LOOSEN THOSE PRIORS.

During the early days of the Jarrett regency, as Militant Normals forced their Intellectual Betters to loosen the corona tyranny, I warned the academic cadre of the errors of their tyranny of expertise.  "'The science' and 'Our democracy' have become incantations, more akin to the phrases invoked to denounce heretics than to concepts suggesting room for active contestation.  That's not going to end well."  That post went on to note, "There's plenty of that sort of supposedly principled unreason floating around, all of which can be summarized as "If a thing is hard to prove, therefore, we should skip the proof and simply assume it."  That's called faith, dear reader.  These times, however, are times in which more than a little healthy skepticism is desirable."  I concluded, "I'd be amused with the observation that the denial of coherent beliefs is itself a coherent belief, but for the consequences being what they are.  'You know you're dealing with encroaching Medievalism when a subject brooks no dissent.'"

Now comes Minding the Campus contributor Rebekah Wanic, suggesting "Activism Does Not Belong in the Academy."  Her objection is not to students being students, and using some of their thinking time to Get Involved and pretend they are Making a Difference, nor is it to faculty who might advise such students.  Rather, it is to scholars pretending that the tightness of their priors matters more than the quality of their argument.

In recent years, activism has become increasingly visible in academia, often permeating classrooms, faculty hiring practices, and research agendas. This trend has generated both support and concern across university campuses. While, in some cases, activism can be a powerful force for social change, its growing presence in academic settings has raised important questions about its effect on the integrity of higher education and the mental health of students. Activism-driven pressures not only reduce academic rigor but create a psychological burden on students that compromises their intellectual and psychological well-being. Here is what to consider:

[First of several points,] Academia is traditionally tasked with fostering critical thinking, promoting knowledge, and encouraging open-minded debate. This foundation relies on an environment where ideas can be freely explored, even if they challenge dominant ideologies or accepted norms. However, when activism intertwines with academia, it creates biases in research priorities, course content, and faculty hiring, shifting focus from intellectual rigor to ideological conformity.

Instead of teaching students how to think critically, activism-driven education teaches them what to think, framing certain perspectives as morally or ethically superior—namely, leftist perspectives. This approach stifles debate and discourages intellectual diversity, as students and professors feel pressured to adopt or conform to dominant activist viewpoints. Over time, this erodes academic integrity and limits students’ exposure to a balanced and comprehensive education.

[Second,] When activism guides academic discourse, academic freedom suffers. Professors and students alike often feel that they cannot freely express ideas that diverge from prevailing activist narratives without risking backlash. In fields like history, political science, and social studies, where multiple interpretations of complex issues exist, debate is shuttered, compromising the search for truth. A culture that enforces ideological conformity discourages professors from pursuing certain research avenues or proposing courses that challenge dominate activist perspectives. As a result, students miss out on a well-rounded education that includes exposure to multiple viewpoints, weakening the robustness of their education and the overall intellectual climate.

The essay continues in a similar vein for a few more points.  The greatest danger to placing too much weight on one's priors, particularly if they're not that well founded, is that people attempting to argue based on those priors aren't as well equipped to defend their positions as defenders of contrary positions, who have had to learn the weaknesses of their own arguments, are.