The Shell Game of Corrupted Government Exposed
The Next Step to Reduce Politicization of North Carolina's Universities
Publisher's note: The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal is a nonprofit institute dedicated to improving higher education in North Carolina and the nation. Located in Raleigh, North Carolina, it has been an independent 501(c)(3) organization since 2003. It was known as the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy until early January 2017.
The author of this post is Jay Schalin.
The passage of the North Carolina Campus Free Speech Act (HB 527) this legislative session was a great advance for the spirit of free inquiry that is, or should be, at the heart of higher education.
It provides greater protection for campus free speech, which has been under impassioned- at times even violent-assault. Additionally, it encodes North Carolina's public college students' right to free association and the right to hear ideas they deem worthy of attention.
But a provision in the original bill that did not make it to the final cut would also be highly beneficial for North Carolina universities. The earlier version set into law the concept of "institutional neutrality," which means that a university cannot take an official policy position on political issues. Had this provision been included in the final bill, the state would now have a powerful tool for pushing back against the extreme politicization of the universities that has been occurring since the 1960s.
Some legal requirements for institutional neutrality by universities already exist, but are insufficient for the purposes of protecting the academic freedom rights of students and dissenting faculty. Universities and colleges are generally classified as 501(c)3 non-profit organizations and are subject to Internal Revenue Service rules regarding political activity at such institutions. One rule is that they cannot endorse political candidates.
However, IRS rules do not prevent colleges from taking policy positions as long as that position is not linked to a specific candidate. That means they do not address the problems that occur when bias becomes institutional but are in place to prevent electoral mischief. Therefore, in today's highly charged political atmosphere, universities need an additional layer of protection for the spirit of free inquiry.
Perhaps the most important justification of institutional neutrality was crafted by the "Kalven Report," the product of a committee formed at the University of Chicago amidst the turbulence of 1960s-era student uprisings to explore the role of the university in political matters. The committee was chaired by noted law professor and First Amendment scholar Harry Kalven, Jr. and had other prominent members such as Nobel Prize-winning economist George Stigler and African-American historian John Hope Franklin.
The Kalven Report posited that, because "the mission of the university is the discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge," individual professors must be able to pursue truth wherever the facts and logic lead. The university therefore:
Another way of looking at it is that a university taking an official position on political issues creates a threatening incentive for dissenting voices-which are often the means by which knowledge is advanced or corrected-to remain silent on campus.
Unfortunately, academic institutions taking such "collective" positions are on the upswing today, if not officially, then in de jure (implied) fashion. One ominous example is the increasing trend for schools to require that faculty or even graduate students sign diversity statements in which they must commit to fostering ideals of "diversity, equality, and inclusion." A report from the Oregon Association of Scholars uncovered roughly 20 colleges and universities on the West Coast that do so; most likely, there are at least 100 throughout the nation.
According to that report, the 10-campus University of California system not only requires all new hires to sign diversity statements, but also examines faculty candidates' research to see whether it addresses "race, gender, economic justice or inequality."
Another problematic situation concerns the Climate Leadership Statement, a petition signed by over 700 college presidents. (In North Carolina, both Carol Folt of UNC-Chapel Hill and Randy Woodson of NC State are signatories.) It declares a need to take the lead in combating anthropogenic climate change; the issue is still very much an open question, despite efforts by some to make it appear as settled science as is the presence of gravity.
It may be acceptable for a college president to sign a petition about such a contentious issue as global warming-but only if he or she was doing so as an individual scholar, not as a public academic institution's CEO. However, that was not the case with the Climate Leadership Statement, which explicitly stated that signing the petition was only for the highest level of college administrators. Its opening sentence is:
A school president signing a petition may be a lower standard of imprimatur than declaring an official policy, but it still sends a message to the rest of the campus. One can easily imagine the chilling effect on an assistant professor of meteorology, physics, or geology who is skeptical of man's effect on the climate seeking tenure at a school where the president signed such petition.
Examples of schools adopting politicized policies are myriad. For instance, the Oregon report revealed that, at Portland State University, "in the 2017-18 academic year, for instance, all undergraduates will be sent for mandatory classes on 'social justice' prior to being allowed to proceed with their studies." Or in 2008, the University of Delaware forced dormitory residents to undergo what the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education called "ideological indoctrination."
In another emerging trend, several faculty professional associations have voted to endorse the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which calls for colleges to take action against Israel. These actions can consist of rejecting ties with Israeli academics or making university endowment fund managers stop investing in companies that do business in Israel. Some of the professional organizations that have officially supported the BDS movement include the Association of Asian American Studies, the American Studies Association, the Peace and Justice Studies Association, and the National Women's Studies Association.
With all manner of academic organizations and administrators pushing the envelope steadily in a more radicalized direction, finding ways to keep academia open to varying views in the future may prove difficult. At least it will be without erecting safeguards before it is too late. Such protections are not likely to come from within, since so many faculty and administrators have already moved at least partially in a politicized direction, or would rather not put themselves at risk by objecting. University boards (of trustees, governors, regents, or visitors) have proven to be too timid or too easily manipulated to make bold moves to restore a more balanced and open academic sensibility.
It then falls to the legislature to prevent our public colleges and universities from incrementally or implicitly making one-sided politics the law of the academic land. For it is to be generally expected that an organization dominated by a passionately partisan faction will attempt to make that perspective permanently unassailable from within or without. The politicization of higher education has already become a severe problem, with some segments of academia calcified into ideological purity. For example, at UNC-Chapel Hill, there are 17 departments with no registered Republican faculty members.
Now that the North Carolina legislature has secured free speech and free association for students, it should consider making institutional neutrality for the state's public institutions of higher education its next goal.
Go Back
The author of this post is Jay Schalin.
The passage of the North Carolina Campus Free Speech Act (HB 527) this legislative session was a great advance for the spirit of free inquiry that is, or should be, at the heart of higher education.
It provides greater protection for campus free speech, which has been under impassioned- at times even violent-assault. Additionally, it encodes North Carolina's public college students' right to free association and the right to hear ideas they deem worthy of attention.
But a provision in the original bill that did not make it to the final cut would also be highly beneficial for North Carolina universities. The earlier version set into law the concept of "institutional neutrality," which means that a university cannot take an official policy position on political issues. Had this provision been included in the final bill, the state would now have a powerful tool for pushing back against the extreme politicization of the universities that has been occurring since the 1960s.
Some legal requirements for institutional neutrality by universities already exist, but are insufficient for the purposes of protecting the academic freedom rights of students and dissenting faculty. Universities and colleges are generally classified as 501(c)3 non-profit organizations and are subject to Internal Revenue Service rules regarding political activity at such institutions. One rule is that they cannot endorse political candidates.
However, IRS rules do not prevent colleges from taking policy positions as long as that position is not linked to a specific candidate. That means they do not address the problems that occur when bias becomes institutional but are in place to prevent electoral mischief. Therefore, in today's highly charged political atmosphere, universities need an additional layer of protection for the spirit of free inquiry.
Perhaps the most important justification of institutional neutrality was crafted by the "Kalven Report," the product of a committee formed at the University of Chicago amidst the turbulence of 1960s-era student uprisings to explore the role of the university in political matters. The committee was chaired by noted law professor and First Amendment scholar Harry Kalven, Jr. and had other prominent members such as Nobel Prize-winning economist George Stigler and African-American historian John Hope Franklin.
The Kalven Report posited that, because "the mission of the university is the discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge," individual professors must be able to pursue truth wherever the facts and logic lead. The university therefore:
- ... is a community which cannot take collective action on the issues of the day without endangering the conditions for its existence and effectiveness. There is no mechanism by which it can reach a collective position without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives. It cannot insist that all of its members favor a given view of social policy; if it takes collective action, therefore, it does so at the price of censuring any minority who do not agree with the view adopted. In brief, it is a community which cannot resort to majority vote to reach positions on public issues.
Another way of looking at it is that a university taking an official position on political issues creates a threatening incentive for dissenting voices-which are often the means by which knowledge is advanced or corrected-to remain silent on campus.
Unfortunately, academic institutions taking such "collective" positions are on the upswing today, if not officially, then in de jure (implied) fashion. One ominous example is the increasing trend for schools to require that faculty or even graduate students sign diversity statements in which they must commit to fostering ideals of "diversity, equality, and inclusion." A report from the Oregon Association of Scholars uncovered roughly 20 colleges and universities on the West Coast that do so; most likely, there are at least 100 throughout the nation.
According to that report, the 10-campus University of California system not only requires all new hires to sign diversity statements, but also examines faculty candidates' research to see whether it addresses "race, gender, economic justice or inequality."
Another problematic situation concerns the Climate Leadership Statement, a petition signed by over 700 college presidents. (In North Carolina, both Carol Folt of UNC-Chapel Hill and Randy Woodson of NC State are signatories.) It declares a need to take the lead in combating anthropogenic climate change; the issue is still very much an open question, despite efforts by some to make it appear as settled science as is the presence of gravity.
It may be acceptable for a college president to sign a petition about such a contentious issue as global warming-but only if he or she was doing so as an individual scholar, not as a public academic institution's CEO. However, that was not the case with the Climate Leadership Statement, which explicitly stated that signing the petition was only for the highest level of college administrators. Its opening sentence is:
- We, the undersigned presidents and chancellors of colleges and universities, believe firmly in the power, potential, and imperative of higher education's key role in shaping a sustainable society.
A school president signing a petition may be a lower standard of imprimatur than declaring an official policy, but it still sends a message to the rest of the campus. One can easily imagine the chilling effect on an assistant professor of meteorology, physics, or geology who is skeptical of man's effect on the climate seeking tenure at a school where the president signed such petition.
Examples of schools adopting politicized policies are myriad. For instance, the Oregon report revealed that, at Portland State University, "in the 2017-18 academic year, for instance, all undergraduates will be sent for mandatory classes on 'social justice' prior to being allowed to proceed with their studies." Or in 2008, the University of Delaware forced dormitory residents to undergo what the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education called "ideological indoctrination."
In another emerging trend, several faculty professional associations have voted to endorse the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which calls for colleges to take action against Israel. These actions can consist of rejecting ties with Israeli academics or making university endowment fund managers stop investing in companies that do business in Israel. Some of the professional organizations that have officially supported the BDS movement include the Association of Asian American Studies, the American Studies Association, the Peace and Justice Studies Association, and the National Women's Studies Association.
With all manner of academic organizations and administrators pushing the envelope steadily in a more radicalized direction, finding ways to keep academia open to varying views in the future may prove difficult. At least it will be without erecting safeguards before it is too late. Such protections are not likely to come from within, since so many faculty and administrators have already moved at least partially in a politicized direction, or would rather not put themselves at risk by objecting. University boards (of trustees, governors, regents, or visitors) have proven to be too timid or too easily manipulated to make bold moves to restore a more balanced and open academic sensibility.
It then falls to the legislature to prevent our public colleges and universities from incrementally or implicitly making one-sided politics the law of the academic land. For it is to be generally expected that an organization dominated by a passionately partisan faction will attempt to make that perspective permanently unassailable from within or without. The politicization of higher education has already become a severe problem, with some segments of academia calcified into ideological purity. For example, at UNC-Chapel Hill, there are 17 departments with no registered Republican faculty members.
Now that the North Carolina legislature has secured free speech and free association for students, it should consider making institutional neutrality for the state's public institutions of higher education its next goal.
| North Carolinians got Fake News | James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, Editorials, Op-Ed & Politics | North Carolina's New Institutional Neutrality Policy is a Win for Preventing Campus Bias |
Home
Contact
About
Service Rates
Privacy Policy
Follow on Facebook
Subscribe to Newsletters
Rss Feed
Keywords
Eastern NC Now & ENC NOW © Copyright 1998-2024 All Rights Reserved.
