A conference on the troubles facing free speech in academia, featuring a lot of serious thinkers, was held recently at Stanford. The organizers decided not to allow it to be open to the public, fearing the sort of disruption that has become so common on our campuses. Naturally, the enemies of free speech (and simple civility) got all hot and bothered about that decision.
In today’s Martin Center article, professor Richard Vedder looks at that controversy.
He writes, “Predictably, dozens of professors protested the conference in a letter, claiming that it was ‘a hermetically-sealed event, safe from any and all meaningful debate. . . . Filled with self-affirmation and self-congratulation . . . where racism is given shelter and immunity.’ (I wonder how participants like Niall Ferguson feel when called ‘racist,’ particularly since he is married to a black woman, the very distinguished Ayaan Hirsi Ali.)”
Stanford’s administration wasn’t browbeaten into preventing the event, but Vedder makes another point: “Universities themselves should be viewed as places where members of an academic community gather to discuss ideas of the day. They should generally not take stands on issues. The opinion of the president of XYZ University should not be construed as representing the policy position of the institution, since universities are comprised of many individuals with diverse viewpoints, each of which should be heard. University presidents and deans should keep quiet as a rule on public policy matters.”
He’s right. Institutions of education should stick to being just that, and not try to shape the way people think about controversies. That is just what “progressives” don’t want. They believe that institutions (including but not limited to schools) should pick a side — namely, theirs. Many do, and we need to turn that around.