What is the purpose of a university?
A lot of faculty today believe that political indoctrination and promoting a particular form of social justice activism should be the guiding purpose of the institution.
In a lecture at Duke University in 2016, the moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt argued that universities must choose one of two incompatible “sacred values” – they can pursue truth or they can pursue social justice, but they cannot do both –and he meant those words as a warning as he saw universities moving further and further away from what he thinks should be their fundamental goal – generating and disseminating knowledge – in favor of becoming social justice activist institutions. Recent events on university campuses have demonstrated how prescient his words of warning were.
Take-Away Message
This is a relatively lengthy post, but its main point can be summarized fairly briefly. In this posting I will argue that one cannot understand what is happening on university campuses without appreciating that for many faculty today (particularly, but not only, humanities faculty) the common sense assumption that most people have about the purpose of a university (that universities are, first and foremost, knowledge generation and dissemination institutions) is not one that the faculty share. This is not an optimistic argument, because it implies that the present turmoil is the result, in part, of personnel decisions that have been made during the past twenty years, and there may need to be a dramatic change in hiring practices before significant change will be possible. In other words, my claim is that the attitudes (including antisemitism) at the core of the student protests are essentially baked into the culture and pedagogy of many universities today, and it is hard to imagine how that culture can change until many of these faculty retire or, at a minimum, new faculty are hired who will provide some desperately needed viewpoint diversity.
What is the purpose of a university?
Throughout my long career as a university professor, I always assumed that I had been hired to (1) teach students about the science of psychology and how to think like a psychologist and (2) conduct research to add, in at least some small way, to the existing body of scientific psychology knowledge. And that is basically how I have always thought about the general purpose of universities – as institutions whose function is to employ people who will add to the world’s body of knowledge (through research) and to transmit that knowledge to students and to help students acquire skills (like critical thinking) for acquiring knowledge and evaluating information.
Others might phrase their own conceptualization of the purpose of a university education somewhat differently, but I’m convinced that most people in our society share, at a very general level, this common sense perspective regarding the purpose of higher education — that universities are institutions whose purpose is the generation and dissemination of knowledge.
I have always also thought that universities should operate as socially just institutions, in the sense that they should not discriminate on the basis of an individual’s race, religion, sex, or ethnicity – and my university, like all universities that I am aware of, bans such discrimination. In my teaching, I always strove to treat all students equally regardless of a student’s race, sex, religion, or ethnicity, and never considered it appropriate to bring my own political views into the classroom or to impose on students my own moral code. For example, although I oppose capital punishment, I never thought it was my job to try to turn my students into anti-capital-punishment activists. Similarly, while I strongly support rights of bodily autonomy for women (and men), I never thought it was my job to convince students that they should adopt my position on that issue, and I would certainly never have given students course credit for participating in, for example, pro-choice activism. I also assumed that almost all faculty share this common sense perspective regarding the purpose of universities and the role of professors. I was wrong.
Understanding the origins of the student protests
Over the past few months, as I’ve watched the pro-Hamas protests on university campuses, it has become apparent to me that, to understand the current turmoil roiling American campuses, it is necessary to understand that there are a lot of university professors – particularly from humanities departments and particularly at our most elite universities – who do not share that general view of the purpose of universities. Instead, they think that the purpose of a university is, first and foremost, to pursue and promote social justice – and that the promotion of social justice should take priority over all other functions of a university.
Of course, by “social justice”, those who hold this view are referring to one particular view of what social justice entails – THEIR view – a perspective grounded, in most case, in anti-colonialist oppressor/oppressed ideology. Indeed, part of what I find so flabbergasting about this belief system is that it is so patently egocentric, not admitting to the possibility that this one particular view of social justice may not qualify as absolutely and universally valid – which is what qualifies this belief system as, in Haidt’s terminology, a “sacred value”.
There is perhaps no place where this clash of fundamental beliefs about the purpose of universities can be seen more clearly than in discussions of the kinds of restrictions that it is permissible for universities to place on student protests. Legally, all universities, whether private or public, have the right to establish and enforce reasonable content-neutral time, place, and manner (TPM) regulations regarding student (and faculty) political activity on campus.
Consistent with what I have referred to as a common sense belief about the purpose of universities, most universities’ TPM regulations include the banning of protests that disrupt other activities (like classroom instruction) on the campus. To take just one example, Princeton University’s president, Christopher Eisgruber, recently posted a widely admired statement (widely admired by many commentators outside of academia at least) reiterating his university’s TPM policy:
Princeton’s free speech policy — again, like the First Amendment to the Constitution — contains exceptions. For example, it prohibits genuine threats and harassment. It also explicitly recognizes that “the University may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the University.”
The University thus may, and indeed does, limit the times and places where protests can occur. It may, and indeed does, prohibit tactics, such as encampments or the occupation of buildings, that interfere with the scholarly and educational mission of the University or that increase safety risks to members of the University community.
These time, place, and manner regulations are viewpoint-neutral and content-neutral. They apply to any protest or event, regardless of which side they take or what issues they raise.
Dialogue, debate, and deliberation depend upon maintaining a campus that is free from intimidation, obstruction, risks to physical safety, or other impediments to the University’s scholarship, research, and teaching missions.
Princeton’s time, place, and manner regulations include a clear and explicit prohibition upon encampments. They provide that “camping in vehicles, tents, or other structures is not permitted on campus. Sleeping in outdoor space of any kind is prohibited.”
Encampments can obstruct others from moving freely or conducting University business. They can create health and safety risks. They require significant staff time to keep occupants and bystanders safe, thereby diverting people and resources from fulfilling their primary purpose. They can intimidate community members who must walk past them. There is no practical way to bar outsiders from joining the encampments.
A couple of points to note. First, Eisgruber emphasizes that the policy is content neutral. Secondly, he argues that the reason for TPM restrictions is to “ensure that it [a protest] does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the university”. And thirdly, he lays out the reasons why encampments are banned, even if they have not devolved into outright violence.
Similarly, at Vanderbilt University, after police were called in to arrest students whose protest activities included breaking into and occupying a university building, the president of Vanderbilt, Daniel Diermeier, wrote in a Wall St. Journal editorial that:
Critics have claimed that Vanderbilt has abandoned its long-held commitment to free expression. They are wrong. Vanderbilt supports, teaches and defends free expression -- but to do so, we must safeguard the environment for it. Students can advocate BDS. That is freedom of expression. But they can't disrupt university operations during classes, in libraries or on construction sites. The university won't adopt BDS principles. That's institutional neutrality. As a community, we should always remember to treat each other with respect and rely on the force of the better argument. That's civil discourse.
Teaching students the importance of upholding rules for free expression doesn't squelch their right to voice their opinion -- it protects it.
Again, note the emphasis on institutional neutrality and TPM restrictions that ban protests that disrupt what Diermeier considers to be normal university activities – that is, university activities (teaching, research, and administration) that further the fundamental mission or purpose of the university as a knowledge generation and dissemination institution.
My guess is that most people outside of academia who read the statements by these two college presidents react by thinking – well of course! Who could disagree? In what world is it considered OK for protesters to disrupt the regular teaching and research and administrative activities of the university?
In what world? It turns out there is such a world. The world of academia. To wit:
For starters, there are now entire subdisciplines (within the humanities of course – and mostly including the word “critical” in their descriptive label) that include political indoctrination and promoting political “social justice” activism as discipline-defining elements. As was noted in a recent article in Inside Higher Education:
Today, a growing number of academics consider themselves scholar activists. For them, scholarship has a social mission, and exists in the service of social justice. The goal is to empower—to disrupt the discourse, cultivate critical minds and activist hearts, promote social change, illuminate injustice, and advance equity.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the emergence of a growing number of new academic fields, including Critical Race Studies, Disability Studies, Environmental Justice Studies, Indigenous Studies, Intersectionality Studies, Postcolonial Studies and Queer Studies, which critically examine various aspects of identity, culture and society, challenge traditional narratives, advocate for equity and inclusion, and meld academic inquiry with social justice activism.
These emerging fields represent a significant shift in the nature and purpose of academic disciplines by embracing more inclusive, critical and justice-oriented approaches to research, teaching and scholarship. These disciplines stress the importance of challenging normative structures and narratives, understanding the complexities of identity and oppression through an intersectional lens, and committing to social activism as an integral part of academic endeavors.
Note that the focus of these academic fields is on social activism that serves a very specific far-left progressive (indeed, in most cases, explicitly Marxist) world view, one which is fundamentally based on an anti-colonialist oppressor/oppressed ideology – including defining Israel as an illegitimate colonial state and Jews as oppressors. With that as a starting point, and indoctrination and the promotion of activism as the goal of those professors who identify with these academic fields, is it any wonder that their students are now protesting Israel’s actions during the Hamas-on-Israel war?
The actions of specific faculty also have made clear that they consider their own brand of social justice activism to be as much a part of the purpose of their jobs as what Eisgruber described as the “ordinary” teaching and research activities of the university. Note that if one believes that a university’s purpose includes promoting a particular kind of social justice, then protests that disrupt “ordinary” university activities should not be banned, but instead should be nurtured, protected, and even celebrated as serving the highest-priority purpose of the institution.
As a result, some (and in some cases many) faculty have actually been participating in the protests that have been taking place during the past few weeks. In doing so, they have actively contributed to the disruption of the “normal” teaching and research activities of the campus while also supporting the intimidation and moral criticism of a whole category of students — all in the service of furthering what they consider to be the purpose of the institution.
Note also that the faculty participating in the protests have been doing so in their place of work, and during time that could otherwise be devoted to their teaching and research duties. In some cases, faculty have prioritized protesting to such a degree that they have simply ended normal teaching activities in favor of encouraging students to participate in the protests. At Northwestern, for example, it was reported that:
Northwestern University professors are encouraging students to skip classes to attend anti-Israel demonstrations on campus, and some are even moving their lessons to the site of the protest encampment, according to emails obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
The faculty messages are in defiance of campus administrators and police, who warned they would arrest trespassers who set up an anti-Israel tent city on Northwestern's Deering Meadow lawn on Thursday. Campus police have yet to remove over 100 protesters who gathered there as of Friday afternoon, as professors encouraged their students to join in.
"In light of artist tradition, studies, activism, and movements, tomorrow discussion will be held in Deering Meadow," wrote Isaac Vazquez, a Northwestern art history lecturer, in an email to students on Thursday. "If you're already there, I'll see you."
Graduate student lecturer Maximiliano Cervantes emailed students that "class will be canceled tomorrow. I welcome everyone to join in front of Deering during class. This is relevant to Professor Feldman's lecture on art and action."
In another email, assistant law professor Jesse Yeh told his students to let him know if they "need to miss class or need extension on your assignment for any reason."
"This includes if you need to miss class for an extended period of time to exercise your right to protest," he added. "In Solidarity."
Faculty members have openly joined the encampment and on Thursday even fought with police who attempted to approach the protesters.
Northwestern journalism professor Steven Thrasher, who has written for the New York Times and been interviewed on NPR, was filmed scuffling with police trying to enter the encampment, according to video reviewed by the Free Beacon.
Thrasher encouraged other professors to form a human chain to prevent police from arresting the protesters.
"We locked arms and kept the police at bay. They retreated. 24 hours later the camp is still up," he wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Thursday. "We will continue to protect our students. We will put our bodies on the line to protect our students."
Similarly, in an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, a professor at the University of Michigan has written (in disagreeing with that university’s disruption-banning TPM policy):
All of us here at UM have received a “Disruptive Activity Policy” draft, with a request for feedback. While the draft does not find it necessary to define “disruption,” it seeks to ban, in manic detail, almost any activity we usually associate with protest. You must not impede “the free flow of persons,” be they on foot, on a bicycle, or in a car. Indoors or outdoors. You may not interrupt any “University Operations” (yes, those are capitalized in the draft). Such operations include “the communications or activities of speakers or performers on University Facilities, or of any class, laboratory, seminar, examination, performance, formal proceeding, activity in a reserved space, field trip, or other educational, research, artistic, athletic, medical, operational, or service activity occurring on UM Facilities.”
The policy is inadvertently funny. It is also an abomination.
Protest is disruption.
What this faculty member is essentially arguing is that protests serve a purpose that supersedes that of more normal teaching, research, and administrative activities – and therefore protests should not be banned, no matter how much they disrupt those other activities.
Other faculty at Michigan expressed a similar point of view regarding the Michigan TPM policy. As reported in the U. of Michigan campus newspaper:
In response, faculty members wrote that they believe this policy would jeopardize the University’s tradition of student activism.
“We maintain that as a collective, we now pride ourselves on the outcomes of this persistent and principled activism, even though many of the protests were not popular at the time – including protests spearheaded by Martin Luther King, whose legacy U-M now celebrates annually,” the letter reads. “The very nature of protest is disruptive because it seeks to incite change.”
And then there is the now-having-her-15-minutes-of-fame University of Southern California English professor, Sarah Kessler, who canceled her final exams and urged students to join the unsanctioned anti-Israel encampment, emailing her students that: "I'm canceling the Final Project. You don't have to do it. Everyone will get a good grade. I told you from the start I don't care about grades anyway, Hope to see you out there.” She then joined the protests, and while her email was widely ridiculed, her decision to simply give all students a high grade and to formally encourage them to engage in behaviors that violate the campus code of conduct policy has met with no official condemnation from the USC administration at any level. And of course, why would it? If you think that promoting a particular perspective on social justice is one of the purposes, and perhaps the primary purpose, of the university, then Dr. Kessler was just doing her job. And yes, I know – that sounds a bit crazy to most normal people who think professors are supposed to actually teach. But most normal people do not understand the degree to which some universities have been hijacked by those who have elevated progressive political indoctrination and the promotion of progressive social justice activism to the status of a guiding goal and purpose of the universities.
My wife and I go out to dinner with two other couples about once per month, and have been doing so for years (interrupted, of course, for quite a while by the pandemic). For a time – years ago now – a staple of many evenings was my regaling the others (who do not work in academia) with tales of the craziness of what some faculty on elite university campuses thought – ideas that stand in direct opposition to common sense – ideas that are so nutty that only those who are REALLY smart could figure out ways to make the ideas seem even minimally reasonable. We would all laugh about “those crazy professors”. But it’s not so funny anymore. The common sense view of the purpose of universities that most people hold is not the view that has guided hiring in many humanities departments during the past twenty years (and that now constrains hiring even in the sciences). As a result, we are now seeing –in the form of antisemitism on campus and the demonization of Israel -- the consequences of hiring faculty who uniformly hold progressive political views and who consider political indoctrination and the promotion of their brand of social justice activism to be the purpose of the university. Until faculty are hired who provide some modicum of viewpoint diversity on campuses (don’t hold your breath about that happening), what we are seeing now is simply how things are going to be for the foreseeable future.
So what we’re seeing is an extension of the 60s protests. That’s when these “studies” departments were created, after much protesting.
It’s a very discouraging trend all right.