Harvard's 'Council on Academic Freedom'

The fact that more than 100 Harvard University professors have now joined together in a council on academic freedom is both good news and bad news. The purpose of the group, organized by my colleague and friend Steven Pinker, is to ensure that freedom of speech and academic freedom survive at Harvard. It is good that so many professors signed on to it so quickly. It is bad that it is even needed at a place like Harvard whose motto, Veritas, means truth. But "truth" can be a double-edged sword, especially at a university.

The "truth" can sometimes be the enemy of freedom. When people believe they, and only they, have access to THE TRUTH, they see little need for debate, dialogue, dissent and disagreement. Indeed they regard such contrary views as heresy. That has been the way of many religions over the years as well as numerous ideologies such as communism and fascism. Universities should not recognize any particular truth or promote any specific narrative.

The role of universities is to teach students how to think, not what to think. The process of discovering, examining and criticizing ever-changing truths is the proper role of higher education, not inculcating currently accepted verities. That is not education; that is propaganda.

Ideological warriors, however, who at today's universities are generally on the "hard left," want their institutions to promote particular truths and narratives and to reject others. Sometimes this is done overtly, more often subtly. The reality is that at many universities, including Harvard, certain views are unacceptable. Both teachers and students know what they are and often self-censor to avoid being stigmatized. It is not getting better; it is getting worse.

Although several media highlighted the fact that 100 faculty members joined this newly created council on academic freedom, the real headline is that so many faculty members refused or declined to participate in an organization whose goal is to promote free speech. Some radical professors and students even oppose the organization, presumably because they do not support its goals of free speech and academic freedom. These include many former civil libertarians and liberals who have now joined the ranks of the guardians of political correctness.

This problem is not unique to Harvard, as evidenced by recent events at Stanford, Yale, Georgetown, University of Pennsylvania and other elite institutions where speakers have been shouted down or subject to discipline for expressing politically incorrect views outside of the classroom.

When I first came to Harvard in 1964, the political correctness of the day tilted to the right. My liberal-civil libertarian views were suspect among many of the conservative faculty. Letters from alumni objected to my "unsound" views influencing students. Although no one tried to censor me. I was advised that my "unsound" views would hurt my obtaining tenure. (They did not.)

Today many of my views are also regarded as politically incorrect and unsound, but this time it is by the extreme left. The difference is that today's censors have tried to silence and cancel me, as well as others who espouse centrist, liberal and civil libertarian positions — and certainly if they express conservative or God forbid pro-Trump views! That is why this council on academic freedom is so important, and that is why it is so disappointing that so many former liberals and civil libertarians have declined to join it.

It is good that the new free speech council is politically quite diverse, including professors with a wide range of political and ideological views. The shared perspective is in favor of freedom of speech and academic freedom for all views, no matter how unpopular. The goal is to protect the expression of all views and to protect those who are threatened or sanctioned for expressing them. It is also to promote the widest diversity of views on campus.

Freedom of speech, due process, the right to counsel and other fundamental liberties are in peril in today's deeply divided society in which everyone must choose a side. Picking the wrong side, particularly in academia and the media, can endanger one's prospects. Remaining silent is often the safest course, so self-censorship has become a widespread tactic among individuals who do not support the political correctness of the day.

The new council alone will not reverse the national trend toward group-think and political correctness, but it promises to play an active role in protecting freedom from those who claim a monopoly on knowing Veritas. It is an honor to be an active member.