The Corner


A Curious Time for InsideHigherEd to Lose Interest in Campus Speech

(Jonathan Drake/Reuters)

Colleges have a free speech “problem.” From high-profile instances at Missouri, Yale, and Middlebury, to more recent events at UC Berkeley and Sarah Lawrence College, we’ve seen college leaders allow the campus left to harass speakers, silence debate, and drive conservative views and values from the academy.

This state of affairs is one reason why InsideHigherEd’s annual survey of college and university chief academic officers has been especially useful. Since 2015, this survey has been the only annual snapshot that captures what senior college administrators think about trigger warnings, free speech, and academic freedom — and thus the only reliable way to gauge changes in their actions or attitudes. In light of the contretemps of the past year, many were eager to see what campus leaders had to say.

Unfortunately, in the latest survey, released last week, those questions had been neatly scrubbed from the survey. Yep, one of the nation’s primary news outlets covering higher education decided that now would be a propitious time to stop asking about academic freedom and free speech on campus.

What might appear to be simply a curious case of bad timing is emblematic of a larger problem with the higher ed-industrial complex — a tendency to sweep under the rug those developments which raise uncomfortable questions about the orthodoxies and agendas pervading campus culture. This dynamic was on full display last fall in the lawsuit that Students for Fair Admissions has mounted against Harvard’s admissions policies, when all the quarreling factions of academe responded by finding a way to link arms in the cause of race-based admissions.

The survey did find time to ask whether conservative and liberal students feel welcome in classrooms on their campus. Four percent of provosts expressed reservations about whether liberal students feel welcome; 12 percent expressed concerns about whether conservative students do. Given that surveys of students have indicated that half of them report having censored themselves in class for fear of what will be said in response, this kind of question provides a useful, sometimes laughable, window into the self-serving bubble that campus mandarins occupy.

In prior years, the survey had asked substantive questions relating to academic freedom, if guest speakers on campus are welcome to offer a range of political viewpoints, and if conservative academics and public figures are treated with respect on campus. It also asked if students and academics respect free speech, if colleges should interfere with the invitations to outside speakers extended by student groups or faculty, and if shouting down speakers poses a threat to academic freedom. The results tended to suggest there are real grounds for concern — over half of provosts, for instance, responded that free speech rights are either “threatened” or “very threatened” on college campuses. Even when questions generate self-serving responses, the results can be unintentionally revealing.

All of this begs the question as to why these questions were excised from this year’s survey. Free-speech concerns on campus have certainly not abated, making these queries a useful and timely barometer of what campus leaders are thinking and how they are responding. Regardless of the rationale, the decision suggests an unfortunate casualness about the burning question of what it really means for campuses to welcome and support the free and unfettered exchange of ideas. With more Americans than ever saying that higher education is headed in the wrong direction and polls expressing concerns about the state of free speech on campus, this is the wrong time to opt for the comforts of ignorance.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Elizabeth Warren Is Not Honest

If you want to run for office, political consultants will hammer away at one point: Tell stories. People respond to stories. We’ve been a story-telling species since our fur-clad ancestors gathered around campfires. Don’t cite statistics. No one can remember statistics. Make it human. Make it relatable. ... Read More
National Review


Today is my last day at National Review. It's an incredibly bittersweet moment. While I've only worked full-time since May, 2015, I've contributed posts and pieces for over fifteen years. NR was the first national platform to publish my work, and now -- thousands of posts and more than a million words later -- I ... Read More
Economy & Business

Andrew Yang, Snake Oil Salesman

Andrew Yang, the tech entrepreneur and gadfly, has definitely cleared the bar for a successful cause candidate. Not only has he exceeded expectations for his polling and fundraising, not only has he developed a cult following, not only has he got people talking about his signature idea, the universal basic ... Read More

Feminists Have Turned on Pornography

Since the sexual revolution of the 1960s, the feminist movement has sought to condemn traditional sexual ethics as repressive, misogynistic, and intolerant. As the 2010s come to a close, it might be fair to say that mainstream culture has reached the logical endpoint of this philosophy. Whereas older Americans ... Read More
White House

The Impeachment Defense That Doesn’t Work

If we’ve learned anything from the last couple of weeks, it’s that the “perfect phone call” defense of Trump and Ukraine doesn’t work. As Andy and I discussed on his podcast this week, the “perfect” defense allows the Democrats to score easy points by establishing that people in the administration ... Read More

Democrats Think They Can Win without You

A  few days ago, Ericka Anderson, an old friend of National Review, popped up in the pages of the New York Times lamenting that “the Democratic presidential field neglects abundant pools of potential Democrat converts, leaving persuadable audiences — like independents and Trump-averse, anti-abortion ... Read More