Recently the board of New College of Florida voted to abolish its gender studies program.
Was this a good idea? Is it an infringement on academic freedom? Or is it an example of the people exercising legitimate oversight to ensure academic integrity? This post is a symposium on this important topic.
Let’s Run the Experiment
John P. Bullock
Member of the Faculty, Chemistry, and former Acting Provost
Bennington College
The closure of the Gender Studies Department at the New College of Florida (NCF) comes at a time of steadily declining approval of higher education alongside attempts by state governments to exert more control over curricular issues. These phenomena are distinctly intertwined and should serve as a warning to academia. Critics of the closure have framed their complaints in terms of academic freedom. Interestingly, however, has been the general lack of acknowledgement on the part of critics that anything is wrong in higher education today or that some departments have become wholly politicized and do not engage in productive work. The real crux of the issue involves the ability of an institution to assert its right to most effectively pursue its core mission. If the trustees or administration of a college determine that a particular department or program is working at cross purposes to goals of the institution as a whole, the decision to discontinue it should be available to them.
To be sure, the path NCF chose to follow is not without danger. Academic departments in state colleges should not be in constant fear of elimination with every election. If actions similar to those at NCF are pursued haphazardly across higher ed, the quality of the education at affected institutions will surely suffer. Nevertheless, there needs to be a mechanism to deal with departments that eschew rigorous scholarship in favor of naked political activism or unproductive work of interest only to other like-minded departments elsewhere. Obviously such decisions are best left to the administration, operating within its established policies. Unfortunately, dysfunctional governance structures are not uncommon in colleges, and even functional ones can be heavily biased in favor of stasis: once a program is established it becomes very difficult to eliminate and most administrators would rather not fight such battles. Yet most faculty and administrators would agree, at least in the abstract, that once a program is established it should in no way be guaranteed to exist in perpetuity. The question becomes which criteria should be used, and under what circumstances should they be applied, before a program is dismantled?
Clearly people can, in good faith, take issue with what has taken place at NCF. Personally, I am viewing it as a sort of real-time experiment in higher education: if closing the department proves to be ill-considered, that provides useful information. If, however, there is a robust demand for traditional liberal arts, NCF may weather this controversy by attracting students that otherwise wouldn’t have considered it. Regardless of the experiment’s outcome, it is a welcome development that it is now acceptable to raise the issue of how higher education can better serve society writ large and act less like a special interest group that operates to the benefit of a small number of highly insulated and privileged individuals. The role of higher education is too important to allow it to be poisoned by its own excesses.
The proper scope of academic freedom
Coel Hellier
Professor of Astrophysics
Keele University
"You can’t complain about attempts to shut down gender critical views in universities, and support the closing down of gender studies depts or courses on queer theory. You either support academic freedom or you don’t. Unfortunately, many people, including many academics, don’t understand academic freedom, or why it’s so important."
-- Colin Wight, Professor Emeritus (International Relations)
Perhaps I'm one of the many academics who don’t understand academic freedom, but oh yes I can do both of those things! I don't see academic freedom in such stark terms, and want to make a distinction between teaching and scholarship.
By "teaching" I'm referring to official courses run by a university, usually for credit towards a degree. I argue that academics don't have "academic freedom" to do as they wish when teaching. A university should be dedicated to truth-seeking enquiry based on evidence and reason, and the courses it runs and the degrees that it awards carry its imprimatur. I don't think that a university should run courses that promote creationism or Mormon theology or Queer Theory, or anything else where evidence and reason take a back seat to ideology, even if some academics want to teach it and even if some students want to take it.
Further, much of the funding for universities ultimately comes from the taxpayer, either directly or through mechanisms such as underwriting student loans. I don't agree that there is a public interest in the teaching of ideology-based courses sufficient to ask the taxpayer to fund them.
Lastly, there is a responsibility to students, who may not know enough to distinguish science from pseudoscience themselves and are owed proper guidance. Take my subject, physics, which builds cumulatively on prior concepts that the students need to have learned. Since they are paying for an education in mainstream physics, I have a responsibility to them, to other tutors, and to employers, to teach what is generally accepted as the appropriate content of a physics degree. I do have considerable latitude in how I implement that charge, but I am not free to teach whatever the heck I might wish, owing to "academic freedom".
I do accept that a syllabus in the arts and humanities is much less set, and so an academic would have much wider discretion, but I maintain that decisions about courses carrying the university's imprimatur are collective ones, for which a course tutor should be answerable to the university and indeed to the taxpayer. Further, where it is the case that whole departments of academics are not holding to the proper university mission of putting truth-seeking above ideology, then it is legitimate for the representatives of the taxpayer, namely politicians, to take oversight. I am thus comfortable, in principle, with the politically based decision to end the Gender Studies program of the New College of Florida.
Where I would uphold academic freedom is in the realm of scholarship, by which I mean the articles, books, blogs, media appearances, and general advocacy of an academic. In contrast to officially listed courses, I don't see these as carrying the imprimatur of the university. They are the opinion of their authors, and the views expressed are not taken to be the responsibility of the institution that employs those authors. I thus would accept an academic writing an article that promotes creationism or Mormon theology or Queer Theory. The right to question ideas, even (or especially) accepted mainstream ideas, is essential to truth-seeking free enquiry, and that is why we have academic freedom. An academic questioning popular ideas should not be sacked or hassled in their employment, nor ostracised. That is "academic freedom". But that licence does not extend to the courses that a university teaches to its students.
Academic freedom: what is it good for?
John Paul Chou
Professor of Physics
Rutgers University
The elimination of New College of Florida’s gender program [1] has been the cause of consternation among anti-Woke faculty in the US. Underlying this anxiety is the fear that its elimination contradicts liberal commitments to academic freedom and diversity of thought, which purportedly form the backbone of opposition to “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusivity” (DEI) efforts. In this view, DEI is an inherently political project that crowds out dissenting voices and constrains the scope of research by seeking out ideological control [2]. The DEI statements that are increasingly required of faculty are in essence McCarthyite loyalty oaths to a political ideology [3]. Furthermore, “diversity,” so construed, is a Procrustean bed of predominantly US census categories and does not reflect the true diversity of human understanding and experience [4]. As the argument goes, universities are meant to be spaces where a wide range of ideas and disciplines can be explored and discussed. But by shutting down a specific department based on political grounds, how is this not a violation of the very principles that this action purports to defend?
The answer hinges on how one understands what academic freedom is good for. It has long been recognized that academic freedom is valued in “the free search for truth and its free exposition” [5]. Jonathan Haidt is correct to identify the telos of the university as the truth and to distinguish that from the “social justice” approach which is fundamentally political in its end [6]. Furthermore, as he argues, the two cannot be held as the highest good simultaneously, so one or the other must be chosen. In a teleological analysis, a department or discipline is well-functioning when it is organized by stipulation, culture, and habit to seek the truth and avoid error. A poorly functioning department, by contrast, subordinates the truth-seeking enterprise to other considerations (e.g. social justice) or even abandons it outright. Of course, all departments fail in some way or another to live up to this standard. The question to ask then is to what degree has a given department or even field of study failed to be truth-seeking in its orientation?
There is no fixed principle that delimits at which point a department, program, or field is too far gone, and reasonable people might differ as to the specifics of any case. And even if a program is dysfunctional, its elimination might still impede the search for truth. In my judgment, any discipline that as a matter of course affirms that men can get pregnant (to take a single example) has so obviously and blatantly jettisoned reality and good common sense that one can reasonably hold that it is hopelessly corrupt. To censure, discipline, or eliminate such a program as a consequence of its dysfunction does not undermine academic freedom, given its truth-seeking telos, but rather upholds it. In any case, it is insufficient for those who wish to defend the program from termination to appeal to abstract calls for academic freedom, since whether such a move is consonant with the academic freedom is what is in debate. Rather, they must give reasons for why its termination harms the truth-seeking mission of the college, why that harm is greater than the harm caused by its continued existence, and whether the freed resources cannot be put to greater use.
The state of Florida has decided that New College’s gender department has abandoned truth-seeking as its goal, and it is a legitimate exercise of its authority to eliminate it on those grounds. Whether or not this is a wise decision can be a further matter of debate, as is also whether or not the state is the best institution to exercise this power. But those cheering it on cannot be accused of abandoning principle.
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2023/08/11/new-college-of-florida-board-begins-process-to-abolish-gender-studies/70573522007/
[2] Krylov, A. I. (2021). The peril of politicizing science. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 12(22), 5371-5376.
[3] https://felleisen.org/matthias/Articles/loyalty.pdf
[4] https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/diversity-is-diverse
[5] https://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure
[6] https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/one-telos-truth-or-social-justice-2/
Universities, Academic Freedom, the Humboldtian model, and Gender Studies
David Bertioli
Professor in the College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences
University of Georgia
Universities emerged in Medieval times to fulfill the needs of increasingly complex societies, educating clergy and professionals in areas such as law and medicine. Since their origin, the core functions of universities have revolved around knowledge: its creation, curation, and dissemination. These core functions, together with the philosophical definition of knowledge – justified true belief – have remained remarkably constant over time. The concept of Academic Freedom emerged within universities themselves. It was necessary to compare differing beliefs, to distinguish true from false beliefs, and to gauge degrees of accuracy — the core process of knowledge generation. This connection between the free expression of ideas, which is enabled by Academic Freedom, and the creation of knowledge was explained by John Stuart Mill in his work "On Liberty." The fundamental nature of academic freedom has been reaffirmed more recently in the Chicago and Princeton Principles.
In a properly functioning University, the principle of Academic Freedom should permeate all organizational structures. However, its effects may not be immediately obvious. For instance, to safeguard the academic freedom of individuals, the organizational structures of academia —departments, colleges, and universities as a whole— must adopt impartial positions on matters of political and social controversy. By remaining neutral and abstaining from endorsing specific viewpoints, these institutions create an environment where academics can express diverse opinions freely and without fear. This position is crucial because official support for particular stances inhibits scholars with differing perspectives, ultimately obstructing the pursuit of knowledge and undermining the very purpose of academia. The significance of institutional impartiality was the central theme in the Kalven report of the University of Chicago.
Initially, the finances of Medieval universities were chiefly derived from student fees and patrons' contributions. However, in the 12th century, the University of Bologna adopted a different approach that would later shape the modern public university model: direct funding from public sources, then provided by the city, to support selected professors. Throughout history, especially with the expanding remits of universities, the need for financial support has shaped universities. They must align research and teaching with student interests, maintain favor with patrons, and for public universities, demonstrate utility to society and the body politic.
We now move to the specific case of the Gender Studies Department in the Florida New College (a public university) which is being closed through political influence. How does this political interference align with Academic Freedom? Counterintuitively, the closing of a whole department does not violate academic freedom, because this right concerns individual liberty to pursue academic interests, it does not concern the rights of whole Universities, or their parts, to exist or determine their own affairs. In this case, we must consider principles that deal with the institutions of academia. Most notably we can refer to Wilhelm von Humboldt, a Prussian philosopher and educational reformer who strongly advocated the idea of universities as autonomous institutions, free from the influence of the state. This vision, known as the "Humboldtian model", emphasized the university as a place of autonomous scholarly pursuit. He believed that universities should be free from direct state or political influence, allowing academics to pursue knowledge without constraints. Humboldt argued that such independence was crucial for the pursuit of truth. However, a pivotal consideration in the case of the Gender Studies Department is that to justly appeal to the Humboldtian principle of self-determination, an academic institution must fulfill the essential characteristics of academia - that is, to be centered on the creation of knowledge, to respect academic freedom, to maintain institutional neutrality on matters of political and social controversy, and to demonstrate utility to society. In all these aspects Gender Studies has failed, thus negating a plausible appeal to the Humboldtian model: Firstly, Gender Studies has adopted strong relativism, the philosophical opposition to the existence of objective truth. Without objective truth, there can be no knowledge because within this vision, facts cannot be true or false, they are simply considered different opinions. Secondly, Gender Studies has not respected academic freedom. Scholars who break from orthodoxy are not tolerated. Thirdly, Gender Studies has become explicitly partisan and adopted unified orthodoxies within areas of political and social controversy. Fourthly, far from demonstrating utility to society, Gender Studies has created and spread ideas and attitudes that have damaged society. These failures, whilst particularly pronounced in the field of Gender Studies are certainly not confined to them.
The core message of this essay is simple: for universities to reasonably claim the rights, benefits, and support that have been granted to them by society, they must remain faithful to the fundamental characteristics of academia. Universities are a historic achievement. Over centuries they have been instrumental in advancing both theoretical and practical knowledge, playing a key part in society's remarkable progress. Today, academia's challenge is to proactively correct from within. If academia fails to live up to this Humboldtian vision, external forces can be expected to become an increasingly important catalyst for change.
Author’s Disclaimer: This article expresses my personal opinion. It should not be construed as representing the opinion of any other person, institution, or organization.
Consilience for Gender Studies with Biology
Aviel Chaimovich
Assistant Teaching Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering
Drexel University
As we progress in time, novel ideas in academia naturally emerge. An excellent example of such contemporary set of thoughts is found in the discipline termed “Gender Studies”. Anyhow, a corresponding department at the New College in Sarasota Florida has been recently abolished. One may intrinsically ask: Is this a legitimate action by a university? In the spirit of “Heterodox Academy”, which encourages the liberal ideas of Mill, the answer for this question is a plain “No”. So does this mean that for the sake of “Intellectual Diversity”, we shall encourage any arbitrary department at a university which instructs a random set of ideas?
In principle, I personally believe that universities shall allow the emergence of novel departments on their campuses. However, it is crucial that such departments make plenty of vigorous connections with established Knowledge, ideally with the empirical support of the scientific procedure. In the specific case of “Gender Studies”, I think that it of utmost importance that such departments have their students and professors become quite proficient with Anatomy, Physiology, and other branches of Biology. At the moment for many scientists, “Gender Studies” comes across as a discipline of the Humanities which philosophizes in its own “Bubble”, completely ignoring the established Knowledge of the Life Sciences. If departments of “Gender Studies” wish that academics consider their ideas seriously, they better strive for a Consilience with the Biological information which humans conceived over a millennium. Even if such disciplines wish altering our conventional conceptions of Gender, they shall still become very knowledgeable with those conventional conceptions that are well grounded in Anatomy, Physiology, etc. Concurrently, if “Gender Studies” discovers that some of their ideas are in conflict with scientific evidence that empirically exists in Biology, these departments must part ways with some of their erroneous conceptions.
As an alternative example, I will also comment about another discipline which likes philosophizing: I will specifically discuss the typical department of “Philosophy”. Such traditional disciplines usually focus on studying the classical ideas of Socrates, Nietzsche, etc. However, with the progress of science, we now know that the thought-provoking views of those scholars do not represent the reality of Nature. In that sense, I think it is important that departments of “Philosophy” progress their curriculum, and that their students and professors become decently familiar with Evolutionary Psychology, perhaps even with Quantum Phenomena (of course, there are plenty of other branches of science which are important for comprehending the reality of Nature).
Instead of any annulment, modern disciplines in academia may enhance our conventional wisdom. Of course, it is important that we make plenty of connections with established Knowledge via the scientific approach, so that we ultimately achieve a Consilience among the various departments at a university. In the spirit of the Theory of Relativity, Einstein complemented the mathematics of Newtonian Motion, rather than canceling any of them!
Gender Studies in Florida?
Daniel Selvaratnam
Not being in the US, I was not particularly well abreast of the New College Florida situation. When I first heard about it, my instinctive reaction was one of aversion — was this not an abuse of power? But the more I read about the trustees decision, the less I find to disagree with it. I oppose state influence on the board, but for a public university, this is unavoidable. The public is owed some say in how their taxes are spent. It is also impossible to have completely decentralised decision-making at a university. There needs to be some body that guards the mission of the university and makes strategic decisions accordingly. If not the trustees, then who? I have never thought very highly of them, because if the current state of western higher education is anything to go by, they seem not to act in its best interests. But in this case, the thing that has scandalised everyone is that they actually seem to have done their job. Gender studies is particularly vulnerable to swings in public sentiment, because it exists solely to promote a fashionable social and political ideology. It makes no claims to objectivity. There is no timeless root to it. Its only “contribution” is to subvert traditional values. Once people tire of their values being subverted, there is no justification for its existence.
Totally agree, NCF is a public school. Professor’s there are not entitled to use the school to advocate for political positions. The school should be teaching knowledge that has a public value. Leftist dogma has become so prevalent in our institutions that many people no longer trust them to perform their core functions. This a bad.
I am curious, amongst the many gender studies programs are there any that teach a more conservative view? Are there even single classes that teach a more conservative view? One of the most important parts of science is to have your conclusions challenged.
A relevant comment by Abby Thompson, published in the Wall Street Journal:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/anti-semitism-arises-from-studies-departments-college-tenure-673f9a43