[telotortium]

When the administration of the University is making political statements and engaging in political activism, I would argue that they should lose the implicit protection that University faculty (I'd be willing to grant students that protection too) have for controversial ideas that they profess in the role of an academic. Even professors or students that take administrative roles should expect to lose such protection, since they have come to represent the university as an institution.†

For an example from the other side of the aisle, I opposed Steve Hsu being fired as VP of Research at Michigan State University in 2020 for his opinions, particularly regarding the genetics of race and intelligence (https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/16/open-thread-156-25/). Yet, ultimately, that was the risk of an administrative position such as his. He still is a full professor, and he has started several startups since then, so he's doing okay.

The main objection I have to positions like yours is that you believe that university administration should not be subject to pressure from politicians who grant universities the great privilege of being untaxed nonprofits with immense endowments and great influence in all the pillars of society. On the other hand, you believe that administrators should be subject to influence and control by left-wing student and academic protestors (I'm sure you think right-wing protestors would be illegitimate). I'm arguing that pressure on administration from both sides is legitimate, and that the former should flex its muscle more.

† I would also argue that academic fields that adopt activism as policy (so, all critical theory-influenced fields) should lose protection for their ideas, since they are clearly not pursued in a commitment to the truth, but that's a bit of an aside from my point here.

[thebradbain]

You’re advocating placing limits on free speech of those best situated to speak truth to power — this is straight out of the fascist playbook.

Go after the Churches and religious organizations first, in that case, as they’re also tax advantaged and their leaders and congregations have a profound pull upon politics and politicians.

[snapcaster]

I liked the discussion you both had. I think heavy scrutiny should be applied to any institution with that much power. Universities, churches, etc. all seem like valid targets

[bradchris]

Funny enough, I actually think it’s a bad idea to go after either: both of those institutions, ultimately, are checks on the State — and historically, when a state turns to fascism, universities and religious organizations (save the “favored/officially sanctioned religion”) are the first thing to go.

I think the State should stay out of religion’s business entirely (that also means no “religious freedom” exemptions to treat others like second-class citizens that the evangelical right has been winning recently), along with universities too.

Leave both organizations tax-exempt, but they should not receive any public funds for any reason, nor get any other special protections from the government, lest there’s an explicit agreement to pay it back in the form of bonds or loans. Publicly-funded research at private institutions could remain the same as it is, with the caveat that results by-default should be public to all, rather than locked behind institutional paywalls.

(State universities are a valid edge case, but I’m specifically talking about private non-government organizations here)

[snapcaster]

Good point, I think if we look at quadrant of "Receives public finds" and "pays taxes" I'm fine with either "no funds, no taxes" or "taxes, and funds" sections

[candiodari]

Are you saying you can't see the reason why institutes of higher learning should be neutral - to a fault?

[thebradbain]

I actually would argue universities should not be neutral. They're a historical check on the State. Universities should do whatever works to attract intellectual talent, and if their ideology sucks, they'll naturally lose talent and influence to other institutions who have a different pedagogy.

That's the marketplace of ideas – not platforming every single idiot who wants to speak. Is Harvard supposed to, hyperbolically, entertain the notion of a flat earth if enough people believe it? I'd argue absolutely not (that's what the internet is for). Maybe the reason that the makeup of Harvard and similar schools is so liberal is because the right hasn't offered much in the way of intellectual fodder other than "Harvard bad" ?

If you don't agree with Harvard's policies, don't go to Harvard.

[anon7725]

> They're a historical check on the State.

This one is intertwined with it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_schools_attended...

https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/24598/first-degree-colleg...

[thebradbain]

That's what makes them an important check on the state -- if they solely existed in a vacuum than what would speaking truth to power entail?

[fzeroracer]

Unfortunately, the territory has already been marked when it comes to the political slapfight. Florida for example has been waging a battle on all forms of education so that they can funnel the money towards religious initiatives and schools (See: New College of Florida). The goal is to find any flaws they can in universities or schooling then twist the knife until they can take it over.

Expecting people to be consistent when it comes to treating organizations the same way is a fools gambit.

[cscurmudgeon]

> those best situated to speak truth to power

Why are they the best situated to speak truth to power?

[eli_gottlieb]

Yes, the broad class of tax advantages used to launder political spending through churches and universities should be revoked and that money should be paid up to the government in taxes. Elections should be publicly funded, too!