Shocking that the organization representing literati is playing Orwellian games. Institutional neutrality is the key provision of free expression and academic freedom. Universities are not people - when they speak on behalf of the entire community of scholars they suppress dissent and chill the speech on campus. This is censorship and compelled speech.
This is a false dichotomy that paints the world inaccurately in an all-or-none fashion.
It is entirely possible, and has actually worked in academia and other entities for a long time, for the entity to state a position but to be open to the possibility that some of its members will disagree. There is a huge difference between expressing an opinion and "speaking on behalf of the entire community of scholars". The latter has never been a claim of any academic institution.
I would argue that insisting that an entity cannot speak on a point that matters to society is the real act of suppression and censorship.
But surely we can see how an institution (or department) taking a position on an issue stifles the expression of faculty who do not agree with that position. And that applicants with a dissenting point of view would look elsewhere, further siloing thought within that institution.
I'd love to see some data on this claim. I have been in plenty of positions and known plenty of people who disagreed with their institution and yet continued to work happily and whose expressions were not stifled. In fact, the entire HxA community was founded by people who strongly dissented with positions taken by their institutions.
I live in Australia. My university and many others routinely acknowledge that we exist on land stolen from Indigenous people. It is a fact. Resiling from that truth in the interests of ‘neutrality’ would be dishonest.
I have spoken at multiple HxA events about my work, which brings a quantitative rigor to DEI while avoiding the problems that have ruffled so many feathers.
I would invite all HxA members who have criticized DEI to consider the following two sentences from this article:
- "institutional neutrality, properly understood, does neither of these things."
- "To be sure, neutrality can be abused or implemented poorly."
The same exact things can be said—and have been said—about DEI.
Yes, DEI has been abused and implemented poorly, but in my dozens of conversations with the HxA community it is clear that it has been demonized and is completely misunderstood by most.
Institutional neutrality has been used purposefully to stifle DEI—a movement that, with all of its missteps, was trying to address a huge societal problem. In this light, I completely agree that, in its actual implementation, institutional neutrality has been a form of educational censorship. Even if one believes that DEI itself is a form of censorship (which, admittedly, in its practical application is not an unreasonable accusation), suppressing it is just as much a form of censorship. As I half-jokingly like to say, "being intolerant of intolerance is intolerable".
Lastly, I would submit that while institutional neutrality impacts primarily the academic world, DEI was motivated by—and is meant to impact—a problem that impacts all of society. DEI is a vastly larger problem than institutional neutrality, one that deserved a more thoughtful response than the vitriolic response it has received by this community.
I hope that the PEN America's critical assessment is a wake-up call. I also hope that it promotes thoughtful reflection about the way DEI has been treated, and that it encourages DEI critics to suggest improvements rather than trying to cancel it. Let's put an end to this senseless polarization, and focus our energy on making the world, both inside and outside the academic walls, a better place.
I have been working in DEI (admittedly from a somewhat unusual angle) for 11 years, and I guarantee you that my work has a lot of quantitative rigor. And the vast majority of people who have seen it (including many HxA folks) do not describe it as toxic. If anything, it appears that your use of the number "zero" is what may be lacking quantitative rigor.
"Institutional neutrality is not censorship. It is a recognition that authority chills dissent, and that the university’s greatest contribution to a free society is not telling people what to think — but protecting their ability to think, speak, and disagree for themselves."
Shocking that the organization representing literati is playing Orwellian games. Institutional neutrality is the key provision of free expression and academic freedom. Universities are not people - when they speak on behalf of the entire community of scholars they suppress dissent and chill the speech on campus. This is censorship and compelled speech.
This is a false dichotomy that paints the world inaccurately in an all-or-none fashion.
It is entirely possible, and has actually worked in academia and other entities for a long time, for the entity to state a position but to be open to the possibility that some of its members will disagree. There is a huge difference between expressing an opinion and "speaking on behalf of the entire community of scholars". The latter has never been a claim of any academic institution.
I would argue that insisting that an entity cannot speak on a point that matters to society is the real act of suppression and censorship.
But surely we can see how an institution (or department) taking a position on an issue stifles the expression of faculty who do not agree with that position. And that applicants with a dissenting point of view would look elsewhere, further siloing thought within that institution.
I'd love to see some data on this claim. I have been in plenty of positions and known plenty of people who disagreed with their institution and yet continued to work happily and whose expressions were not stifled. In fact, the entire HxA community was founded by people who strongly dissented with positions taken by their institutions.
"here is a huge difference between expressing an opinion and "speaking on behalf of the entire community of scholars"."
Yours is the statement that is false. Krylov is correct.
Alexander, I never cease to be amazed by the facility with which you throw around accusations of truth and falsehood, honesty and dishonesty, ...
"This is a false dichotomy "
And the same to you, Paolo.
I live in Australia. My university and many others routinely acknowledge that we exist on land stolen from Indigenous people. It is a fact. Resiling from that truth in the interests of ‘neutrality’ would be dishonest.
Not dishonest in the least. There is a large difference between stolen land and conquered land. And virtually all land is conquered land.
I have spoken at multiple HxA events about my work, which brings a quantitative rigor to DEI while avoiding the problems that have ruffled so many feathers.
I would invite all HxA members who have criticized DEI to consider the following two sentences from this article:
- "institutional neutrality, properly understood, does neither of these things."
- "To be sure, neutrality can be abused or implemented poorly."
The same exact things can be said—and have been said—about DEI.
Yes, DEI has been abused and implemented poorly, but in my dozens of conversations with the HxA community it is clear that it has been demonized and is completely misunderstood by most.
Institutional neutrality has been used purposefully to stifle DEI—a movement that, with all of its missteps, was trying to address a huge societal problem. In this light, I completely agree that, in its actual implementation, institutional neutrality has been a form of educational censorship. Even if one believes that DEI itself is a form of censorship (which, admittedly, in its practical application is not an unreasonable accusation), suppressing it is just as much a form of censorship. As I half-jokingly like to say, "being intolerant of intolerance is intolerable".
Lastly, I would submit that while institutional neutrality impacts primarily the academic world, DEI was motivated by—and is meant to impact—a problem that impacts all of society. DEI is a vastly larger problem than institutional neutrality, one that deserved a more thoughtful response than the vitriolic response it has received by this community.
I hope that the PEN America's critical assessment is a wake-up call. I also hope that it promotes thoughtful reflection about the way DEI has been treated, and that it encourages DEI critics to suggest improvements rather than trying to cancel it. Let's put an end to this senseless polarization, and focus our energy on making the world, both inside and outside the academic walls, a better place.
DEI has zero "quantitative rigor". And in fact is toxic (e.g. hiring quotas, promotion quotas, admissions quotas based on race).
I have been working in DEI (admittedly from a somewhat unusual angle) for 11 years, and I guarantee you that my work has a lot of quantitative rigor. And the vast majority of people who have seen it (including many HxA folks) do not describe it as toxic. If anything, it appears that your use of the number "zero" is what may be lacking quantitative rigor.
I said DEI is toxic.
And we'll disagree.
"Institutional neutrality is not censorship. It is a recognition that authority chills dissent, and that the university’s greatest contribution to a free society is not telling people what to think — but protecting their ability to think, speak, and disagree for themselves."
Long live the Chicago Trifecta!
It appears likely that PEN has an agenda. PEN wants institutions to engage in boycotts of Israel and institutional neutrality prevents such boycotts.