Till a couple of weeks ago I was chair of my state AAUP's committee for academic freedom. I had volunteered for the committee, and I was very impressed that the state leadership (Indiana's) asked me to be the chair and then reappointed me, even though they knew I was a staunch conservative and it was international news that my university's administration had condemned me as racist, misogynistic, 18th century, unchristian, etc. (though my local university's AAUP never defended me). I thought the AAUP, tho overwhelmining leftwing in membership, was an important supporter of academic freedom.
But it's not, not for conservatives. After the two things Mr. Lukianoff spoke of-- the national-level AAUP's endorsement of DEI statements and its new neutrality on boycotting Israeli scholars-- I have given up on the AAUP. I've resigned my membership. I can do more as a member of the MIT Free Speech Alliance and with the Alumni Free Speech Alliance. https://www.mitfreespeech.org/https://www.alumnifreespeechalliance.org/
This is a lesson to remain vigilant. We may be feeling triumphant because of the recent election results but their philosophies are not defeated. More likely they'll go quiet for a few years while growing unnoticed. Censorship will not completely end. And work will be done to prepare for the next cycle.
“More likely they'll go quiet for a few years while growing unnoticed.”
I strongly agree with all the other sentences you wrote. But this one quite literally made me laugh out loud.
There is some (imo small) chance that *other* parts of the left coalition will do as you suggest and go quiet on censorship for a few years. The chance that *academia* will is less than slim. It is none.
As a non-trivial example, do you think the UC system in California will back off on its DEI statement requirements for promotion and hiring there? It has been going on for 5 years now. You’re expecting it to stop?
I meant quiet in the sense of being ignored by the general culture. They'll be screaming at each other within academia but pop culture will be cleaning house, and so Wokeism/DEI/Marcuse-ism will fade from public awareness for a while.
But much like the 1980s, they'll be building up within the education establishment while we all enjoy our DEI-free culture ("Top Gun 3! The completion of the Maverick Trilogy!"). At some point, a decade or more out, the new conservative cycle will lose momentum and the Wokies will emerge again.
If there were not right-of-center media, if we were back in, say, 2005, you could be right.
Given that there is such media (there are other reasons, too, but this single one is sufficient), the chances of the fading awareness you cite are zero.
This anarchist used to send money to the ACLU. Now I send it to FIRE.
I'm not always gonna agree with the people you defend, but I will always agree that free speech is the first principle of a free society. Without the ability to share ideas, discuss ideas, argue ideas you won't have freedom for long.
I think "the all-encompassing metaphysical idea of white supremacy" could use some explaining. Now I've been in enough progressive circles and seen enough of Tema Okun's nonsense to know that "white supremacy" has been used in such a wooly way that is not only divorced from, as you put it, "racial superiority or eugenics", but from any idea of whites being treated as if they were supreme. Not all readers, though, are so familiar with its more strained usages.
In our current environment, where taking sides on issues has become more important than standing on principle, organizations like FIRE are essential if those basic principles are to be maintained. Without those principles we are beyond screwed.
This is exactly why I tell everyone I can about FIRE and support you financially.
The AAUP’s leadership seems set on walking into a propeller because pretty much everyone outside the Ivory Tower is going to understand that the faculty-only approach to academic freedom is both wildly unfair and deeply inefficient.
The AAUP seems to have dedicated itself to a defense of the indefensible. From what I’ve seen, the AAUP uses the concept of academic freedom instrumentally to justify its demands for academic tenure and scholastic self-rule in higher education. Its basic argument is that the academic freedom afforded by protecting faulty members from outside competition and allowing established experts free reign to police their respective field promotes the advance of learning.
The AAUP’s position is obviously wrongheaded because history has shown that the greatest academic advances—namely, new theories—tend to be hit upon by someone who is young or new to a discipline and often languish until the then-dominant cohort of scholars loses control over the field. The deference afforded to tenured faculty under the current system makes our colleges and universities incredibly hostile environments for truly innovative ideas because established professors are allowed to take the ostrich defense or declare victory when faced with a threat to their ideas or beliefs. Worse, the AAUP-approved approach creates ideal conditions for the survival of disproven theories because established academics are prone to champion the alpha sycophants valiant enough to kowtow their way to the top by agreeing with their betters.
The AAUP might want to change its tune quickly about whose academic freedom counts. The incoming Trump administration could figure out that the greatest threats to the advance of learning come from within the academy and are, at minimum, exacerbated by a system that affords tenure and permits faculty self-governance. Similarly, a red state may realize that the best argument for eliminating tenure in higher education is that exempting professors from the crucible of competition is a blight on the advance of learning.
Given that Democrats no longer support free speech for those who disagree with them, the only surprising and inexplicable thing in this entire piece is why you still self-identify as a Democrat.
That your views on economics and/or other social issues skew to the left, sure.
That you would choose to identify as a “moderate” or a “centrist”, that I’d completely understand.
That you might choose to identify as “center-left” - which would have been completely reasonable even perhaps 5 years ago - I’d find a bit hard to understand, but not to accept.
That you still identify as a *Democrat* when that party has made clear it doesn’t believe in free speech - their Vice Presidential candidate literally said “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy”, and no major Democrat party leaders spoke up to say it was wrong, and for which Walz never apologized or backed down - I find inexplicable.
That there are a non-zero number of people who don’t support free speech on the right is meaningless.
There are massive numbers of people on the left who don’t support free speech now.
Censoring speech is mainstream on the left now; it is not on the right.
It is the left that is using the power of government to censor speech now, not the right.
And to the extent you might claim that my prior statement is not unequivocally correct, you cannot argue against - with a straight face, let alone with evidence - that the censorship is coming at least 95% from the left. Government censorship is more like 99%+, surely.
And in academia those who favor censorship again are at least 95% from the left, and more like 98%++.
But if you indeed have “news” for me - other than the trivial “it’s more than zero” - please share it with evidence.
Like I said, I have news for you. FIRE takes free speech cases from both sides, and as Greg noted in the piece above, there was a 50% difference in cases of censorship coming from the right of the speaker that FIRE's Campus Advocacy Team dealt with in 2024. The very article you are commenting on has reams of evidence showing that censorship on the right exists and FIRE spends a great deal of time fighting back against it. That's the point being made when Greg argues against the AAUP's claims that FIRE is partisan. And if all you're going to do is quibble about what side does it more, I think you're wasting your time and missing the point.
The desire to silence and suppress people and ideas we disfavor is a human characteristic; it knows no political or ideological side.
Everyone wants the club. No one wants to be beaten with it. The only difference is who has their hands on what levers at any given time. The sooner we all recognize this, the better.
I went through the “defending the left” articles linked in the piece (well, the ones I could; several went to a Google access denied page).
Only a small number are examples of people on the right trying to “censor” anything. Many of the examples are leftist administrators doing the censoring. I agree that DeSantis has indeed gone too far in *some* of his anti-woke actions, as you have here, even as I do applaud others of them that are not actually government censorship
And again I say these handful you cite are tiny compared to the overall amount of censorship coming from the left. Surely you are not claiming that the ratio of censorship from the left relative to censorship from the right in cases that FIRE takes up is the ratio of what is out there, are you?
Just because censorship exists on both sides does not change the reality that today the overwhelming majority of it is from the left, nor does it change the reality that of the two major parties in this country, the Democrats are the party of censorship.
I think the next four years will present a very healthy challenge of that perception.
Thank you for alerting me that a couple (two) of those links didn't work. They've been removed and replaced with other examples. It's a non-exhaustive list, mean to indicate that censorship comes from all sides. I have not denied that there is an imbalance—especially in recent memory—but to say that the Democrats are the party of censorship as though it's something inherent to them, and by implication that it isn't inherent to Republicans, simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It's always a matter of who has the power to censor. And as I said, I think we're likely to see incidents of censorship coming from the right go up. I would love to be wrong on that.
But it WAS intended to claim that both sides are into censorship approximately equally - and certainly that they would if they *could*. That’s what I am objecting to.
"Jeffrey Klinzman, an adjunct faculty member at Kirkwood Community College, who was removed from the classroom after a Facebook post accusing evangelical Christians of “homophobic bigotry.”
...and posts describing himself as a member of Antifa (an organization known for committing political violence), his desire to physically assault President Trump with a baseball bat and describing his feelings towards evangelicals as full of rage and desire for revenge...
Sorry, but I think you split the legal hairs a bit too fine on that case and this summary here severely understates the case against him. Those are some pretty severe red flags. I have zero confidence that someone saying such things did not also display impermissible discrimination against Christian students.
It's so exhausting to watch people continually attempt to reframe reality in a way NOBODY would accept if they had observed the events in question for purely political purposes. It's so pathetic.
The only complaints a student should be able to make against a professor are actual or threatened physical violence, including unsolicited sexual contact, and actual or threatened politically motivated grade deflation. And they will need proof.
Till a couple of weeks ago I was chair of my state AAUP's committee for academic freedom. I had volunteered for the committee, and I was very impressed that the state leadership (Indiana's) asked me to be the chair and then reappointed me, even though they knew I was a staunch conservative and it was international news that my university's administration had condemned me as racist, misogynistic, 18th century, unchristian, etc. (though my local university's AAUP never defended me). I thought the AAUP, tho overwhelmining leftwing in membership, was an important supporter of academic freedom.
But it's not, not for conservatives. After the two things Mr. Lukianoff spoke of-- the national-level AAUP's endorsement of DEI statements and its new neutrality on boycotting Israeli scholars-- I have given up on the AAUP. I've resigned my membership. I can do more as a member of the MIT Free Speech Alliance and with the Alumni Free Speech Alliance. https://www.mitfreespeech.org/ https://www.alumnifreespeechalliance.org/
Wow, Scott and the AAUP are unbelievably mendacious. They've fallen to the ideological dark side. Total schmucks.
You won't say it but I will, FIRE is on the right side of history and AAUP is on the wrong side.
Great article, Greg. Sock it to 'em!
Will Inside Higher Education publish it?
This is a lesson to remain vigilant. We may be feeling triumphant because of the recent election results but their philosophies are not defeated. More likely they'll go quiet for a few years while growing unnoticed. Censorship will not completely end. And work will be done to prepare for the next cycle.
“More likely they'll go quiet for a few years while growing unnoticed.”
I strongly agree with all the other sentences you wrote. But this one quite literally made me laugh out loud.
There is some (imo small) chance that *other* parts of the left coalition will do as you suggest and go quiet on censorship for a few years. The chance that *academia* will is less than slim. It is none.
As a non-trivial example, do you think the UC system in California will back off on its DEI statement requirements for promotion and hiring there? It has been going on for 5 years now. You’re expecting it to stop?
https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2020/01/wokeademia.html
I meant quiet in the sense of being ignored by the general culture. They'll be screaming at each other within academia but pop culture will be cleaning house, and so Wokeism/DEI/Marcuse-ism will fade from public awareness for a while.
But much like the 1980s, they'll be building up within the education establishment while we all enjoy our DEI-free culture ("Top Gun 3! The completion of the Maverick Trilogy!"). At some point, a decade or more out, the new conservative cycle will lose momentum and the Wokies will emerge again.
I’m noticing a rising chorus of people speaking out and pushing back. I am heartened by this.
Extreme movements like this rarely last. Americans are naturally anti-authoritarian. We don’t like leashes.
If there were not right-of-center media, if we were back in, say, 2005, you could be right.
Given that there is such media (there are other reasons, too, but this single one is sufficient), the chances of the fading awareness you cite are zero.
Most likely we will spiral into further polarization on both sides. Without anyone to unite Americans with a positive vision, the center cannot hold.
That is work that FAIR is hoping to do (and, in my humble opinion, is doing).
fairforall.org
This anarchist used to send money to the ACLU. Now I send it to FIRE.
I'm not always gonna agree with the people you defend, but I will always agree that free speech is the first principle of a free society. Without the ability to share ideas, discuss ideas, argue ideas you won't have freedom for long.
Thank you, Timothy!
Yes, thank you, Timothy!
Fantastic! I am a "card-carrying member" of FIRE - and damn proud of it.
I think "the all-encompassing metaphysical idea of white supremacy" could use some explaining. Now I've been in enough progressive circles and seen enough of Tema Okun's nonsense to know that "white supremacy" has been used in such a wooly way that is not only divorced from, as you put it, "racial superiority or eugenics", but from any idea of whites being treated as if they were supreme. Not all readers, though, are so familiar with its more strained usages.
Great article. Thank you Greg.
In our current environment, where taking sides on issues has become more important than standing on principle, organizations like FIRE are essential if those basic principles are to be maintained. Without those principles we are beyond screwed.
This is exactly why I tell everyone I can about FIRE and support you financially.
The AAUP’s leadership seems set on walking into a propeller because pretty much everyone outside the Ivory Tower is going to understand that the faculty-only approach to academic freedom is both wildly unfair and deeply inefficient.
The AAUP seems to have dedicated itself to a defense of the indefensible. From what I’ve seen, the AAUP uses the concept of academic freedom instrumentally to justify its demands for academic tenure and scholastic self-rule in higher education. Its basic argument is that the academic freedom afforded by protecting faulty members from outside competition and allowing established experts free reign to police their respective field promotes the advance of learning.
The AAUP’s position is obviously wrongheaded because history has shown that the greatest academic advances—namely, new theories—tend to be hit upon by someone who is young or new to a discipline and often languish until the then-dominant cohort of scholars loses control over the field. The deference afforded to tenured faculty under the current system makes our colleges and universities incredibly hostile environments for truly innovative ideas because established professors are allowed to take the ostrich defense or declare victory when faced with a threat to their ideas or beliefs. Worse, the AAUP-approved approach creates ideal conditions for the survival of disproven theories because established academics are prone to champion the alpha sycophants valiant enough to kowtow their way to the top by agreeing with their betters.
The AAUP might want to change its tune quickly about whose academic freedom counts. The incoming Trump administration could figure out that the greatest threats to the advance of learning come from within the academy and are, at minimum, exacerbated by a system that affords tenure and permits faculty self-governance. Similarly, a red state may realize that the best argument for eliminating tenure in higher education is that exempting professors from the crucible of competition is a blight on the advance of learning.
THE GLOVES ARE OFF!!
GO GET ‘EM, GREG!!
Given that Democrats no longer support free speech for those who disagree with them, the only surprising and inexplicable thing in this entire piece is why you still self-identify as a Democrat.
That your views on economics and/or other social issues skew to the left, sure.
That you would choose to identify as a “moderate” or a “centrist”, that I’d completely understand.
That you might choose to identify as “center-left” - which would have been completely reasonable even perhaps 5 years ago - I’d find a bit hard to understand, but not to accept.
That you still identify as a *Democrat* when that party has made clear it doesn’t believe in free speech - their Vice Presidential candidate literally said “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy”, and no major Democrat party leaders spoke up to say it was wrong, and for which Walz never apologized or backed down - I find inexplicable.
If you think it's only Democrats who no longer support free speech for those who disagree with them, I've got news for you.
This is a false equivalence.
That there are a non-zero number of people who don’t support free speech on the right is meaningless.
There are massive numbers of people on the left who don’t support free speech now.
Censoring speech is mainstream on the left now; it is not on the right.
It is the left that is using the power of government to censor speech now, not the right.
And to the extent you might claim that my prior statement is not unequivocally correct, you cannot argue against - with a straight face, let alone with evidence - that the censorship is coming at least 95% from the left. Government censorship is more like 99%+, surely.
And in academia those who favor censorship again are at least 95% from the left, and more like 98%++.
But if you indeed have “news” for me - other than the trivial “it’s more than zero” - please share it with evidence.
Like I said, I have news for you. FIRE takes free speech cases from both sides, and as Greg noted in the piece above, there was a 50% difference in cases of censorship coming from the right of the speaker that FIRE's Campus Advocacy Team dealt with in 2024. The very article you are commenting on has reams of evidence showing that censorship on the right exists and FIRE spends a great deal of time fighting back against it. That's the point being made when Greg argues against the AAUP's claims that FIRE is partisan. And if all you're going to do is quibble about what side does it more, I think you're wasting your time and missing the point.
The desire to silence and suppress people and ideas we disfavor is a human characteristic; it knows no political or ideological side.
Everyone wants the club. No one wants to be beaten with it. The only difference is who has their hands on what levers at any given time. The sooner we all recognize this, the better.
I went through the “defending the left” articles linked in the piece (well, the ones I could; several went to a Google access denied page).
Only a small number are examples of people on the right trying to “censor” anything. Many of the examples are leftist administrators doing the censoring. I agree that DeSantis has indeed gone too far in *some* of his anti-woke actions, as you have here, even as I do applaud others of them that are not actually government censorship
And again I say these handful you cite are tiny compared to the overall amount of censorship coming from the left. Surely you are not claiming that the ratio of censorship from the left relative to censorship from the right in cases that FIRE takes up is the ratio of what is out there, are you?
Just because censorship exists on both sides does not change the reality that today the overwhelming majority of it is from the left, nor does it change the reality that of the two major parties in this country, the Democrats are the party of censorship.
I think the next four years will present a very healthy challenge of that perception.
Thank you for alerting me that a couple (two) of those links didn't work. They've been removed and replaced with other examples. It's a non-exhaustive list, mean to indicate that censorship comes from all sides. I have not denied that there is an imbalance—especially in recent memory—but to say that the Democrats are the party of censorship as though it's something inherent to them, and by implication that it isn't inherent to Republicans, simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It's always a matter of who has the power to censor. And as I said, I think we're likely to see incidents of censorship coming from the right go up. I would love to be wrong on that.
“Everyone wants the club. No one wants to be beaten with it. The only difference is who has their hands on what levers at any given time.”
Dude, you shouldn’t project your own secret desires on the rest of us.
If I had control over all branches of political power, there are many things I’d change. Censoring my political opponents is not one of them.
Nor would it be if I controlled a Big Tech platform. Or a university.
So “Everyone” does *not* in fact want the club of censorship.
I work for FIRE, Andy. I don't want to censor anybody either, and wouldn't if I could. The statement you're quoting wasn't meant literally.
But it WAS intended to claim that both sides are into censorship approximately equally - and certainly that they would if they *could*. That’s what I am objecting to.
"Jeffrey Klinzman, an adjunct faculty member at Kirkwood Community College, who was removed from the classroom after a Facebook post accusing evangelical Christians of “homophobic bigotry.”
...and posts describing himself as a member of Antifa (an organization known for committing political violence), his desire to physically assault President Trump with a baseball bat and describing his feelings towards evangelicals as full of rage and desire for revenge...
Sorry, but I think you split the legal hairs a bit too fine on that case and this summary here severely understates the case against him. Those are some pretty severe red flags. I have zero confidence that someone saying such things did not also display impermissible discrimination against Christian students.
It's so exhausting to watch people continually attempt to reframe reality in a way NOBODY would accept if they had observed the events in question for purely political purposes. It's so pathetic.
The only complaints a student should be able to make against a professor are actual or threatened physical violence, including unsolicited sexual contact, and actual or threatened politically motivated grade deflation. And they will need proof.
My response to Lukianoff's essay is at my substack and AcademeBlog: https://open.substack.com/pub/johnkwilson/p/in-defense-of-the-aaup?r=3lz7y&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Thank you, Greg and the whole FIRE staff, for standing up to authoritarianism, in all its varied guises.
Academia has disgraced itself, but maybe with sufficient sunlight it will eventually be disinfected. Maybe.
Here is an old answer to a tired problem caused by too many egos: Kalven Committee:
Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action
Report of a faculty committee, under the chairmanship of Harry Kalven, Jr. Committee
appointed by President George W. Beadle. Report published in the Record, Vol. I, No. 1,
November 11, 19