When it comes to free inquiry and civil discourse, the situation on campus is troubling. Speakers get shouted down, conservatives feel unwelcome, students routinely censor themselves, and legislators risk overstepping as they respond to all this. When one looks at the nation’s college leaders, it’s tough not to think of that old saw about the weather: Everyone complains about it but no one does anything about it.
That makes “College Presidents for Civic Preparedness,” launched this summer by the Institute for Citizens & Scholars, deserving of a closer look. The initiative brings together 13 college presidents from a wide variety of institutions to promote free speech and civil discourse. The new effort builds on two years of quiet convenings among participating presidents, during which the participants sought to build trust and forge relationships.
Raj Vinnakota, president of Citizens & Scholars, says the goal is to “reprioritize civic preparedness as a core priority and the importance of higher education as a public good.” He says that the initiative is grounded in the promotion of “free expression and critical thinking,” arguing that colleges have an obligation to answer the question, “What are you doing for democracy and civil society?”
Participating institutions include Benedict College, Claremont McKenna College, Cornell University, DePauw University, Duke University, James Madison University, Rollins College, Rutgers University, University of Notre Dame, University of Richmond, Wellesley College, Wesleyan University, and University of Pittsburgh. Vinnakota notes that the effort purposefully includes institutions of very different sizes, geographies, histories, and missions.
Of course, talk is cheap. Given plunging public trust in higher education, it’s fair to ask whether college presidents might view this venture as more of a PR stunt than a meaningful commitment. The answer will only become clear with time. But we can start parsing this effort’s impact by taking a look at what it entails.
Vinnakota explains that the venture includes three major components.
The first is a “Campus Call for Free Expression,” in which each participating institution commits to seeking new ways to elevate “the principles of freedom of expression and critical inquiry.” At this point, the substance of these is difficult to gauge. For instance, Virginia’s James Madison University is partnering with the Washington DC-based Bipartisan Policy Center to teach first-year students about the importance of free expression and what it entails. Cornell University is going to bring students, staff, and faculty together “through scholarly and creative events and activities,” including debates between speakers invited to model civil discourse. And Benedict College is launching a yearlong free expression campaign that will include “key messages, campus programming, and T-shirts.”
The second component is a “Faculty Development Institute on Dialogue Across Difference.” Each college president named one or two faculty to participate in a training this year, in which the professors received intensive instruction in how to inculcate a robust culture of free inquiry and heterodox discussions in their classrooms. This started with 30 faculty this year, but Vinnakota says the aim is to substantially grow that work, with more trainings for more faculty at more campuses over time.
And the third component is a cooperative working group on how to better measure civic learning and free speech on campus. Each participating institution has named some unit that will explore how to track the essential metrics, gauge progress, and coordinate with other colleges and universities.
What will this all add up to? After all, it’s one thing for college presidents to say they support free speech and another to stand firm in the face of irate students, faculty, alumni, or politicians. It’s easier to talk a good game than to help students strengthen and flex their civic muscles. At the same time, no one has had the backs of campus leaders when they have been willing to stand up. That’s why, says Vinnakota, providing “air cover” to college leaders could make a big difference.
While there are invaluable efforts to promote and safeguard free inquiry on campus provided by groups like the Heterodox Academy, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, these efforts have tended not to involve college presidents. Indeed, these efforts have focused on advocacy, litigation, and outside pressure. It’s no criticism to observe that these activities aren’t primarily about empowering or encouraging campus leaders. Meanwhile, on this count, the groups which represent campus leaders have been mostly missing in action.
That makes it heartening to see college leaders stepping up. Vinnakota acknowledges that this effort is a just a first step. But, he argues, “We need to walk before we can run”—by building positive cultures in individual classrooms and at specific campuses—before dreaming of wider transformation. It’s hard to quarrel with the premise, especially in a climate where even walking towards civility can feel like an arduous climb.
Read the full article here