The Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) published a new report last week titled Shaping the American Mind: the Diverging Influences of College Degrees and Civic Learning on American Beliefs aimed at gauging the impact of university education on graduates’ political opinions.  While we have no problem with the Institute pursuing this question, their methodology and analysis wouldn’t hold up in the academic institutions it seeks to criticize, much less in front of a skilled reporter.

The Intercollegiate Studies Institute has somewhat of a track record for putting out questionable scholarship.  Two years ago we called out the Institute’s report on “Civic Literacy” for using an ideologically based questionnaire to argue for mandatory civics classes in public colleges and universities. 

In its latest report ISI argues that completing higher education makes an individual more likely to align with a set of issues from supporting same-sex marriage to opposing teacher-led prayer in public schools. 

Un-shockingly, ISI has been representing their findings to media sources like C-SPAN as “evidence” of campus indoctrination.  That claim is simply unsubstantiated by this report.  None of ISI’s research touched on what actually happens on campus or in the classroom.  Making the assertion that this statistical preponderance in one survey is evidence of malfeasance in the classroom is poor analysis if not downright misrepresentation.

A close examination of “scholarship” like this continues to make clear that the accusations of campus indoctrination are nothing more than the manufactured controversy we typically see out of ISI, David Horowitz and their allies.  

In many states this month marks the beginning of a legislative session.  For lawmakers and advocates alike, the next few months will be one of the busiest times of the year.  The Free Exchange on Campus Coalition will be closely monitoring statehouses around the nation for new attacks on academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas.

This year legislation similar to Horowitz’s “Academic Bill of Restrictions” has been introduced in West Virginia, Missouri, and Indiana.  While these bills purport to promote “intellectual diversity,” they instead seek to put restrictions and limits on what can be taught in college classrooms.  Thankfully none of these initiatives have yet to even be given a hearing in committee.  Of course the Coalition will be watching them, and any other threats that arise, to ensure that none of these bills is adopted.  

Inside Higher Ed is reporting that a federal court has found that Idaho State University did not infringe upon professor Habib Sadid's - a vocal critic of the university's administration - First Amendment rights when it dismissed him from employment, despite the finding of a faculty panel that there was no reason for such a dismissal. 

The court's finding is another troubling application of the Supreme Court's Garcetti decision - which limits the free speech of public employees at the workplace - on the academic workplace. Specifically, these decisions impinge on the principle of shared governance, where faculty have a voice in important decisions facing their institutions. Circumscribing the faculty's ability to voice criticizing their adminstrations is tantamount to circumscribing their role in the governance of the academy.

As IHE points out, the Garcetti decision is being applied unevenly, depending on the jurisdiction, and the original decision does not necessarily suggest it should be applied to higher education. Given the spate of cases where it has been applied, however, it appears likely that it will need to be legally resolved at a higher level. 

The National Coalition Against Censorship, along with Free Exchange on Campus members including the American Association of University Professors, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Federation of Teachers, the Modern Language Association, the National Education Association, and the People for the American Way Foundation (among others), has released a Call to Action over censorship in response to threats of violence. The call to action was prompted by the Yale University Press's decision to remove cartoons featuring images of the Prophet Mohammed from a scholarly work, citing a fear of religiously-motivated violence.

"The failure to stand up for free expression emboldens those who would attack and undermine it. It is time for colleges and universities in particular to exercise moral and intellectual leadership," the groups said in the statement. 

"Self-censorship is a way of avoiding issues that should be addressed and avoiding responsibility for being part of the conversation," said Joan E. Bertin, NCAC's Executive Director. "The right to free speech is meaningless if it can be defeated simply by saying that someone might take offense and lash out."