In 2002, author David Horowitz proposed an Academic Bill of Rights to ensure diversity of perspectives in American higher education. The proposal was criticized for not respecting disciplinary autonomy and academic standards, and for attempting to force change from the top down.
The critic has a point, but I think he was correct in diagnosing the problem. This means that higher education struggles to respect appropriate forms of diversity of viewpoints.
For example, the disparity in faculty political engagement has only widened in recent decades, with the ratio of liberals to conservatives among U.S. university faculty increasing from 2:1 in 1989 to 2017, by one measure. increased to 5:1. According to a 2023 study by The Crimson, the ratio among Harvard faculty is currently approximately 26:1.
If this lack of diversity of perspectives was simply due to the steady conquest of ignorance by knowledge, this would be worth celebrating. In reality, however, ideological or political homogeneity often only inhibits the pursuit of truth, and in some cases leads to the neglect of entire fields of inquiry. This hinders universities' mission to generate, preserve, and transmit knowledge and prepare students for democratic citizenship.
As John Stuart Mill argued in On Liberty, ignoring other points of view helps us to seek truth, understand other points of view, realize when we are wrong, and defend ourselves when we are right. Even the ability to properly defend a position is impaired. As we are experiencing at Harvard, a lack of intellectual diversity among faculty (and administrators) can also make open student discussion increasingly difficult.
How do we explain the lack of intellectual diversity among faculty?
A central explanation may concern the field of research in which faculty choose to hire. For example, in my own field of public health, there is resistance to faculty seeking out experts on the relationship between religion and health, or marriage and health, despite the empirical evidence showing the importance of those relationships. I think there will be.
For many, these topics seem too closely related to traditional values. I imagine similar dynamics are at work in many fields. As ideological perspectives become more homogeneous, the topics considered important become narrower, further reinforcing the lack of intellectual diversity. It's a vicious cycle.
I do not believe that universities should introduce new quotas targeting ideological diversity, but I do think that universities should consciously diversify the research fields covered in faculty recruitment examinations. I would suggest the following principles as one of the many considerations departments should take into account when hiring faculty.
If your field of research requires attention to a perspective held by a large portion of the population and has significant implications for policy or society, ask your faculty to hold that view or conduct research on people who hold that view. It would be advantageous to have someone who has done it.
More specifically, it is advantageous to have a faculty member who holds such views when such views concern values or matters for which there is no academic consensus. In contrast, if there is an evidence-based scholarly consensus that the relevant view is false, it is advantageous to have someone who studies people who hold that view.
Therefore, universities should remove faculty members who hold negative or controversial views when they are held by a large portion of the population, have not been clearly refuted, and have an impact on culture or policy. Special efforts should be made to recruit them.
Applying this principle to topics and perspectives currently underrepresented in academic research not only maintains academic autonomy and academic standards, but also increases the diversity of perspectives in ways that enhance the pursuit of knowledge. It will also happen.
If this principle were applied consistently, one can imagine faculty research on marriage and health in sociology and public health. In psychology, about the evaluation of character and virtue. In philosophy, about Thomas Aquinas, whose philosophy (as well as theology) continues to have a profound influence on the Catholic Church and its 1.4 billion members. Even more controversially, schools of public health may consider hiring pro-life scholars on women's health.
Hiring people in these often neglected areas would increase the political, intellectual, and religious diversity of the faculty. By adding scholars with different perspectives, we may be able to find some common ground on divisive issues. It will definitely improve the quality of debate and scholarship on both sides.
The very fact that many people find such proposals objectionable may be evidence that ideological factors often drive faculty hiring.
To be clear, not all widely held views deserve equal consideration on this principle. Many people believe in alien UFOs, but this does not have much impact on policy. Although many Americans embrace the young-earth creationist perspective, and it exerts some social influence, there is academic consensus against this position. However, having academics who study people who hold such views could provide a significant advantage to the sector in knowledge transfer.
Increasing the diversity of perspectives will have many positive effects. It will reshape what is a central or peripheral topic within a discipline, and editors' willingness to publish it in top journals. This can impact who gets hired and promoted.
Similarly, a lack of diversity of perspectives among faculty also impacts graduate students. It is difficult for graduate students to research a particular topic if they cannot find a faculty member to advise them. Without faculty members interested in unfashionable topics, prospective students may decide it's not worth applying or face rejection due to a lack of advisors. Additionally, the lack of graduate students studying these subjects reinforces the perception that departments do not need to hire in these areas.
Greater diversity of perspectives will ultimately help universities pursue veritas, helping them refine, strengthen, revise, and better position their arguments when they encounter people with differing opinions. Helpful.
Harvard scholars and leaders would do well to remember the wise words of Richard Feynman. “The first principle is never to fool yourself, and you are the most gullible human being.”
Tyler J. Vanderweele is the John L. Loeb and Francis Lehman Loeb Professor of Epidemiology.
His piece is part of Harvard University's Council on Academic Freedom column, published every other Monday, in which faculty members pair up to write contrasting perspectives on a single topic. Read the companion piece to VanderWeele's article here.
