Do we want students to perceive that expressing minority views will not be socially or academically costly in a classroom setting? Or do we want this to actually be the case?
Perception may be too high a bar and could even be influenced more by media narratives than what is actually at stake when they speak in a classroom.
Do we want to make it less socially costly among peers to be, say, conservative? What would the means be for achieving this? Whatever might incentivize liberal students not to shy away from conservative ones probably shouldn't institutionalized. The government shouldn't be able to force people to be friends.
Sometimes I get the sense that everyone is a woke idenitarian and people will ostracize me if I criticize or question any of the core assumptions in things like feminist care ethics. But I'm not sure if the consequences would actually be bad, if people really would be intolerant, or if I am misperceiving. I'm not afraid of profs marking down papers or grades if I criticize but I am somewhat afraid they won't write me good rec letters if they think I have divergent political opinions.
One thing I think should happen more is teaching a wider range of political viewpoints in classes where politics are discussed. I took a course on ethics that dealt with some political philosophy. We read Rawls and some of his more left wing critics, but didn't even touch Nozick. I think this is a disservice but I don't trust the federal government to institute any sort of viewpoint diversity requirement. Ironically, this would itself be a huge infringement of the right to speech which academics, even in state schools, should have. For similar reasons, I think some conservative version of affirmative action for conservative or non-left profs would be a terrible idea. Probably the best solution would take the form of a culture change from within academic institutions themselves. If the subject of a course is political, students should be exposed to more viewpoints than the standard liberal or far left options. I also question the legitimacy of departments like gender studies. A lot of what I have seen is terribly argued and barely coherent which is probably due to the lack of any pushback or adversaries and the practice of labeling people who might disagree as sexist, transphobic, victim of ideology, ect.
There's a lot of good here, but expression for its own sake does necessarily teach anything. Employers don't want dissenters. They want graduates who know their subject matter and can do the job with intelligence, discretion, and judgement. After 40 years in the classroom, I can tell you: easy talkers are not always the students who studied last night.
The unspoken pressure to self-censor is real and I see it in my students every semester. They are conditioned to voice “safe” opinions, opinions that they know will get nods and affirmation rather than raised eyebrows. It is not always political, but more personal. They often prefer to be polite and deferential, rather than voice opinions that might seem disagreeable. It can take half a semester to break down their deference and politeness.
I wonder what you, as a professor of an extremely female-skewing campus, have to say about FIRE's study that female college students across the board are far less tolerant of differing opinions than male college students.
I was pretty floored by how undeniable the data was and, unfortunately, it aligned with what I've seen in the world as well. The "female aggression tactics" element to all this almost feels like the gorilla in the room that nobody is allowed to address seriously.
When male students pose a statistically relevant threat to others, like with assault, it makes sense for an institution to address the potential threat with best practices, policies, etc. But when it seems like something about female nature views words as violence and the entire concept of free expression in academia starts to melt "coincidentally" around when most college students/academics are female... should institutions not address this too?
Anecdotally, I know a creative writing adjunct professor who was driven from his job because a female student got upset at the naughty words in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. He even got a letter from Kesey's widow as part of his defense! Didn't matter, the college sided with the offended chick. She was offended, so no human rights nor Ken Kesey art for anybody else. He had to scramble for a new job.
Bottom line, we've really been going through a twilight zone where if you offended a woman in an academic setting, they magically gain a ton of authoritarian powers when it comes to free speech. The only way to curb this is for professors/admins to recognize this is ridiculous and squash it with best practices imo--instead, it seems most of them have empowered it as some kind of political tool.
Fundamental human and constitutional free speech is worth the short term social discomfort, no? I'm not a doomer, btw. The culture could change overnight if academia wants it.
I am a traditional liberal, PhD, taught biochemistry and genetics to undergraduate, graduate, and medical students for decades, and I agree with the gist of this post. Question? Do conservative students at traditional liberal arts colleges feel more intimidated than liberal students at traditional religiously conservative schools?
I scour my daily feed for articles on campus environment, academic freedom, civil discourse and free speech. This is one to read and ponder. Thank you, Professor Abrams, for a thoughtful deep dive into the sociology and psychology of classroom discussion and the science of polling.
I found nothing to contest in the essay, and agree that FIRE's methodology is rigorous and well tested.
As an aside, I only wonder if some students who report self-suppression are also or instead really exercising reserve to provoke for the sake of performance or feeling prudent judgement about expressing silly, unfounded notions. (I do not think this impacts FIRE survey results.)
It would a very illuminating study to sample some lectures, recordings (if available) and reading materials used in the classroom. These will set the expectation for what is acceptable discussion.
Do we want students to perceive that expressing minority views will not be socially or academically costly in a classroom setting? Or do we want this to actually be the case?
Perception may be too high a bar and could even be influenced more by media narratives than what is actually at stake when they speak in a classroom.
Do we want to make it less socially costly among peers to be, say, conservative? What would the means be for achieving this? Whatever might incentivize liberal students not to shy away from conservative ones probably shouldn't institutionalized. The government shouldn't be able to force people to be friends.
Sometimes I get the sense that everyone is a woke idenitarian and people will ostracize me if I criticize or question any of the core assumptions in things like feminist care ethics. But I'm not sure if the consequences would actually be bad, if people really would be intolerant, or if I am misperceiving. I'm not afraid of profs marking down papers or grades if I criticize but I am somewhat afraid they won't write me good rec letters if they think I have divergent political opinions.
One thing I think should happen more is teaching a wider range of political viewpoints in classes where politics are discussed. I took a course on ethics that dealt with some political philosophy. We read Rawls and some of his more left wing critics, but didn't even touch Nozick. I think this is a disservice but I don't trust the federal government to institute any sort of viewpoint diversity requirement. Ironically, this would itself be a huge infringement of the right to speech which academics, even in state schools, should have. For similar reasons, I think some conservative version of affirmative action for conservative or non-left profs would be a terrible idea. Probably the best solution would take the form of a culture change from within academic institutions themselves. If the subject of a course is political, students should be exposed to more viewpoints than the standard liberal or far left options. I also question the legitimacy of departments like gender studies. A lot of what I have seen is terribly argued and barely coherent which is probably due to the lack of any pushback or adversaries and the practice of labeling people who might disagree as sexist, transphobic, victim of ideology, ect.
There's a lot of good here, but expression for its own sake does necessarily teach anything. Employers don't want dissenters. They want graduates who know their subject matter and can do the job with intelligence, discretion, and judgement. After 40 years in the classroom, I can tell you: easy talkers are not always the students who studied last night.
The unspoken pressure to self-censor is real and I see it in my students every semester. They are conditioned to voice “safe” opinions, opinions that they know will get nods and affirmation rather than raised eyebrows. It is not always political, but more personal. They often prefer to be polite and deferential, rather than voice opinions that might seem disagreeable. It can take half a semester to break down their deference and politeness.
I wonder what you, as a professor of an extremely female-skewing campus, have to say about FIRE's study that female college students across the board are far less tolerant of differing opinions than male college students.
I was pretty floored by how undeniable the data was and, unfortunately, it aligned with what I've seen in the world as well. The "female aggression tactics" element to all this almost feels like the gorilla in the room that nobody is allowed to address seriously.
When male students pose a statistically relevant threat to others, like with assault, it makes sense for an institution to address the potential threat with best practices, policies, etc. But when it seems like something about female nature views words as violence and the entire concept of free expression in academia starts to melt "coincidentally" around when most college students/academics are female... should institutions not address this too?
Anecdotally, I know a creative writing adjunct professor who was driven from his job because a female student got upset at the naughty words in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. He even got a letter from Kesey's widow as part of his defense! Didn't matter, the college sided with the offended chick. She was offended, so no human rights nor Ken Kesey art for anybody else. He had to scramble for a new job.
Bottom line, we've really been going through a twilight zone where if you offended a woman in an academic setting, they magically gain a ton of authoritarian powers when it comes to free speech. The only way to curb this is for professors/admins to recognize this is ridiculous and squash it with best practices imo--instead, it seems most of them have empowered it as some kind of political tool.
Fundamental human and constitutional free speech is worth the short term social discomfort, no? I'm not a doomer, btw. The culture could change overnight if academia wants it.
I am a traditional liberal, PhD, taught biochemistry and genetics to undergraduate, graduate, and medical students for decades, and I agree with the gist of this post. Question? Do conservative students at traditional liberal arts colleges feel more intimidated than liberal students at traditional religiously conservative schools?
I scour my daily feed for articles on campus environment, academic freedom, civil discourse and free speech. This is one to read and ponder. Thank you, Professor Abrams, for a thoughtful deep dive into the sociology and psychology of classroom discussion and the science of polling.
I found nothing to contest in the essay, and agree that FIRE's methodology is rigorous and well tested.
As an aside, I only wonder if some students who report self-suppression are also or instead really exercising reserve to provoke for the sake of performance or feeling prudent judgement about expressing silly, unfounded notions. (I do not think this impacts FIRE survey results.)
It would a very illuminating study to sample some lectures, recordings (if available) and reading materials used in the classroom. These will set the expectation for what is acceptable discussion.