GOVERNMENT FUNDING IS CENSORSHIP PER SE.

I've maintained that from the first stirrings of Cold Spring Shops.  "The use of government money to support artistic expression is censorship per se, the use of government money to support academic research is censorship per se, the use of government money to provide access to education is censorship per se. One might as well ask why water doesn't flow uphill."

The people who run higher education, however, seem bent on bringing the censorship upon themselves.

However harmless and well-intentioned “diversity, equity, and inclusion” might sound, we can see that within those three words, there is often an overarching ideological agenda at play. Rather than supporting fairness, objectivity, and equality of opportunity irrespective of individual differences, “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” in many cases, has instead become a euphemism for a deeply divisive program―one which upholds extremely controversial ideas while centering falsities, engendering resentful tribalism, and promoting a pointedly political message.

Whether it’s the wholesale redefinition of gender, the notion that individuals are intrinsically either the oppressors or the oppressed based solely on the color of their skin, the view that the U.S. is a systemically evil country, or the conflation of the killing of unborn children with racial justice and gender equality, the proposals often put forth under the auspices of advancing “diversity, equity, and inclusion” are contentious, highly politicized, and are far from universally accepted by the general public.

It takes a great deal of intellectual contortion to suggest that tight priors based on untestable critical theories epitomize scholarly inquiry, and people notice.

Forcing faculty and students to pledge allegiance to this tendentious agenda is thoroughly wrong, and reflects a deep-seated ideological bias within institutions that elect to do so. What university which bases its hiring and admissions decisions, at least in part, on candidates’ conformity to certain predetermined doctrinal parameters can honestly claim to foster a campus environment where freedoms of thought, viewpoint, inquiry, and expression are valued and respected?

Of course, none can. Applying ideological litmus tests to job applications and evaluating potential faculty and students based on their political or social views is incompatible with any serious commitment to academic freedom―a fundamental principle of learning which any institution of higher education should defend.

And thus might the censorship creep in.

Moving forward, university leaders must work to immediately eliminate divisive DEI statements from hiring and admissions criteria, and cease measuring applicants by their compliance with controversial ideological agendas. Should they refuse, state governments and legislatures should step in where they have jurisdiction―for example, at taxpayer-funded public universities―and do what they can to bring an end to this embarrassing blight on U.S. higher education.

I remember when spineless campus politicians (are there any other kind) would contemplate some forms of restructuring "before the legislature makes us do it."  Sometimes, though, the legislature can be the campus politicians' inducement to develop a spine.  Consider, dear reader, a general assembly bill from Oklahoma.

“No state agency, school district, charter school, online instruction funded in any manner by the Oklahoma Legislature, or personnel or agent of such state agency, school district, charter school, or online instruction shall teach, use, or provide for use by any pupil any curricula, instructional materials, or assignments designed to teach components of the 1619 Project as part of any curricula, course syllabi, or instruction in any course or program of study…”

Naming a specific work of advocacy journalism does nothing. A rebellious schoolteacher or professor could provide relevant readings from more traditional sources.  The campus ethos that used to sail under "political correctness" and now is "diversity, inclusion, and equity" can be a limitation on scholarly curiosity.  "We don't refute people like this. We mock them. And we pity the students in their classes."  All the same, legislative attempts to ban specific bits of content are also to be mocked.

To name a New York Times special section in a bill is to evoke sympathy from defenders of academic freedom of all stripes for the faculty and staff of the various football schools in Oklahoma.

On the other hand, to have public hearings with actual curricular material read into the record might be salutary.