For a
university to serve its community, produce new knowledge, and educate its
students, the faculty cannot be afraid to speak freely.
For a
university to provide a place where knowledge and ideas are
freely shared and
debated, faculty must be shielded from outside political
pressure, and
diversity of viewpoint must be protected for both faculty and students.
As I will
describe below, there are serious threats to faculty diversity and
freedom at the
University of Washington. Threats
reminiscent of the loyalty oaths of the late 1940s and early
1950s. Subtle and overt
pressure against faculty
holding the “wrong views”, with University
faculty increasingly pushed towards a monoculture of political
correctness.
This is not simply a faculty issue. It will influence which students are admitted to the UW and the type of education they receive.
Should
All University Faculty Be Required to Actively Support A
Diversity/Equity/Inclusion
Agenda?
During the
next few weeks, the University of Washington faculty will vote on a requirement that mandates a statement demonstrating concrete action in
support of a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) agenda.
This proposed
new mandatory statement would be in addition to the
current requirement that
faculty demonstrate progress in teaching, research, and public
service. The faculty code already states that contributions to diversity and equality of opportunity can be cited for supporting promotion; it is just not
required.
Establishing
DEI requirements is the current rage among major coastal
universities,
particularly those in blue-leaning states.
It is highly political, with strong support among many progressives, but with far lesser support among those with more moderate viewpoints.
A key
issue is the term “equity”, which DEI supporters generally see
as meaning equal
outcomes for all groups in society. In
contrast, a more moderate, traditional viewpoint generally highlights equality of all individuals,
with each given
equal rights and opportunities, but no guarantees of success. In a university with
“equity”, preferences
are often made for specific groups, such as for admissions or providing
special aid and
support for certain “underrepresented” populations.
Requiring
that all faculty support a social/political agenda favored by one segment of society not
only politicizes the university but represents “compelled
speech”, a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is probably illegal.
But the
situation at the UW is even worse than that.
There
is no guidance on what DEI activities would represent acceptable
faculty progress: the
decision is left to each department or unit on campus. This
pushes the door of
potential abuse wide open.
Although
most faculty just want to get on with their research, teaching, and service, there is a vocal
minority of faculty and university
administrators that are pushing their
departments and the university to take on an activist, politicized, progressive agenda. These individuals, many of
them idealistic
and well-meaning, wish to mold the world towards their
vision of social justice. And
in their self-righteous worldview, it is
fine to suppress the viewpoints of others, push out
“unbelievers”, and discourage those with different political viewpoints.
They love to talk about diversity, but their diversity is narrow and only includes individuals with similar beliefs or members of favored groups. And I note there is no definition of what diversity and inclusion means in the new faculty requirements, again leaving the potential for abuse.
Washington State is highly diverse in the viewpoints of its citizens. This map shows the party vote in a recent presidential election (blue Democrat, red Republican).
A Serious Threat to Faculty Freedom and Diversity at the University of Washington
With no
overall guidance for the mandatory DEI requirement for faculty advancement, faculty ideologues, gaining chair or other influential positions in a department, could
demand that
other faculty “bend the knee” to their political or social agendas by defining the DEI requirements for advancement to match their own viewpoints. This is extremely dangerous
and concerning.
Is this a theoretical threat? Unfortunately not. Some faculty advocates for politicized actions are already working to punish and
suppress those that
disagree with them—and this serves as a stern warning of
what might
happen if the mandatory DEI statement passes.
For
example, during the past few weeks, a faculty DEI advocate in a STEM department pushed to find a junior colleague “unmeritorious” for a pay raise
because the junior faculty member opposed
the DEI initiative mentioned above.
Fortunately, other department faculty came
to the defense of free speech.
Or
consider the case of the faculty listserv run by the local
chapter of the
American Association of University Professors (AAUP). The AAUP listerv, which is
the largest
faculty platform for online discussion (distributed to several
thousand faculty
and administrators), is moderated by two far-left faculty members that
facilitate messages
reflecting their viewpoints; they frequently reject messages from
those who don’t
subscribe to their ideas. In
the case
of this DEI requirement, the AAUP moderators have rejected many
messages from
faculty that criticized the DEI plan, including my own. For
example, AAUP moderator Amy Hagopian (who is running for a new
faculty regent
position), provided this rationale when she rejected my
message
criticizing the mandatory statement:
“Our concerns remain about giving so
much air time
to those who seem to be hostile to the university’s attempts to
amplify
diversity, equity and inclusion.”
A transparent attempt to suppress
diversity
of viewpoint that differs from her own.
There was a time when the AAUP fearlessly defended
faculty freedoms and
speech, such as its heroic efforts to stand against the loyalty
oaths of the 1950s. No
longer.
Captured by a contingent committed to a certain brand of politics, AAUP now suppresses free speech
while it pushes a politicized agenda.
The undemocratic academic loyalty oaths of the 1950s were wrong.
Required politicized DEI attestations are equally as wrong in 2022.
I could provide many more disturbing examples of attempts by faculty political activists to publicly shame or attack other faculty with different viewpoints (including what happened to me when I did not support initiative 1631). Members of my department and others have told me they were afraid to express their ideas on socially charged issues, and both graduate and undergrad students have said the same thing.
Faculty and students should never fear expressing their viewpoints in a university, where ideas should be debated, questioned, and discussed.
Discomfit at the Top
It is clear that the UW
administration is nervous
about this DEI requirement. UW
President
Ana Mari Cauce, has shown herself willing to make hard decisions
to protect
freedom of speech, and her statement to the University of
Washington faculty Senate
made clear her concerns about the proposed legislation. President Cauce’s family
was forced to leave
a communist nation, and as with many of her history,
she energetically defends
essential democratic freedoms. But
in this case,
she is powerless if the faculty votes to put on the
political shackles.
What Can You Do?
The threats to faculty freedom of
speech and diversity of viewpoint emanating from the proposed faculty DEI requirement are clear. Demanding that faculty agree with and support a particular
ideological viewpoint is not only illegal but would diminish
the university in
profound ways.
It will inevitably and profoundly alter the attitudes of the faculty over the long term. Would a prospective faculty member who valued freedom of expression and true diversity of viewpoint want to come to the University of Washington? The changes have already begun but will accelerate if this measure passes.
The University of Washington should serve all
citizens of the
State, of all backgrounds and political viewpoints. Prospective students should know that their admission to the UW will not depend on their race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, or politics, but on their abilities and past efforts. They should know that they will be instructed by faculty who welcome differing viewpoints.
You should be concerned, no matter your political orientation.
So how can you help?
If you are a faculty member, please
vote against
the proposal.
If you know a faculty member, please
talk to them
about it.
If you are a donor or supporter of
the UW, please
make your views known in whatever way you see fit.
