A Victory for Faculty Freedom of Speech and Diversity of Viewpoint At the University of Washington

I have some very good news to report.  

There has been a major victory for faculty freedom of speech and viewpoint diversity, and certainly a positive development for students at the UW.

In a previous blog, I talked about a proposed requirement that every University of Washington faculty member wishing advancement would have to provide a statement demonstrating concordance with and concrete action in support of a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) agenda.

A highly politicized requirement that is reminiscent of the anti-communist loyalty oaths of the late 1940s and early 1950s.  I noted in my blog that requiring all faculty members to 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 at a public university.

The proposed requirement had all kinds of potential for abuse, since it provided little guidance on what represented adequate "progress" for faculty DEI:  it was up to the gatekeepers in each individual unit to decide.

The Vote

The required DEI statement had to be approved by at least two-thirds of the faculty to take effect.  Fortunately, roughly 40% of the faculty either voted no or abstained, resulting in the defeat of this ill-advised initiative.  Such a defeat of faculty legislation is unheard of at the UW.

The negative vote was not a battle between left and right on the faculty, of conservatives versus progressives, or anything like that.    Many of the faculty who voted against the measure were quite liberal in their political outlook and strong supporters of diversity in the faculty and student body.

Rather, the opposition was based on a strong belief that faculty should never be forced to subscribe to a certain political viewpoint or to pay homage to a current trendy set of ideas.  They believed that not only was the proposed requirement illegal but it would result in a monoculture of political or societal viewpoints on campus.

If there is one place where differing ideas and viewpoints should be protected, it is on a university campus.  Students are best educated by exposing them to a range of ideas by a diverse faculty.  Our future depends on this.

The Revealing Reaction of the Initiative Supporters

The anti-democratic nature of those who sponsored the initiative became clear after its defeat.  Some advocates pushed to ignore the vote and enforce the DEI initiative anyway.  Certain concepts of democracy seem to be unknown to them.

For example, the Chair of the Faculty Senate, who should be an impartial representative of faculty viewpoint, sent out a hurried message within minutes of the release of the results, stating:

"for those of us who supported this effort, a very disappointing result – but it will not end our work to change our University and how we center the values of inclusivity, equity, and diversity in our promotion and tenure practices...The legislation, had it passed, called for a full 2 years of unit-level efforts to develop local understandings of how DEI contributions should be considered and evaluated, and that work will proceed."

Unbelievable.  What difference does a faculty vote mean if the chair of the Faculty Senate pushes to go ahead anyway after the faculty said no?

Similarly, the UW School of Public Health faculty council voted to go ahead with a DEI requirement anyway.

An Example for the Nation

The UW faculty vote against compelled speech has garnered bi-partisan support from national groups dedicated to faculty freedom.  For example, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) put out a statement in support of the UW faculty vote and described the problems with enforced DEI statements by faculty.  They also examined how such statements represent compelled speech.

The head of the national Heterodox Academy, Dr. Jonathan Haidt, found the success of the UW chapter of the group in leading the opposition as "thrilling."  And the group, Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR), has spoken out against faculty DEI statements such as proposed for the UW

The Fight for the Soul of the UW 

Let me be frank here:  there is a battle going on right now on the UW Campus, and the fight against the compelled faculty DEI statement is just one skirmish in the war for the soul of the University.

On the side, there are those who believe that every potential student deserves an equal chance and equal opportunity.  That the UW should never bias its decision-making or opportunities afforded to students based on the color of their skin, their ethnic background, their religion, their politics, their sex, their sexual orientation, or anything else.

This is the side that believes in equality and the equal value of all people. That the UW should consider each potential student as an individual and not as a representative of a group.  This is the side I am on by the way.

The other side, which I will call the equity side, does not believe in equality of opportunity, but of outcomes.   They believe that the university should be biased in its admissions and resources to ensure equal outcomes for all groups, with particular attention to a small number of favored "underrepresented" groups.   

The equity advocates are ready to give preferences based on skin color, ethnic group, or sex, and to use "affirmative action" to prefer those they support.  Although such affirmative action is against state law, it happens anyway, with "holistic admissions" and rejection of objective measures (such as the SAT or GRE) being new tools for obscuring what is going on.

You can see why so many faculty opposed the DEI statement, which required concrete actions in support of "equity"  to receive advancement at the UW.

But the battle at the UW doesn't end with issues of equity versus equality.

Some faculty and administrators do not believe in diversity of viewpoint, and particularly diversity of political outlook.  They are so certain of the nobility and value of their views (typically highly progressive) that they feel free to suppress other viewpoints.  They do not believe that the political viewpoints of the faculty should reflect the state or nation.

A good example is the faculty listserve run by UW chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP).   This listserv, which is read by thousands of UW faculty and administrators, is moderated by left-leaning faculty that reject large numbers of messages that do not reflect their viewpoint.  

In some departments (like mine and Computer Sciences), faculty have been attacked publicly by department chairs or other faculty when they expressed viewpoints that differed from approved "progressive" ideas.   In my case, the department chair and two College of the Environment Deans publicly attacked me for speaking out against initiative 1631, a highly regressive gas tax that would line the pockets of certain "progressive "groups.  In Computer Sciences, Stuart Reges has been savagely attacked for not toeing the line regarding a land acknowledgment statement.  And there are more examples that I will not list here.

One reason the proposed DEI statement was so problematic was that it would be a powerful tool to remove or discourage faculty with more moderate political viewpoints.    In the long term, it would push the faculty to all think alike in support of the trendy, political DEI viewpoint of one political party.

All of You Will Be Affected by the Outcome

The outcome of this battle to protect diversity of viewpoint at the UW will affect most of you.  It will decide whether your child, grandchild, or young acquaintance will have an equal shot of attending the flagship university of the State.  It will decide whether UW faculty will descend into a monoculture of political/social viewpoint, with very negative implications for our ability to research and communicate effectively on key societal issues.

Most importantly, it will decide whether students who graduate from the UW will be exposed to a range of ideas and viewpoints, without which they will be poorly equipped to take on life's problems or to work to improve our state and nation.

We have won a victory to preserve essential American ideals of freedom of speech and diversity of viewpoint at the UW, but the conflict of ideas is not over.