Your Cart is Empty
Maggie Hicks
Chronicle of Higher Education
Excerpt: On Tuesday afternoon a bright-red graphic popped up on a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill student group’s Instagram page. The post, by the campus’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, advertised a “Day of Resistance” protest on Thursday. Behind bold, capital lettering, a group of cartoon protesters held up peace signs and posters. A silhouette of a paraglider flew above.
Similar images appeared on several other organizations’ pages throughout the day next to statements reflecting the same sentiment — that deadly attacks by the Hamas militant group in Israel over the weekend had been justified and a direct result of the Israeli government’s oppression of people in occupied Palestinian territory. Those statements have been met with fierce criticism on social media calling on colleges to denounce the groups.
Comments will be approved before showing up.
I recently listened to Ross Douthat’s interview with the philosopher Jennifer Frey. She is a serious thinker and an unusually courageous academic entrepreneur. What she built at the University of Tulsa before it was dismantled is exactly the sort of thing more universities should be attempting. Yet almost every argument she offered for the humanities is, I think, completely unpersuasive to anyone not already on our side of the table.
This report presents findings from a national survey of 1,959 law school faculty at 192 American Bar Association (ABA) approved law schools in the United States, conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). As one of the largest surveys of law faculty on free expression and professional norms, the data reveal a profession that strongly endorses free speech principles while struggling to live them out in practice.
I just returned from the University of Wyoming, where I debated the President of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Todd Wolfson over the need for colleges and universities to maintain institutional neutrality. The debate was organized by the Steamboat Institute and was live-streamed.
The formal question presented for debate was: “Is institutional neutrality necessary to preserve the university as a forum for open inquiry rather than an actor in political disputes?” I spoke in favor of institutional neutrality while Wolfson argued against it as a necessary component to higher education.
