VOICES
Freeing Speech
Efforts to Protect and Promote Academic Freedom in Perilous Times
by Alison R. Bernstein
Encouraging greater access to higher education for deserving students, regardless of their socioeconomic status, and ensuring that curriculums reflect the diversity of human experience have been longstanding priorities for the Ford Foundation. But in the wake of 9/11, the war in Iraq and the war on terror, a third challenge faces university-level education: the growing threat to academic freedom from within the academy and outside it.
Threats typically come in times of political polarization like the McCarthy era and are especially prevalent during wartime. In 1915, as World War I engulfed Europe, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) formally articulated the concept of academic freedom. By 1940, when American involvement in a second world war loomed, AAUP expanded its principles governing academic freedom: Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and publication, freedom in the classroom to discuss their subject and freedom to speak or write as citizens without institutional censorship or discipline.
In 1949, the Gaither Report, a seminal study that charted how the Ford Foundation could most effectively put its resources to work for human welfare, also highlighted threats to academic freedom in times of heightened national security. The report warned that "military sponsorship of academic research and military interpretation of secrecy regulations" could undermine academic rights.
But with these rights also come responsibilities and obligations. As Bates College President Elaine Hansen noted in a 2005 address: "The concept of academic freedom does not merely protect one's right to offer controversial statements or offend... but also obliges scholars and officers of educational institutions to remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances... Hence, at all times, they should strive to be accurate, show respect for the opinions of others and make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution."
The initiative had roots in 1980s efforts to address racial bias on campuses, but it was not only about the changing demographics. It also focused on faculty engagement with a more diverse population, largely through curriculum reform and innovation.
CDI has been credited as one of the first philanthropic efforts to spotlight the educational benefits of campus diversity for all students in terms of curriculum offerings and faculty development. It was taken up by several national higher education associations, most notably, the Association of American Colleges and Universities, which continues to make diversity a priority in its programming.
Encouraging 'Difficult Dialogues'
Difficult Dialogues borrowed three philanthropic tools from CDI: A letter from a distinguished group of higher education leaders encouraging college and university presidents to work innovatively; a request-for-proposals framework instead of pre-identification of institutions to support; and relatively small grants of money per campus. (The foundation did not believe that big infusions of funds were necessary, but, rather, that university presidents needed some catalytic support to make diversity a more powerful priority on campus.)
Difficult Dialogues updated these approaches in significant ways. With a new group of higher education leaders, the letter on academic freedom and pluralism was written. The letter, co-signed by the Ford Foundation's president, borrowed some language from the past but focused on new challenges. Most important, instead of sending the letter and grant guidelines to 300 four-year residential colleges and universities as CDI had done, more than 2,400 two- and four-year degree-granting institutions were invited to compete for funds. It was the largest invitation involving higher-education grant making in the past three decades.
The letter marked a new approach in seeking deeper engagement by campus leaders. Phrases like "growing religious intolerance" and "attempts to silence individuals, faculty and students alike" extended the concept of academic freedom to engage students as well as faculty.
Other language focused on faculty responsibility, pointing out not just the rights of faculty but also the obligations "not to exploit students, coerce their views or display a demonstrable lack of competence in their discipline..." The letter recognized that the Internet heightens and inflames opinions off campus and also argued that threats to academic freedom and pluralism cannot be combated by student affairs staff alone.
An Astonishing Response
Of the 2,400 university presidents who were sent invitations, an astonishing 700 replied with proposals—more than one in four institutions had responded. The response made clear the initiative had tapped into a widely shared concern over promoting pluralism and academic freedom on campus. After the final proposals were reviewed, 27 institutions received $100,000 grants and another 16 received $10,000 grants. In the spring of 2006, the foundation asked Dr. Harold Wechsler, a respected historian of higher education at New York University, to analyze the final Difficult Dialogues proposals. His findings:
- Most proposals reflected a reactive stance: A hostile environment or specific incident typically produced a difficult situation on campus.
- Most campuses lacked adequate outlets for articulating and confronting sensitive issues, especially religious commitments.
- Proposals addressing religious strife predominated—especially hostility between Muslims and Jews and between evangelical Christians and gay students.
- Most proposals did not target the most ideologically entrenched or politically committed students. Instead, many applicants suggested dialogue is particularly difficult for "sheltered" or "protected" students, who remain silent for the most part.
- Proposals from public colleges and universities tended to speak of a deep "ambivalence when contemplating the place of religion in their curriculums."
Campuses Ill-Prepared for Conflict
In short, whether it was the Middle East conflict, gay marriage, the challenge to science teaching posed by faith-based beliefs or religious intolerance, Wechsler's analysis of the proposals revealed that campuses were under-prepared and unskilled in conducting difficult dialogues, let alone learning from them. In addition, the mere presence of students' religious beliefs and practices posed new dilemmas, especially for public universities. William Sullivan, a scholar at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, noted, "To live in America is to live in a religiously charged atmosphere, and that includes colleges—whether they like it or not."
Beyond grappling with religious expression in the classroom, the Difficult Dialogues proposals also revealed that faculty need to engage the wider public in discussions focused on the meaning of academic freedom itself. Too often, academic freedom principles have been twisted to defend the freedom of students not to hear views that might cause offense, and the focus has become freedom from hearing rather than a freedom to express controversial perspectives.
At this first stage in the life of the Difficult Dialogues initiative, Ford is supporting efforts on 43 campuses, encouraging campus leaders—faculty and administrators alike—to defend academic freedom aggressively. But the foundation is convinced that grant money will not prove to be the most important factor in determining whether these projects succeed. Rather, the cumulative effect of helping university presidents, general counsels, faculty and trustees amass the political will and moral clarity to make the defense of academic freedom their priority may turn out to be the initiative's most important and lasting legacy.
Alison R. Bernstein is vice president of the Ford Foundation's Knowledge, Creativity and Freedom Program. This essay is adapted from a speech she delivered at the Harvard Institutes for Higher Education.
For more information on the Difficult Dialogues Initiative visit:
www.difficultdialogues.org