AHA's Lip Service to Intellectual Diversity
Donald A Downs, The University of Wisconsin, Madison

In my last essay, I broached the question of the status of political correctness on campus in 2007. Some commentators, such as Kermit Hall, have declared that “political correctness is dead,” whereas others, such as Alan Kors and his associates at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, contend that it is as strong and overt as ever. A third position holds that political correctness might not be as overt as in the past, but that it has metastasized in a manner that promotes more subtle forms of pressure and self-censorship. (Such metastasis would resemble Tocqueville’s notion of “soft despotism.”) In order to draw sound conclusions about this question, more systematic empirical work needs to be done.

In the absence of such work, we have to rely on anecdotal evidence. Among the most suggestive anecdotal evidence of political correctness’s continued strength is that which exposes a double standard when it comes to the application or endorsement of free speech policies. One form of a double standard is selective, politically motivated enforcement of codes prohibiting offensive expression; another is selective support for general speech policies based on the proverbial “whose ox is being gored.” When a double standard is expressly endorsed by a major academic institution that represents thousands of academics, the double standard is even harder to downplay or ignore.

Such is the case with a recent vote by the estimable American Historical Association at its annual national convention in Atlanta. At last year’s convention, the AHA Council unanimously passed a resolution denouncing the so-called Student Bill of Rights, supported by the conservative activist David Horowitz and Students for Academic Freedom. ABR calls on political forces to encourage or mandate academic freedom in the classroom and on campus, especially because of its concerns about the repression of conservatives. In its coverage of this issue, the History News Network portrayed SBR as “an effort by a faction of conservative activists who have long claimed that universities are dominated by left-wing professors and that all universities should be required to hire conservative scholars in order to achieve a ‘balance’ of perspectives.” The AHA opposed SBR because, in its view, SBR poses a threat to institutional academic freedom emanating from conservative forces outside of the university -- the traditional type of threat to academic freedom in America before the rise of political correctness, which has constituted a threat from the left, and from within.

Opposing the SBR is not unreasonable. Many critics of political correctness are also concerned about threats from outside the university’s gates, and a principled stance in support of academic freedom should face all threats, not just some. Interestingly, many smaller conservative colleges oppose SBR because they fear the precedent it could set.

But what is good (or bad) for the goose should also be good (or bad) for the gander. It is not hard to imagine what many academics would think of an academic group that denounced speech codes but favored outside pressure on universities. Most would not heed such a group, dismissing it as politicized or hypocritical. But what about the reverse: a group that castigated outside interference while supporting speech codes imposed from within? Based on established norms of equal justice, this position should suffer similar rebuke.

The AHA put this question to a test at its annual meeting this past January. Historians K.C. Johnson, David Beito, and Ralph Luker presented the AHA with evidence provided by FIRE of the deleterious effects of speech codes, and then asked the organization to add a condemnation of speech codes to its condemnation of SBR. But with a chance to display a principled support for academic freedom across the board presented to it on a silver platter, the AHA balked. Instead of taking a stand against speech codes per se, the AHA passed a watered-down resolution opposing not speech codes, but “free speech zones.”

To be sure, free speech zones are a problem. They are a tool for administrators to limit and control the extent of free speech on campus. But they barely scratch the surface of the free speech problem. As Rick Schenkman of History News Network, wrote in the aftermath of the vote, Beito reflected that “the vote was a defeat for his cause. Voting to condemn free speech zones, he said, was like voting to uphold motherhood. It was meaningless.”

The AHA vote might not in itself indicate the continued power of political correctness -- though a strong case could be made that it does, especially given the fact that the AHA was presented with evidence of codes’ negative effects. But the vote clearly amounts to continued support for one of political correctness’s most potent enforcement tools. Perhaps a majority of the AHA membership opposes codes as individuals, but is reluctant or afraid to appear insensitive. At best, this would be an example of political correctness as metastasis.

Beyond the empirical support the vote provides for those who point to the continued strength of political correctness, the normative problem looms large. Inside Higher Education quoted one historian whose fears state the matter clearly enough. “Jonathan Rose, a professor of history at Drew University, in New Jersey, said that voting to condemn only the Academic Bill of Rights would send a message that we only care about academic freedom for ourselves and our friends.’ Following such a vote, he predicted, ‘we will be held up to ridicule and we will deserve it.’” And, he might have added, the vote serves to reinforce the claims proffered by the advocates of the Student Bill of Rights.

NAS10:34 AM