Last year I collected several examples of “We support free speech, but . . .” statements, with the point being that the speakers do not actually support free speech. Writing in the Boston Globe on Monday, Harvard economist Dani Rodrik follows a similar template. “The Trump administration confronts universities with a serious dilemma,” he says. “On one hand, universities must be open to diverse viewpoints . . .” If you guess that what follows is an argument that universities should not be open to diverse viewpoints, then you’re right.
Rodrik says that former Trump administration officials are “tainted.” They should be treated civilly in their public appearances, but academia should never grant them faculty appointments or even university-sponsored speaking engagements. He does not say whether academic publishers should avoid contributions from ex-Trump officials, but presumably the answer is yes. In fact, I’m not sure where the blacklist is supposed to end. Must the senior executive service resign in order to avoid the same “stain” that Rodrik sees on the political appointees? What about scholars outside the administration who merely voice support for its policies? And which other governments are verboten? Would it be okay for universities to hire a Chinese Communist as long as they don’t hire a Trump Republican?
In any case, it’s hard to distinguish Rodrik’s call for a blacklist from a disdain for conservatism itself. After all, if the only problem is Donald Trump’s (supposed) unhinged idiocy, then Rodrik should be encouraging quality people to work for him so that his excesses might be curbed. Megan McArdle made exactly that point after Trump’s election. Rodrik’s blacklist makes more sense as an attempt to undermine Trump’s policies. But how objectionable are those policies? Putting aside the rhetoric, Trump’s tangible accomplishments — legislation signed, regulations changed, nominations put forward — are generally consistent with mainstream conservatism. So, logically, the conservative movement seems to be the greater target of Rodrik’s ire.
Last week I noted that Americans have legitimate reasons to distrust the media, but instead of building bridges the media seem committed to reinforcing the divide. The same applies to academia. With this call for a blacklist, conservatives have yet another reason to see universities as fundamentally hostile, and yet another reason to question the work that comes out of them.