It is disheartening to observe that the more eminent a college or university is perceived to be, the more zealous its administrators seem in stifling individual expression and enforcing a rigid conformity of ideas, reminiscent of the totalitarian ideologies of the old Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.
The Ivy League, a collection of eight elite and highly selective institutions in the Northeastern United States, epitomizes prestigious higher education. However, recent actions taken by some of these institutions starkly contrast with the values of intellectual diversity and free expression that great universities are supposed to uphold. Over the last decade, these schools have exhibited a troubling tendency to punish scholars who diverge from the accepted orthodoxy.
Censorship and Retaliation: The Cases of Yale, Princeton, and Penn
Yale University, for instance, made headlines when it targeted two scholars who defended students’ right to wear Halloween costumes of their choice, costumes akin to those worn by children for Trick or Treat. Despite the seeming triviality of the issue, the university’s response was severe, driving the scholars off campus.
Princeton University engaged in a similar campaign against Joshua Katz, a distinguished classicist, by reviving old, adjudicated charges of sexual misconduct. The timing and nature of this action suggested it was less about the misconduct and more about retribution for Katz’s recent criticisms of campus “woke” culture.
Not to be outdone, the University of Pennsylvania has initiated actions against Amy Wax, the Robert Mundheim Professor of Law at Penn’s law school. Wax, an extraordinarily accomplished scholar with degrees from Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and Oxford, and an M.D. in neurology, has faced relentless pressure from Penn’s administration. Despite her distinguished career, including arguing numerous cases before the Supreme Court and receiving multiple teaching awards, Wax now stands accused of “intentional and incessant racist, sexist, xenophobic, and homophobic actions and statements” by Dean Ted Ruger.
The Campaign Against Amy Wax
The controversy surrounding Professor Wax began in 2017 when she co-authored an op-ed defending bourgeois values and arguing that civilizations thrive when they adopt these values. The backlash was immediate and intense, with students and faculty expressing outrage at what they deemed provocative and offensive ideas.
Wax’s teaching style, characterized by rigor and high expectations, has also come under scrutiny. Her RateMyProfessor evaluations reflect a mixed reception, averaging 2.6 on a five-point scale. Comments from students paint a picture of a demanding professor who does not shy away from challenging her students. One student’s review from April 2022 captures this sentiment:
“Tough but fair. Has clear expectations. […] Those who expect top grades for showing up but not doing the work at a graduate level will be disappointed. Treats students like adults, not children who want to be protected from dealing with real-world issues.”
Another former student succinctly described Wax’s impact:
“Can be rude, can be condescending, but hey, this is law school. Probably the best teacher I ever had.”
Wax’s intolerance for “snowflakes,” or students who seek protection from uncomfortable ideas, has made her a polarizing figure. She has, for instance, stated in class that some racial groups fare better in college on average than others—a factually accurate statement but one many view as impermissible because it is not “inclusive.”
The Role of Universities in Challenging Students
Great universities should challenge students, exposing them to uncomfortable ideas to foster critical thinking and intellectual growth. As University of Chicago President Robert Zimmer wrote in a 2016 Wall Street Journal op-ed, “Having one’s assumptions challenged and experiencing the discomfort that sometimes accompanies this process are intrinsic parts of an excellent education.” In law, specifically, making adversaries uncomfortable is a fundamental skill.
Among the criticisms of Wax, the most defensible comes from her colleague at Penn, Jonathan Zimmerman. In Inside Higher Education, Zimmerman argues that the appropriate response to Wax’s views is to “raise our voices … not to stamp out hers.” He also emphasizes the need for professors to treat students and colleagues with decency and civility—a standard often breached in academia, where contempt and disrespect are not uncommon, whether in faculty meetings or classroom settings.
Addressing the Suppression of Academic Freedom
The suppression of expression by legitimate scholars like Professors Wax and Katz calls for a broader reflection on the state of academic freedom. Universities depend heavily on external financial support, from both governments and private donors. Political support for universities has waned due to their perceived far-left ideological bent, high tuition fees, mediocre graduation rates, and a growing realization that much collegiate education does little to enhance job-ready skills.
As universities continue to show contempt for First Amendment freedoms and adopt a “public be damned” attitude, they face financial repercussions. One possible remedy is for state governments to mandate greater viewpoint diversity and support for free expression. However, such interventions must be approached cautiously to avoid exacerbating bureaucracy and undermining the decentralized, competitive nature of American higher education.
A New Model for Higher Education
Ultimately, the solution may lie in reducing financial support for institutions that aggressively suppress diverse ideas and fostering new educational models that champion free expression and intellectual diversity. Institutions like the newly established University of Austin, which aims to tolerate and even celebrate controversial and eccentric scholars, represent a hopeful step in this direction.
By promoting environments where scholars like Amy Wax can thrive, unencumbered by the fear of institutional retaliation, we can preserve the true spirit of academic inquiry. It is essential for universities to remain bastions of free thought, where challenging ideas are not only tolerated but encouraged, fostering a robust and dynamic intellectual community.
Conclusion: Defending the Pillars of Academic Freedom
In conclusion, the suppression of individual expression and the enforcement of ideological conformity at elite universities signal a troubling departure from the foundational principles of higher education. While accreditation and financial support systems play a role in this dynamic, the ultimate responsibility lies with institutions themselves to uphold the values of academic freedom and intellectual diversity.
By reassessing the role of accreditation, promoting transparency in program outcomes, and supporting institutions that prioritize free expression, we can safeguard the future of higher education. Scholars like Amy Wax, who dare to challenge prevailing norms, are essential to this endeavor. Their voices must not be silenced but rather amplified in the ongoing quest for knowledge and understanding.
Author Bio: George Leef is director of editorial content at the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.
