Join me in signing ‘A Vision for a New Future of the University of Pennsylvania’

New statement is a welcome potential step forward for free speech on campus

In the wake of the congressional hearings on campus anti-Semitism and their fallout, there have been a lot of bad takes on how to handle free speech on campus. Predictably (and wrongly), many have argued that more censorship is the answer, with people like New York Governor Kathy Hochul and Pennsylvania Senator Art Haywood trying to clamp down on “hate speech” with government pressure, and the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business wanting to implement hate speech codes on campus — just to name a few examples.

Perhaps most egregiously, in The Washington Post, Penn law professor Claire O. Finkelstein argued that the solution to anti-Semitism on campus is to restrict campus speech further. This couldn’t be more wrong. As I said during my recent appearance on Bill Maher, when you tell anti-Semites that they can only talk to other anti-Semites, because it’s too risky to talk to anybody else, anti-Semitism will only get worse.

But I’m happy to report that there’s also some potential good news on this front:

Penn faculty members, donors and alumni have proposed a new path, which seeks to recommit the school to the Enlightenment ideals of its founder Benjamin Franklin (for whom I named my oldest son, whose birthday was yesterday!). More specifically, the document highlights intellectual diversity and institutional neutrality among the values that the university should make central to its mission moving forward:

1. Intellectual diversity and openness of thought. The University of Pennsylvania’s core mission is the pursuit, enhancement, and dissemination of knowledge and of the free exchange of ideas that is necessary to that goal. All ideas and values, regardless of origin or political nature, can be openly discussed, proposed, criticized, embraced, and rejected.

2. Civil discourse. The University of Pennsylvania not only tolerates criticism and dissent but encourages and supports it in an environment of open debate. It acknowledges that no party possesses the moral authority to monopolize the truth or censor opponents and that incorrect hypotheses are rejected only by argument and persuasion, logic and evidence, not suppression or ad-hominem attacks. The University actively promotes the ethic of open and civilized debate among students, faculty, staff, and other members of its community.

3. Political neutrality at the level of administration. The agents of dissent and critical discourse within the university are the individual community members of the University of Pennsylvania. The university serves as the hosting entity for these critics, but it does not act as the critic itself. It will commit itself to institutional neutrality. In their capacity as university representatives, administrators will abstain from commenting on societal and political events absent truly extraordinary circumstances such as threats to the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry. Further, administrators will respect the traditional boundaries of academic freedom in research and teaching.

4. Institutional neutrality is vital to foster a sense of inclusion among all University of Pennsylvania community members. Official commentary on societal and political events inevitably alienates individuals within the community who hold differing opinions from the institutional perspective or who, in their research efforts, wish to reexamine common orthodoxies. Beyond its inherent moral value, impartiality is a pragmatic policy. As an institutional principle, this neutrality is balanced by the complete freedom afforded to its faculty and students as individuals, enabling their engagement in political activities and social advocacy outside of the classroom.

5. The University must remain neutral to scientific investigation, respect the scientific method, and strive to include many and varied approaches in its research orientation.

6. Respect and Tolerance. To effectively fulfill its societal mission, the University of Pennsylvania is committed to cultivating an exceptional environment characterized by intellectual freedom and the defense of its independence from prevailing political trends, emotions, and pressures. To remain true to its commitment to intellectual inquiry, the University wholeheartedly embraces, encourages, and provides a welcoming space for the widest spectrum of perspectives within its community.

In an endnote, the writers clarify that “The only exceptions to these principles are instances covered in the First Amendment case law,” noting that “while the University is a private institution, its understanding of the contours of free speech should track First Amendment precedent.”

Chef’s kiss.

Considering the fact that Penn really did earn its second-to-last place spot in FIRE’s Free Speech Rankings last year by deplatforming speakers, having a terrible speech code, scoring poorly among its own students for its promises of free speech, and not standing up for its professors, I very much approve of this new proposed vision for Penn’s future, and have enthusiastically signed my name to it.

You should consider signing too.

It’s been a wild week and a half, but this is a welcome response to recent events regarding free speech on campus. As readers are likely aware, Penn President Liz Magill and chairman of Penn’s board of trustees Scott Bok have both announced they would step down. This needed to happen — not just after Magill’s poor performance at the congressional hearings, but also after her follow-up video stating that Penn would consider abandoning constitutional standards in its free speech policies. 

Clearly, Penn has reached a crossroads. Here’s hoping it will choose to go the right way.

Could the tide be turning for free speech on elite college campuses?

In schools across the country right now, students are taught to think like activists and not like scholars. They aren’t taught to always consider the possibility they might be wrong, to not engage in simplified sloganeering, and to see the true telos of their university as the discovery of truth. Pursuing predetermined political goals as if they are known with absolute, unquestioning certainty is why things have gotten so bad on campus during my career (did I mention FIRE will be 25 next year?)

Turning that around means turning those fundamental student perspectives around. Can it happen? It absolutely can if the will to do it is there, and at least some people at Penn have shown that they’ve got that will in them.

Meanwhile, Harvard President Claudine Gay, who also testified at the hearings last week and was seemingly also in danger of losing her job, appears to be sticking around. I’m not unhappy about that, either. Had she stepped down, it would have sent the message that what the school did wrong during that hearing was to not have clamped down on free speech even harder.

Gay’s only been on the job for a few months — and although she has a questionable free speech record as Faculty of Arts and Sciences dean (as my FIRE colleagues Connor Murnane and Angel Eduardo mention in a recent piece for The New York Post), Gay has more recently made heartening statements signaling an appreciation of free expression and academic freedom. While accusations of double standards and hypocrisy on Harvard’s part are well earned, Gay’s testimony during last week’s hearing was still correct (if clumsy). As Murnane and Eduardo write, “skepticism is warranted, but cynicism shouldn’t get in the way of progress.”

We’ll see how things at Harvard turn out — and if they adopt FIRE advisor Steven Pinker’s excellent five-point plan to save Harvard from itself, I’ll be very pleased. These elite ivy league schools have long been held up as examples of the pinnacle of higher education. It’s about time they start acting like it.

SHOT FOR THE ROAD

Here’s a clip from my interview for the Heterodox Academy’s “Heterodox Out Loud” podcast where I discuss what should happen in universities across the country whenever there’s a shout-down, cancel campaign, or a tenured professor targeted for speech on campus. 

The full episode is available here!

And if you're wondering about my T-shirt, that’s Wolverine with Canada's PREMIER super hero team, Alpha Flight!