Duke University professors discussed trust in higher education, free speech on campus, and institutional neutrality during a panel discussion Saturday hosted by Duke University's Free Speech and Intellectual Diversity Coalition. .
Panelists included Nita Farahany, Robinson O. Everett Professor of Law and Philosophy, Timur Klan, Professor of Economics and Political Science, and Goater Family Professor of Islamic Studies, and David Schanzer, Sanford Public (Professor of Practice, Graduate School of Policy Studies), and Eric Mullin, Distinguished Faculty Fellow at the Kennan Institute for Ethics.
John Rose, Divinity School's Associate Director of the Civil Discourse Project, moderated the event, which took place in the Holsti-Anderson Assembly Room.
“Duke University has a long tradition of free speech and intellectual diversity, dating back to the Bassett incident on campus more than 100 years ago,” said Peter Kahn, Trinity ’76, who introduced the panel. Ta. “If ever there was a time to honor and reinvigorate these ideals, it is now as part of Duke University's 100th anniversary celebrations at a critical time for higher education.”
Khan noted that the panelists' views were “strictly their own” and did not necessarily represent the university's views.
Declining trust in higher education
Rose opened the panel discussion by citing declining trust in U.S. higher education, with 36% of Americans having “a lot or a lot of confidence” in their universities, up from 57% in 2015. He cited a Gallup poll showing that the number of Americans has declined. In 2023.
“Universities are now no longer truth-seeking institutions, but institutions that claim to know the truth and see their core mission as showing the light to others,” Klan said. .
He said he was reluctant to invite conservative or moderate speakers from among the faculty, saying he was “afraid of misconduct.”[ing] Certain courses may be canceled due to fear of cancellation. Because of these concerns, “the self-regulation that universities once had no longer exists,'' Kuran said.
Klan pointed to other factors that he believed were representative of the changing role of higher education.
“Nothing is more emblematic of the shift in the university's mission than the DEI statements that universities are now asking of their employees and applicants,” Crann said. “This lets everyone inside and outside the university know that we have a specific idea. [and] Certain values are encouraged and they should not be challenged. ”
Schanzer attributed the decline to the rise of populism on the political right, which positions universities as part of the “establishment” and targets them more than ever before.
Mullin expanded on this trend, noting that right-wing populism is on the rise around the world. He cited the Hungarian government's 2018 forced Central European University to move its main campus to Vienna, Austria, and said the targeting of universities was becoming “a model for conservatives in the United States and Hungary.” Ta.
Schanzer, Murin, and Farahany all feel that throughout their careers in academia, they have noticed a decline in open dialogue and diverse perspectives.
Farahany noted that student feedback changed while teaching criminal law. She noted that unlike 10 years ago, when she shows lineups of criminal suspects, some students comment that there is a “lack” or “too much” diversity. Farahany explained that these lineups do not represent a point of view, but instead reflect real-life cases.
“I still feel like I can voice my opinion as chair, as a tenured faculty member,” Farahany said. “But there are a lot of students in law school who come to me and say they can't do it, they're afraid to talk about it, which means they're an easy and ripe target to erode trust, and there are widespread efforts to erode trust.” “It means trusting institutions in general and trusting this country.” ”
institutional neutrality
Rose asked the panelists whether universities, particularly Duke University, should adhere to institutional neutrality and take political positions on current events.
Murin answered, “Maybe,” drawing laughter from the audience. He said the Kalven Report, a commonly cited statement describing the University of Chicago's “role in political and social life,” states that the university should refrain from all issues unless “their very mission is threatened.” He stated that he outlined that the government should be neutral toward the United States.
“Liberal democracy is fundamentally threatened in American politics at the moment,'' Murin said, arguing that without liberal democracy, universities would not exist. “…I believe that universities should speak out against Trumpism and right-wing populism, which are very threatening to our mission.”
But President Vincent Price said he faced the “challenge” of either party being “anti-democratic” and warned that such an approach should not be partisan.
Farahani pointed out that decisions about “what is immoral or crosses the line” are themselves grounds for institutional neutrality.
“For a university to come out and say, 'We're against the political process, we're against President Trump, and we're probably against half the student population.' [alumni] I think that’s really troubling and problematic,” Farahany said. “And given that perspective, perhaps the right answer is institutional neutrality.”
Murin added that his argument “doesn't mean Donald Trump shouldn't come to speak on our campus.” Murin said that “a college president speaking out on a particular issue” does not prevent people from being free to disagree.
Mr. Klan argued for a stricter interpretation than Mr. Murin, saying that taking a position on a controversy that is “part of the culture war” would undermine the university's legitimacy. He said this would create an excuse for state governments to begin regulating public universities and for alumni to pressure private universities to regulate speech and academic freedom.
Professor Schanzer accepts the appeal of neutrality, but if the purpose of universities is to seek truth, then they should take the position that “truth is under attack in our politics.'' refuted the claim. Using climate change as an example, he said universities should take a stance that recognizes climate change as a reality, even though it is a “politically controversial issue”.
“I think universities need to stand up for the truth as we know it, so we insist that climate change is real and therefore invest in programs to fight climate change and “We should do the kind of research that needs to be done to help 'save our planet,'” he said. “We should teach our students the truth about an issue, even if it seems political.”
Mullin agreed, saying universities should not take positions on issues that “reasonable people might not agree with” and that climate change is an issue “reasonable people don't seem to agree with”. He said that.
Mr. Murin's comments prompted a reaction from the audience, which Mr. Farahani pointed to as “a reason why we should not take a position because reasonable people disagree on a variety of issues.” Instead, Farahani stressed that universities should focus on producing research and evidence that can inform public debate.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Sign up for our weekly newsletter. You can cancel at any time.
| Associate News Editor
Michael Austin is a second-year student at Trinity University and an associate news editor in the news department.
| Editor-in-chief
Jasper Lu is a junior at Trinity and the editor-in-chief of Volume 119 of the Chronicle magazine.
