In the landmark Supreme Court decision, Sweezy v. New Hampshire, Justice Felix Frankfurter outlined the rights and responsibilities of professors:
“. . . It is the business of a university to provide that atmosphere which is most conducive to speculation, experiment, and creation. It is an atmosphere in which there prevail ‘the four essential freedoms’ of a university – to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.” [1]
These “four freedoms” have become the foundation for faculty autonomy in American higher education and have served as the bedrock for operationalizing academic freedom in the United States for more than six decades.
Recently, in a number of states, legislative and gubernatorial efforts have significantly undermined these principles. Efforts have been undertaken to guarantee what has perversely been labeled “diversity of thought” (Indiana) while concurrently eliminating academic disciplines from institutional offerings (Florida) and banning DEI training (Utah)
The Indiana legislation creates post-tenure review led by a politically appointed board that can strip a faculty member of tenure and employment if they, not a group of disciplinary experts, deem that the faculty member has introduced ideological bias in their classes.
Throughout history, there have been efforts by governments to censor and limit what is taught in universities and public schools. Totalitarian states are built on these efforts, and the Sweezy decision was a response to the “Red scare” in the U.S. in the 1950s.
Democracy depends on a spirit of free inquiry, the ability to ask any question, freedom to engage with difficult subjects, and most importantly, a commitment to discern what is true. This is the expertise of the professoriate. It is what they are trained to do, and the process of peer review within the academy keeps them accountable.
This tradition has provided an intellectual rudder for our evolving democratic republic, but it is now being systematically eroded through well coördinated factionalism. These efforts appear to have two goals: re-expanding the marginalization of minoritized populations and discrediting experts.
I recently heard an elected official declare that to protect ourselves from “group think,” we need to eliminate mandatory diversity training on our campuses. If we all believed that every member of our community should feel valued and have a sense of belonging, is that indoctrination, or is it learning to be better neighbors? There are experts on our campuses that can help us create more sympathetic and kinder communities, we should celebrate and benefit from their efforts, not ban them. Those who need that training most would be the last to take it voluntarily.
We should embrace and celebrate experts more broadly. They have the training and capacity, and with tenure the protection, to tell truth to power and to advance knowledge. This is how we advance as a society.
In the Sweeny decision, Justice Frankfurter stated: “Freedom to reason and freedom for disputation on the basis of observation and experiment are the necessary conditions for the advancement of scientific knowledge. A sense of freedom is also necessary for creative work in the arts which, equally with scientific research, is the concern of the university.”
When led by the academic community, our universities are crucibles of reason and innovation. They are the bulwarks of democracy. We must protect them from political overreach and preserve the essential freedoms of a university, which are the foundations of freedom for us all.
[1] Justice Felix Frankfurter: Sweezy v. New Hampshire 354 U.S. 264 (1957).