LOSING THE GOOD OF THE INTELLECT.

Tussles between state legislators and the regents of their state universities are nothing new.  Years ago, the Regents of the University of Wisconsin adopted a resolution in response to legislative interference.

WHATEVER MAY BE THE LIMITATIONS WHICH TRAMMEL INQUIRY ELSEWHERE, WE BELIEVE THAT THE GREAT STATE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SHOULD EVER ENCOURAGE THAT CONTINUAL AND FEARLESS SIFTING AND WINNOWING BY WHICH ALONE THE TRUTH CAN BE FOUND.

At the time, the legislators wanted the University to fire economist Richard T. Ely, who had some favorable things to say about socialism.  That Ely, and his colleague John R. Commons, both wrote things that don't measure up to contemporary standards is at once irrelevant, because it was the past, and central, because it's the implementation of those contemporary standards, to the current tussle between legislature and the regents of the Wisconsin system.

A nearly six-month standoff between the Universities of Wisconsin and the Republican-led state Legislature over diversity, equity and inclusion spending seemed poised to end Saturday morning. The Board of Regents had agreed to vote on a deal between system leaders and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos that would freeze and cap DEI hiring in exchange for funding held up by the Legislature.

But in a shocking turn of events, the board rejected the proposal 9 to 8 , leaving over $800 million on the table and the future of the system’s DEI offices in limbo. The board also voted not to table the vote for further discussion, effectively killing the deal.

On Friday, UW system president Jay Rothman and UW Madison chancellor Jennifer Mnookin announced they’d reached a deal with Vos after weeks of secret negotiations. The system would make significant concessions on DEI initiatives and staffing in exchange for a release on much-needed funding for pay raises, utilities and construction projects—including a new engineering building at UW Madison—which the Legislature rejected last month.

The situation seems tailor-made for the regents to invoke the sifting and winnowing clause, rather than engage in such unedifying horse-trading of some diversity deanlets for a new engineering building and a few other things, including an endowed chair in conservative studies.  Wisconsin governor Tony "Pencil Neck" Evers (D - Public Instruction) sounds amenable to such an invocation.

The Board of Regents should be able to make decisions about what’s best for our students, faculty, staff, and, ultimately, what’s best for the University of Wisconsin System without fear of threats and political pressure or retribution.

It appears, though, that the regents are not going to invoke the "sifting and winnowing" proposition, nor are the legislators going to buy it.

As of this afternoon, the vote is back on, and the legislature is playing for keeps.

Universities of Wisconsin regents have decided to vote again on a deal with Republican lawmakers that calls for reducing diversity positions in exchange for funding to cover employee raises and campus construction projects, including a new engineering building at UW-Madison.

The regents rejected the deal on a 9-8 vote Saturday. They met in a closed video conference Tuesday morning, however. Universities of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman declined to reveal what was discussed to reporters. Hours later, the regents posted notice that they'd scheduled an open meeting for late Wednesday afternoon to vote again on the proposal.

The agenda indicates that Regent Amy Blumenfeld Bogost, who voted against the deal on Saturday, is now requesting adoption. She did not immediately respond to an email from The Associated Press on Tuesday evening. The voicemail at her Madison law office was full.

Republican Chris Kapenga, president of the state Senate, tweeted on Monday that the Senate may not confirm regents who voted against the deal. Regents Blumenfeld Bogost, John Miller and Dana Wachs all voted against the plan; none of them have been confirmed yet. Wisconsin law allows gubernatorial appointees such as UW regents to serve until and if the Senate votes to reject confirmation.

I've long maintained that public funding of higher education is censorship per se, and that higher education has brought its diversity troubles on itself.  The diversity bureaucracy IS the limitation that trammels inquiry these days, whether it's maintaining that parallel curriculum through student affairs, or whether it's in vetting faculty hires for their political reliability.

Tellingly, neither in conversations with Wisconsin newsies nor in correspondence with Inside Higher Ed has anyone noted that in a proper university, there would be no serious argument for a chair in Conservative Studies, as any proper curriculum in philosophy, not limited to ethics; or in political economy; or in anthropology would expose students to the strongest arguments from a variety of perspectives.  Moreover, the political orientation of faculty in the likes of art history or physics would not be relevant as long as those people refrained from the kind of snarky posturing, say about the aesthetic sensibilities of a Bush or the hair of a Trump, that elicits laughter actionable as "inappropriately directed."

Furthermore, the prior beliefs of the diversity bureaucracy and their flying monkeys in the critical studies departments are an ongoing impediment to that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing.  So doth the editors of Nature dictate.  "Research must do no harm."  The elaboration is high-sounding.

Editors, authors and reviewers should together consider and discuss benefits and harms that might emerge from manuscripts dealing with human population groups, and discuss when potential harms warrant revisions. Ethical concerns need to be flagged about research that could fuel hate speech; about potentially denigrating images; about content that could be used to undermine the dignity or rights of a human group; and about content that could cause harm in other ways. Although cases are not always clear cut, if publication risks people being harmed, authors and editors need to consider those risks against any benefits that could arise from publication.

The past few years have seen several examples of not just correction or retraction, but also removal of the kind of content that this guidance seeks to discourage. The removal of retracted content distorts the historical record, impedes accountability and prevents current and future generations from critically examining both the work and our actions. Unless there is a legal or public-health imperative, content published by Nature Portfolio journals that is retracted because it was deemed harmful to human population groups will be labelled with a retraction notice but will not be removed from the record.

What doesn't get published because the investigator might fear running afoul of such charges, say, for finding a productivity gain where punctuality is a social norm, and what doesn't get taught because of the broad scope of that "hate speech and potentially denigrating images" almost surely is going to get in the way of the truth being, well, if not found, approached more confidently.

The editors of Nature profess to be aware of my objection, but will they honor their own words?

This guidance is ultimately about protecting people from harm. It is not about stifling ethically conducted research on differences between individuals or human groups, or discouraging work that is socially or academically controversial. Science has for too long been used to prop up structural inequalities and discrimination in society, perpetuating injustice. Our guidance takes a step towards countering this. Academic freedom is a fundamental and non-negotiable premise of scholarship. However, it is not without limits. All academic research requires ethical consideration to maximize benefits and reduce or eliminate harms.

Perhaps, under the principle of "do no harm," when in doubt, you don't investigate it?

Wisconsin's regents, let alone their faculty, can no longer appeal to that cherished principle because they have compromised their integrity.