Universities can’t seek truth until they commit to free expression

A key foundation for civilization was noted by philosopher Thomas Aquinas over 700 years ago. He wrote, “The greatest of all pleasures consists in the contemplation of truth.” Civil societies function when that value is emphasized. Civilization disintegrates when truth exits the public sphere.

America’s universities were once supposed to be fortresses of rational thinking in pursuit of truth. The academy, however, is surrendering the field of truth to the forces of suppression, relativism, and nonsense. Moral confusion and irrationality are seeping into higher education. That will eventually lead to intellectual anarchy. Truth can’t be pursued without robust and free communication exchanges on the challenging issues of the day.

Such is the devaluing of free expression at universities that pretty much every campus across America can provide examples in which speakers have been shouted down or students have been sanctioned for crossing ideological lines. Already this semester, multiple campuses have seen examples of intellectual constriction. Conservative commentator Tomi Lahren’s speech at the University of New Mexico was shut down by disruptive students. Marquette University’s opening convocation was interrupted and then canceled because protesting students took over the stage. Several student groups at the University of California have decided to ban speakers who support Israel.

These higher profile incidents get a bit of public attention, but operating under the radar are ideologically driven professors, bias response teams, required courses in diversity, and advocacy operations masquerading as student affairs offices.

All of this is happening while colleges deemphasize academic offerings in American government, logical thinking, classics, and history. Some colleges now require applicants for original hire or promotion to pass a litmus test in which the professor must declare commitment to diversity and equity.

The academic world too often now seeks only certain “truths” that fit in narrow ideological paths.

The ultimate effect is a campus-wide chilling that limits wider debate and analysis. People aren’t allowed to question particular “truths.” A fully rigorous intellectual climate supports the questioning of established answers in a civil manner, but the gulag environment that dominates much higher education discourages questioning that veers out of established lanes.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) recently released its annual assessment of free speech conditions on campuses across the country. Universities are ranked based on student surveys and the wording of campus speech codes. FIRE also took into account whether universities had sanctioned faculty for speech violations and if the schools had disinvited guest speakers.

That last factor needs to be recast in future FIRE rankings. The key is not just whether a university disinvites a speaker. It matters more whether speakers of wide intellectual interests can even get an invitation in the first place. Odds are that Stanford and Oberlin aren’t bringing Second Amendment supporters or pro-life advocates to speak on campus.

The stunning and depressing results of the FIRE student survey show universities are not creating free expression environments that engage a search for truth. Almost two thirds of all students report self-censoring, with conservative students most likely to report they can’t express their opinions freely. Wide majorities of students want to ban speakers who would provide the “wrong” perspective on topics such as abortion, race, gender identity or election fraud. FIRE CEO Greg Lukianoff said in a press release that the free expression condition on campuses “has gotten worse in the last few years.”

It can’t be surprising, given the limited range of perception provided on campus, that students polarize themselves and are unwilling to explore alternative views. A recent survey showed that over 60 percent of Democratic college students would oppose sharing a dorm room with a fellow student of a different political party.

University administrations need to be held accountable for creating campus cultures in which students’ minds are narrowed and the pursuit of truth is truncated. These high-priced administrators have clearly failed to convey to students that truth can only be pursued by debating broadly on difficult topics. When robust debate is avoided, the search for truth is also avoided.

Sadly, the narrow vision of students is likely just mimicking the narrow rhetorical range of their administrators and professors.

Graduating a generation of college students who lack the civic understanding necessary to support free expression in pursuit of truth will have long term consequences. The Constitutional framers created a free expression culture in which debate was unlimited, and with a hope that effective reasoning would lead to the best decisions based on hard-argued truth. If such a rhetorical climate can’t happen in the idealistic setting of higher education, the nation is in for chaotic times, indeed.

Jeffrey M. McCall is a media critic and professor of communication at DePauw University. He has worked as a radio news director, a newspaper reporter and as a political media consultant. Follow him on Twitter @Prof_McCall.