Eric A. Feldman, and child development and education professor Vivian Gadsden — also warned about “individuals outside of the university who are surveilling both faculty and students in an effort to intimidate them and inhibit their academic freedom.”

Risa Lieberwitz, professor of labor and employment law at Cornell University and general counsel for the American Association of University Professors, called Lauder’s demands an “extreme example of a donor interfering at a completely unacceptable level.”

“This is an issue that’s long overdue for close attention,” Lieberwitz said. “What’s happening now should lead to … everybody within universities saying ‘let’s look closely at the way in which donor relations are structured and consider reforms … to strengthen the independence of the university and the academic freedom of faculty.’”

Universities need to be independent from pressures from donors and legislators, she said.

“If donors want to support higher education, … they should do that because they support higher education,” she said.

But Michael Poliakoff, president and chief executive officer of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, defended the donors’ actions.

“They are doing exactly what they should be doing and really calling to account their alma maters for moral and intellectual failure,” he said. “These people own that money and it is their absolute right to direct it to the things that align with their moral and intellectual vision. It makes absolute sense for them to be articulating that their hearts are broken and their wallets will be shut until significant changes happen.”

The Council for Advancement and Support of Education, a nonprofit that focuses on educational philanthropy, declined to comment on Penn’s situation, but pointed to its standards, which describe donors’ appropriate role.

“Donors provide funds to help a university service its vision or fulfill a specific purpose, providing capital to empower innovation and provide more access to students, … but in giving that gift it does not ‘buy them a say’ in how the university runs,” CASE says.

The standards also cite specific examples in which donors should not have influence, including faculty appointments, admissions decisions, coach selections, program priorities, and investment policies.

Although Penn has received hundreds of letters from donors, alumni and others expressing concern, the actual impact on the Ivy League university’s finances is small. Scott L. Bok, chair of the board of trustees, said those expressing concern represent a minority of donors.

“We can survive this, but we don’t like what we’re going through,” Bok said. “And we want to win all those donors back over time.”

He also noted that “on the positive side, we have received some meaningful contributions from alumni who wanted to show solidarity at this time.”

Penn said donor contributions represent only about 5% of overall operating revenue. Major revenue sources include tuition and fees, research funding, income from auxiliaries and commercialization, and investment income off Penn’s $21 billion endowment, which covers about 17% of the academic operating budget.

The bigger concern for Penn is the reputational hit delivered from within its university family. It was alumnus and Apollo Global Management CEO Marc Rowan, currently chair of Wharton’s board of advisers, who spearheaded the campaign, encouraging alumni to ”close their checkbooks” until Magill and Bok stepped down.

While Penn has made clear that Magill and Bok are not leaving, Penn leaders have said they are committed to mending relationships.

Magill at a trustees meeting earlier this month said she regretted that anyone doubted her position on antisemitism — she has since released a plan to combat it — and vowed to regain the trust of alumni. And last week, Wharton dean Erika James, speaking at the Economic Club of New York, said Penn must repair relationships and address the harm to its reputation, according to Bloomberg.

Bok said he doubts the university could have done anything that would have changed the outcome. Canceling the festival “would have been contrary to decades of policy,” he said. He also maintained that the school quickly condemned some festival speakers. No one could have predicted, he said, that the festival would be followed so quickly by Hamas’ attack on Israel, which further inflamed concerns.

The current Middle East crisis isn’t the only issue that has impacted philanthropyto colleges over the years. In 2021, alumni at the University of Texas-Austin threatened to pull back funding after students urged the school to change its fight song, “The Eyes of Texas,” which is linked to Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, according to Inside Higher Education. Although the university kept the song, alumni were upset the president didn’t take a stronger stance.

Closer to home, that same year, a small group of St. Joseph’s University alumni said they would withhold funds, citing the school’s “wokeism.”

While philanthropy may be a small part of Penn’s budget, it has funded major initiatives over the years, the Lauder family’s included. Penn declined to release the total from the family, which has sent three generations to Penn for their education.

Last year alone, Leonard Lauder, 90, — who has a net worth of $16.7 billion, according to the daily Bloomberg Billionaires Index — donated $125 million to Penn for a tuition-free program to recruit, train, and deploy nurse practitioners to work in the nation’s underserved communities.

Penn’s $121 million College House was renamed the Lauder College House in 2019 in recognition of major financial support from the Lauders. Penn didn’t say how much they gave.

In addition to founding the institute, Ronald Lauder also funded a major renovation of the building that houses it, completed in 2018. Penn did not release the amount, but the work included all four floors, an expanded lobby, and a new event and dining space, Penn said.

Not every member of the Lauder family seems as disturbed by Penn’s response as Ronald Lauder. His nephew, William Lauder, 63, executive chairman of the Lauder company and a Wharton alumnus, continues to serve on Penn’s trustee board and was seen in what appeared to be friendly talks with Magill and Bok at the trustees’ meeting this month.

He did not return an email to his office for comment.

Ronald Lauder has been more involved in politics, once running as a Republican for mayor of New York and once serving as the U.S. ambassador to Austria. He has also been deeply involved in combating antisemitism and currently serves as president of the World Jewish Congress.

This piece appeared in The Philadelphia Inquirer on November 12, 2023.

The post Penn’s donor backlash raises questions about how much influence philanthropists should have appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

On March 19, 2019, York College of Pennsylvania Professor Erec Smith critiqued a keynote address delivered related to his discipline, Rhetoric and Composition. He argued that the talk was a kind of performative politics that wouldn’t bring about real change and he challenged the author’s claim that teaching standardized English to students of color is an act of white supremacy. While the response was swift and isolating, Professor Smith did not back down. Instead, he refocused his efforts, writing his book A Critique of Anti-Racism in Rhetoric and Composition: The Semblance of Empowerment which dissects the over-reliance of anti-racist initiatives on identity politics and victimization and offers instead an alternative path based on empowerment theory. He continues to support free expression and intellectual diversity through his work and writing. He is also one of the co-founders of Free Black Thought, a website and journal dedicated to spotlighting viewpoint diversity among black intellectuals. Listen to his remarks upon acceptance of Hero of Intellectual Freedom Award, Turning Haters into Motivators here.

The post On This Date in Campus Freedom: Erec Smith Hero of Intellectual Freedom appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

The author of T: The Story of Testosterone, the Hormone that Dominates and Divides Us, Dr. Hooven served as the former codirector of undergraduate studies in the Department of Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University. Her research focuses on how hormones shape human behavior (and vice versa), specifically related to sex differences. Her Hormones and Behavior class was named one of the “top ten tried and true” by the Harvard Crimson.

In 2021, she appeared on Fox and Friends to discuss the pressure some faculty feel to refrain from using terms such as “pregnant woman” and “male and female.” After her appearance, the director of her department’s diversity, inclusion, and belonging task force, a graduate student, published a Tweet calling her remarks “transphobic” and “dangerous.” The incident went viral, and a petition was circulated against Dr. Hooven. While facing intense attacks on her reputation and academic work, she received no support from the Harvard administration.

“Some say cancel culture isn’t real. What happened to Carole Hooven at Harvard is proof that it is,” said Steven McGuire, ACTA’s Paul & Karen Levy Fellow in Campus Freedom. “She was denounced and ostracized by students and other faculty members for daring to discuss matters related to her scientific expertise on a television program. Abandoned by all but a few of her colleagues, she refused to apologize or yield to the vicious attacks, and she took a stand for academic freedom, science, and the pursuit of truth. She truly is a hero of intellectual freedom, modeling for others the courage it takes to resist the whims of ideological censors.” Dr. McGuire recently engaged in a lively conversation with Dr. Hooven on ACTA’s podcast, Higher Ed Now.

“Carole Hooven was attacked for mentioning ideas that can be found in an introductory biology textbook. How can we hope to see progress in science if scholars cannot discuss even the basics of their fields without fear of reprisal from ideologues?” stated ACTA President Michael Poliakoff. “As Albert Einstein said, ‘freedom of communication is indispensable for the development and extension of scientific knowledge.’ Harvard abandoned its duties to science and to a member of its community when it refused to defend Dr. Hooven. We at ACTA take pride in honoring her. She has shown great courage and resilience and, unlike Harvard, has demonstrated her unwavering commitment to scientific integrity during this trial.”

ACTA will honor Dr. Hooven in Washington, DC, at our annual ATHENA Roundtable Conference on October 27, 2023. She joins a distinguished group of Heroes of Intellectual Freedom from previous years, including Professor Erec Smith of York College of Pennsylvania (2022), Professor Dorian Abbot of the University of Chicago (2021), and Joshua Katz, formerly of Princeton University (2020).

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

The post Carole Hooven to be Honored as ACTA’s 2023 Hero of Intellectual Freedom appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

In March 2023, ACTA’s second annual Alumni Summit on Free Expression brought together alumni free speech activists and higher education nonprofit leaders from across the country to share knowledge, experiences, and resources related to campus reform efforts. In partnership with the Alumni Free Speech Alliance (AFSA), this special gathering was designed to further motivate and equip alumni as guardians of the values that shaped their own education, including free expression, academic freedom, and viewpoint diversity.

Today’s episode features a panel from the Summit, headlined as A HIGHER ED REFORMATION: CHANGING CAMPUS POLICY AND CULTURE. Along with ACTA’s Paul & Karen Levy Fellow in Campus Freedom, Steve McGuire, the discussion featured Lindsey Burke, director of the Center for Education Policy at the Heritage Foundation; Jenna Robinson, president of the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal and AFSA board member; and Dawn Toguchi, executive director of the Open Discourse Coalition at Bucknell University.  The moderator was John Tomasi, president of Heterodox Academy. Together, these experts explored how alumni concerned about campus free speech can influence policy and cultural change within college and university environments.

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

The post A Higher Ed Reformation: Changing Campus Policy and Culture appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

A recent Gallup survey found that only 36% of the public has “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in our institutions of higher education, a troubling decline from 48% in 2018 and 57% in 2015. New America’s Varying Degrees 2023 survey showed that only 41% think higher education is “fine how it is.”

The continually rising costs of a college education, combined with uncertainty over the economy and growing doubts about the job prospects and earning potential for most college graduates, may in part explain this crisis of confidence. College degrees have become too expensive, and many, especially those who are struggling to pay down their student loans, doubt they will see an adequate return on investment.

Ideology might be a larger cause, however. Gallup’s survey revealed a stark partisan divide: Only 19% of Republicans expressed confidence in our institutions of higher education, compared to 59% of Democrats. The New America survey found a similar gap: 78% of Democrats said colleges and universities have a positive effect on the country, whereas only 41% of Republicans said the same. Academia should be helping to overcome political polarization, but these results suggest it is part of the problem.

America’s colleges and universities have leaned left of center for some time. The 1972 Carnegie Commission National Survey of Higher Education reported (based on a 1969 survey) that 4% of professors identified as “Left” and 39% as “liberal,” compared to 24% who identified as “moderately conservative” and 3% as strongly conservative. The tide has turned sharply leftward since then.

A more recent study suggested that Democrats outnumber Republicans 9:1 in the professoriate today. Only 3% of faculty at Harvard University identified as conservative in a survey run by the school’s student newspaper. Faculty political donations tell a similar story: The National Association of Scholars has shown they go to Democrats by a ratio of 95:1.

As the number of faculty who identify as liberal has grown, the meaning of that word has shifted as well. Recently retired Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield, who joined the Harvard faculty in 1962, has reported that professors “turned Left in the late 60s,” noting they “took over from liberalism,” which at the time meant “cold war liberals” — not the progressives who are often labeled liberal today.

Administrative leaders have not shown interest in disabusing the public of its belief that our colleges and universities have become partisan institutions. They routinely issue statements disapproving of political developments with which liberals disagree. They often fail to discipline students who shout down conservative speakers on their campuses. Their institutions use diversity, equity, and inclusion statements to screen future faculty members even though a survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression found that about half of faculty, and 90% of conservative faculty, think using such statements amounts to an ideological litmus test.

America’s colleges and universities have leaned left of center for some time. The 1972 Carnegie Commission National Survey of Higher Education reported (based on a 1969 survey) that 4% of professors identified as “Left” and 39% as “liberal,” compared to 24% who identified as “moderately conservative” and 3% as strongly conservative. The tide has turned sharply leftward since then.

A more recent study suggested that Democrats outnumber Republicans 9:1 in the professoriate today. Only 3% of faculty at Harvard University identified as conservative in a survey run by the school’s student newspaper. Faculty political donations tell a similar story: The National Association of Scholars has shown they go to Democrats by a ratio of 95:1.

As the number of faculty who identify as liberal has grown, the meaning of that word has shifted as well. Recently retired Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield, who joined the Harvard faculty in 1962, has reported that professors “turned Left in the late 60s,” noting they “took over from liberalism,” which at the time meant “cold war liberals” — not the progressives who are often labeled liberal today.

Administrative leaders have not shown interest in disabusing the public of its belief that our colleges and universities have become partisan institutions. They routinely issue statements disapproving of political developments with which liberals disagree. They often fail to discipline students who shout down conservative speakers on their campuses. Their institutions use diversity, equity, and inclusion statements to screen future faculty members even though a survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression found that about half of faculty, and 90% of conservative faculty, think using such statements amounts to an ideological litmus test.

This article appeared on The Washington Examiner on September 29, 2023.

The post <strong>Only an ideological overhaul will restore public trust in higher education</strong> appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.