At first glance, the push for “viewpoint diversity” seems like a noble endeavor. Who wouldn’t want more diverse voices to have a place in academic discourse? But in fact, this is a Trojan horse, a thin facade that hides an attack on the fundamental tenets of university education. Let me explain.
The push for “viewpoint diversity” has become a central agenda of the Trump movement in its attacks on America’s system of higher education. In an ultimatum that threatened the loss of federal funding, the administration demanded that universities like Harvard implement what they term “viewpoint diversity.” They stipulate that departments must each individually meet certain criteria for viewpoint diversity, and that an external auditor will assess their ability to meet these demands. Heterodox Academy describes this movement as seeking “people with a wide range of worldviews” to be “welcomed” and to work together in campus discourse. The allusion in both cases is to the expansion of conservative voices on campus.
But are classrooms really failing to consider diverse worldviews? Do they suffer from homogeneity? Many professors vehemently disagree. The characterization of professors and students as ideologues is a cheap political slight that obscures a more complex truth. Indeed, many of the subjects that professors explore, from non-Western systems of thought in sociology to women’s voices in literature, are far more historically marginalized and excluded from academic discourse than the opinions of conservatives. Yet these are the very same “woke” disciplines that the Trump administration is strong-arming universities to shut down. By using the levers of power to force “viewpoint diversity” down the throats of universities and specific departments, academia loses the very free market of ideas that allows it to effectively discover truth in the first place.
Indeed, these assumptions are based on a very selective definition of diversity. The arbitrary political “center” of American politics or social views has little to no relevance to the many areas of academic discovery. Some disciplines, like Tufts’s Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies or our Race, Colonialism, and Diaspora Studies would be totally scrapped if the whims of the most extreme members of the American populace could define the bounds of a valid area of study.
Thus, rather than thoughtfully pushing us to include a truly diverse spectrum of thought and opinion, the Trump administration is instead using this fight as a guise to progressively undermine faith in academia and in expertise. Criticizing the teaching of universities that disagree with the policies or opinions of the state is a standard practice in the playbooks of fascist and authoritarian regimes. From Mussolini to Pinochet, strongman leaders are undermined by systems of knowledge that question state doctrine or raise inconvenient truths that don’t comport with their imposed worldview.
And this is no abstract worry. By accepting the terminology of the Trump administration in its push to control universities across the country, we are upholding a movement that has threatened the pursuit of academic freedom more than anything in our lifetime. As the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) describes, “more than one hundred and fifty bills were introduced in state legislatures by radical conservatives seeking to undermine academic freedom and university autonomy.” Many of these bills didn’t bother to hide behind the language of “viewpoint diversity,” instead opting for direct “gag orders” on “critical race theory” and other “divisive concepts.” Trump and his administration have already cut “between $6.9 billion and $8.2 billion” in funding from universities in this full-scale attack.
And even outside of this terrifying environment for higher education, there are strong arguments against the assertion that all viewpoints should be treated equally. We are living in a political environment in which the denial of the results of the 2020 election became mainstream. Not to mention, millions of Americans subscribe to anti-vax or QAnon conspiracy theories. Just because these have become dominant strains in political discourse does not mean they have equal weight in the pursuit of truth. In medical research, to take one example, the opinions of those who worry that Bill Gates is implanting “5G mind-control chips” are obviously taken with a grain of salt compared to the opinions of expert scientists and researchers with years of study. Similarly, the popular discourse that questions the basic human rights of transgender people or asserts that Black Americans are to blame for their own inequality is not only dangerous for the lives of students and others around the country, but also directly contrary to the ideals of discourse that “viewpoint diversity” purports to promote. If free discourse is the goal, then ideologies that intentionally exclude, perhaps even violently, those of a different race or creed cannot be tolerated.
Universities don’t come without their flaws. They have become extremely expensive, and often more focused on prestige than accessibility. But ultimately they are central to a healthy democracy. The science and thought that have come from within university walls have consistently pushed our society forward, often at the expense of the hierarchies or creation myths of the past. The Trump administration’s push for “viewpoint diversity” is but a veil that poorly conceals their attack on institutional independence and on truth itself.
Photo by Nicole Mousad