The year 2020 is generally taken to be the peak of The Great Awokening, the period in which the English-speaking world suddenly became madly obsessed with ‘sexism’, ‘racism’ and ‘transphobia’. Although this upheavel left its mark on practically every societal institution, its effects on free speech in academia were particularly profound.
Four years on from the peak, how do US academics feel? A new survey from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression provides some answers. Nathan Honeycutt surveyed 6,269 academics across 55 US colleges, and asked them a range of questions relating to free speech, cancel culture and self-censorship on campus.
Consistent with earlier evidence, Honeycutt found that conservatives were much more likely to worry about being cancelled, and reported much higher levels of self-censorship:
- 32% said they worry about “losing their jobs because someone misunderstands something they have said or done”, compared to only 18% of liberals.
- 55% said they “hide their political beliefs from other faculty in an attempt to keep their jobs”, compared to only 17% of liberals.
- 47% said they “can’t express their opinion on a subject because of how other faculty, students, or the administration would respond”, compared to only 19% of liberals.
- 32% said they are “likely to self-censor” in terms of which research topics to investigate, compared to only 15% of liberals.
Unsurprisingly, when asked, “How well would a conservative individual fit in your department?” only 20% said that they would be a “positive fit”. By contrast, 71% said that a liberal individual would be a “positive fit”. 39% said a conservative would be a “poor fit”, whereas only 3% said the same about a liberal.
Honeycutt also found that non-tenured academics were more likely to self-censor than tenured ones. Interestingly, however, the difference was relatively small. While 24% of non-tenured academics said they are “likely to self-censor” in terms of which research topics to investigate, 17% of tenured academics said the same.
This is rather surprising. You’d expect little or no self-censorship among tenured academics, since they are almost impossible to fire (although they can be sanctioned in other ways). Indeed, the whole point of tenure is to protect academic freedom. What the results show, therefore, is just how cowardly many academics are. Despite being almost impossible to fire, a sizeable fraction of those with tenure are still walking on eggshells.
Which topics are the hardest to have an “open and honest” conversation about? 70% of respondents mentioned “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”, 51% mentioned “racial inequality”, and 49% mentioned “transgender rights”. So few surprises there.
Results on institutional neutrality and DEI statements are quite encouraging. Despite the overwhelming liberal tilt of the sample, 66% of respondents said colleges and universities “should not take positions on political and social issues”. And only 34% said that DEI statements are “often or always justifiable”. (As you’d imagine, conservatives were much less likely than liberals to say they are justifiable.) So most academics actually oppose the most explicit forms of institutional wokeness.
Overall, Honeycutt’s survey largely reaffirms what we already knew: academia is overwhelmingly liberal; conservatives don’t feel welcome; and self-censorship is rife, particularly among conservatives. On the other hand, his findings suggest that the woke may be losing the argument on institutional neutrality and DEI statements – which can only be a good thing.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Meanwhile the pips are squeaking at the NIH and there’s a lot of squealing out loud:
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/continuing-crisis-part-iv
“The last few days have seen even more turmoil in the NIH and other federally funded science agencies. No one should have any doubt by this point: this is an unprecedented situation… The stated reasons are things like efficiency, rooting out fraud, and ridding the government of diversity initiatives and “wokeness”, but the size of these cuts and the ways that they’re being done argue for darker motivations…”
And a commenter observes:
“While the Trump team’s approach is heavy-handed and lacks any kind of empathy, I feel it’s necessary medicine for the country. The alternative (and traditional approach) is to form committees, allow special interests to obstruct/delay, and then little or nothing gets done…”
Watch this space.
academia is overwhelmingly liberal
It’s not, though. Liberalism is a term they lyingly apply to themselves. In fact they are not liberal in any meaningful sense. They are opposed to free-speech and personal independence. They are neo-racialist – i.e. anti-white – and misandrist. They are opposed to democracy if the voters vote the wrong way. They are marxo-fascist supporters of the tyrannical total-control state. Not liberal at all.
A very pertinent observation. Fascism is correct, the fascists of the 20th century were mostly left wing, the rest being authoritarian and about as far away from free enterprise as you could get.
Funny how the word ‘liberal’ has become so inverted as to mean ‘an illiberal controlling fascist’.
I think this is normal for non liberals. The lefties follow an ideological dogma which seems to make them believe that whatever they think is morally superior. They are well organised and extremely manipulative. The rest of us are to busy going about our lives to be activists, why should being a normal person make you an activist I ask myself.
so it seems to me that due to the leftwing onslaught particularly in the past 25 years has made normal people realise that we must now stand up in order to maintain our normality, despite being labelled as far right.
The fight back has started, let’s hope it settles things but sadly the left cause chaos whenever they get into power, all you have to do is look at the bunch of clowns we now have in charge. Ironically they have the lowest popular vote in the last 100 years and that does not give them cause for reflection in the slightest.
Exactly
That’s the disadvantage we face