I must respectfully disagree with this open letter for several reasons. I too am part of academia having a bachelors, two masters and a PhD and teaching for the last 23 years at a STEM university.
I totally agree with #1 but the reality is that unless you espouse left leaning, (especially far left ) ideas you are shunned and attacked by only only the administration but also fellow factually and students. The hecklers veto is very much at work on many, if not most campuses today.
#2 should exist and did but not so much any longer. Again, if you even dare mention a conservative idea one is attacked and more.
The same us true of #3, being a white male I have seen this though luckily have not experienced it myself.
#6 only applies to current leftist ideas which of course change with the direction of the wind.
as for the statement: "comply with the unethical, irresponsible and frequently illegal demands of the Trump administration", this is more the sacred cow of the left finally being gored as much of academia did to the values of the right for decades. Gee, how the tides changed now that your cow is being gored.
The only reason that I have lasted so long is that I am in a STEM discipline and know how to keep my head down. I am looking forward to retiring soon and not having to put up with the hypocrisy exhibited and which until very recently was getting worse every year.
I hope you learn from this experience and treat all ideas as stated in #1 - it would be about time.
Just a thank you for writing the comment I was considering as well. While my undergraduate education was different, due to earning a bachelor's degree during 10 years of military service, after ETS I earned a Masters and PhD and now work in academia. I work in psychology - which I am certain is different than STEM when it comes to such issues. But the keeping your head down and thoughts to yourself is a common theme. You are right on point, echoing a comment I wrote to another thread here, where I noted how interesting it is that some people are so suddenly enlightened and up in arms about free speech, when they have both formally and informally, and with impunity, stifled conservative perspectives on campus for a long time. If it were not so unfortunate and short-sighted, it might almost be comical.
Is it even possible for a devout Christian, or an Orthodox Jew to be a member of a faculty today? Could Catholics show up for classes on Ash Wednesday with crosses on their foreheads and not be accused of everything from homophobia to hating Islam? Could an Orthodox Jew not be subject to attacks? (There was one incident where Jews were barricaded in a university library, while people outside screamed about the global intifada - I don't remember where that was - after Oct 7th)
You can't even teach Shakespeare or any number of Dead White Men without trigger warnings. Can kids even study WWII? Or wars from antiquity?
That doesn't even cover the guy was hounded out of teaching organic chemistry, because the class that he had been teaching for a decade or more was suddenly too hard for the current crop of pre-med students.
Not sure what the situation at Wake Forest is, but here are some of my initial thoughts. (This is me in Devil's Advocate Mode - I agree with some of this/not all):
1. The democratic ideals of free thought, free speech, free association, freedom of assembly and the right to dissent are worth fighting for.
How often, when a conservative is invited to speak on a college campus are the shouted down, canceled because of threats of violence, etc. How much "thou shalt use my preferred pronouns" compelled speech is there? Candace Owens, Ben Shapiro, etc. How much antisemitism was displayed after Oct 7th?
2. Education is a fundamental pillar of a democratic society.
What are the current stats on "reads/does math at grade level" in the Blue cities? There is a meme about "we used to teach Latin/Greek in high school and now we teach remedial English in college." At the higher education level, how much has turned into indoctrination? I know you are viewing the situation at high education facilities, but the whole is under scrutiny.
Consider Whole Language. We know how to teach people to read. Whole Language isn't it, but somehow it became a fad in the '90s. It destroyed a large number of kids' ability to read and think. It was created from whole cloth out the education universities. Also look up "the open concept." It was the fad from the early '70s. It too was a disaster. It too came out of academia.
3. Diversity is essential.
How many conservatives, libertarians, Christians, Orthodox Jews, are there on the tenured faculty of universities? The only stats I have seen are really around political contributions made by faculty, and they indicate that academia is lacking in some levels of diversity. We welcome all kinds of people, as long as you think (and vote) exactly the way we all do.
4. Education, knowledge, and science are intrinsically worthwhile.
I will merely refer you to the crisis in academic research, where lots of research can't be reproduced, even stuff from peer-reviewed publications. (I can provide links, but I don't want to get caught in SPAM filters. I will provide links if you ask.)
5. Academic freedom is necessary to the pursuit of knowledge.
Academic freedom is not equivalent to a right to be subsidized by the taxpayer. My interest is mostly in high-energy physics, since I was initially on a track to get a PhD in that field. The current push for a new, higher-energy collider to replace the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland is little more than a jobs program for physicists. (See Sabine Hossenfelder's YouTube channel and her video on "Science is Failing") If built it would cost 100s of billions of dollars, and really has no hope of reaching the next level of discoveries. It is only proposed to support the upcoming generation of post-docs.
6. No amount of accommodation or compliance will protect us.
This is 100% correct. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759. The other quote that comes to mind is from Darth Vader and *The Empire Strikes Back* "I have altered the deal; pray I don't alter it further." (See the statement about taxpayer funding above.)
I mentioned that I was all set to get a PhD. First in physics, later in math, and then in computer science. I was admitted to a program after college, at a prestigious Midwestern state school, but I realized that it was a pyramid scheme. At the time there were something approaching 100 PhDs granted for every tenured position that was likely to open up. Physics is an expensive discipline, and you need at least some access to the national labs to finish your degree. I spent a summer at Oak Ridge National Lab, and met a bunch of post docs who were fighting their way through that insanity, and not happy at the prospects when it was done. That was when I changed my major to mathematics. In the end I decided that I didn't want to be a struggling post-doc when I could work in Information Tech, and make decent money.
you are so right - I got my PhD after 28 years in the IT field and was looking for something after the IT crash and burn in the early 2000’s. I was hired mainly because they wanted me to teach IT and was told to get the PhD. But even then there were no TT jobs in the field. PhD programs tend to be a place for TT faculty to get assistants to do much of the work and justification for the TT Faculty to have a job. God Forbid they actually would have to work in industry and have to produce something.
That said this is my retirement position, the job I have till I retire.
First, I'd have to agree that I do not know what Wake Forest is like. Perhaps, in that bubble, things are a lot different than my experience in the one I am in. But it is not hard for me to believe that it is similar.
All great points. I would especially echo your thoughts on the notion expressed in the letter that "Diversity is essential." In order to agree with this, one first must insist on a definition of diversity - and not just beautiful words, but what it looks like. In academia, that definition is very narrow, and as a value, it is applied to approved groups. The only time one hears about conservative perspectives is when a social psychologist does a presentation on "Conservative backlash" to liberal policies and perspectives. The word "conservative" is often used as a pejorative, much as with the term male (at least in psychology). That is the context within which young "emerging adults" are being educated.
Having spent my whole college and working life in academia and science (Ph.D., SUNY Stony Brook, 15 years in Geosciences at the U of Hawaii at Manoa, 20 yrs at Los Alamos National Lab), I wholeheartedly agree in principle with the letter. But I have to wince and grit my teeth a little while agreeing, given the amount of money I have been sending to Greg Lukianoff at FIRE and having read the constant news of intellectual intolerance ruling many universities, even filtering into some STEM fields. I have to concur with the concerns of Zendo Deb and Rich Egan, to wit, perhaps the faculty doth protest too much.
Perhaps we should recall the humiliating circumstances surrounding the cancellation of U of Chicago geophysics professor Dorian Abbot's climate lecture at MIT because he dared question the effectiveness of current college DEI programs, offering his own suggestions on how to get underrepresented students up to speed (by vastly improving their K-12 learning). The U of California only recently stopped requiring DEI "loyalty oaths", which previously had caused the rejection, without considering academic credentials, of about three quarters of applicants to faculty jobs at UC. Judith Curry, a National Academies member, retired early from her faculty job at Georgia Tech as she has lost faith in universities being places open to the unbiased application of the scientific method and proper degrees of scientific skepticism. Or as she said at the time:
"...A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc."
So it seems to me that our universities are getting painful a taste of their own medicine.
Neither the previously ensconced Thought Police at many universities or the current thought policing of campuses by the Trump administration are good ideas, as both stifle free expression and academic freedom and punish the innocent as well as the guilty. I recently attended a rally where numerous grad students in public health at the U of New Mexico found their funding cut off even though they were working on critical health problems in NM, as there were DEI code words in the programs. A friend at Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, an institution reeking with STEM, had a similar story of funding cutoffs, given they are part of Columbia U.
So I hope all of those who signed on to this letter (not aiming this at you, David) were those who have long practiced what they now preach. I concur with the concern.
Good essay by Greg Lukianoff and Angel Eduardo over at The Eternally Radical Idea, titled "The misinformation crisis isn’t about truth, it’s about trust". I'd add the link but it might put this comment in the spam penalty box.
Interesting NY Times essay on this subject.https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/29/opinion/college-universities-trump-policies.html?unlocked_article_code=1.7k4.TpRr.SPvBo3_ZSSyG&smid=url-share
Colleges Have to Be Much More Honest With Themselves
By Greg Weiner
Mr. Weiner is the president of Assumption University in Worcester, Mass.
I must respectfully disagree with this open letter for several reasons. I too am part of academia having a bachelors, two masters and a PhD and teaching for the last 23 years at a STEM university.
I totally agree with #1 but the reality is that unless you espouse left leaning, (especially far left ) ideas you are shunned and attacked by only only the administration but also fellow factually and students. The hecklers veto is very much at work on many, if not most campuses today.
#2 should exist and did but not so much any longer. Again, if you even dare mention a conservative idea one is attacked and more.
The same us true of #3, being a white male I have seen this though luckily have not experienced it myself.
#6 only applies to current leftist ideas which of course change with the direction of the wind.
as for the statement: "comply with the unethical, irresponsible and frequently illegal demands of the Trump administration", this is more the sacred cow of the left finally being gored as much of academia did to the values of the right for decades. Gee, how the tides changed now that your cow is being gored.
The only reason that I have lasted so long is that I am in a STEM discipline and know how to keep my head down. I am looking forward to retiring soon and not having to put up with the hypocrisy exhibited and which until very recently was getting worse every year.
I hope you learn from this experience and treat all ideas as stated in #1 - it would be about time.
Just a thank you for writing the comment I was considering as well. While my undergraduate education was different, due to earning a bachelor's degree during 10 years of military service, after ETS I earned a Masters and PhD and now work in academia. I work in psychology - which I am certain is different than STEM when it comes to such issues. But the keeping your head down and thoughts to yourself is a common theme. You are right on point, echoing a comment I wrote to another thread here, where I noted how interesting it is that some people are so suddenly enlightened and up in arms about free speech, when they have both formally and informally, and with impunity, stifled conservative perspectives on campus for a long time. If it were not so unfortunate and short-sighted, it might almost be comical.
Is it even possible for a devout Christian, or an Orthodox Jew to be a member of a faculty today? Could Catholics show up for classes on Ash Wednesday with crosses on their foreheads and not be accused of everything from homophobia to hating Islam? Could an Orthodox Jew not be subject to attacks? (There was one incident where Jews were barricaded in a university library, while people outside screamed about the global intifada - I don't remember where that was - after Oct 7th)
You can't even teach Shakespeare or any number of Dead White Men without trigger warnings. Can kids even study WWII? Or wars from antiquity?
That doesn't even cover the guy was hounded out of teaching organic chemistry, because the class that he had been teaching for a decade or more was suddenly too hard for the current crop of pre-med students.
Not sure what the situation at Wake Forest is, but here are some of my initial thoughts. (This is me in Devil's Advocate Mode - I agree with some of this/not all):
1. The democratic ideals of free thought, free speech, free association, freedom of assembly and the right to dissent are worth fighting for.
How often, when a conservative is invited to speak on a college campus are the shouted down, canceled because of threats of violence, etc. How much "thou shalt use my preferred pronouns" compelled speech is there? Candace Owens, Ben Shapiro, etc. How much antisemitism was displayed after Oct 7th?
2. Education is a fundamental pillar of a democratic society.
What are the current stats on "reads/does math at grade level" in the Blue cities? There is a meme about "we used to teach Latin/Greek in high school and now we teach remedial English in college." At the higher education level, how much has turned into indoctrination? I know you are viewing the situation at high education facilities, but the whole is under scrutiny.
Consider Whole Language. We know how to teach people to read. Whole Language isn't it, but somehow it became a fad in the '90s. It destroyed a large number of kids' ability to read and think. It was created from whole cloth out the education universities. Also look up "the open concept." It was the fad from the early '70s. It too was a disaster. It too came out of academia.
3. Diversity is essential.
How many conservatives, libertarians, Christians, Orthodox Jews, are there on the tenured faculty of universities? The only stats I have seen are really around political contributions made by faculty, and they indicate that academia is lacking in some levels of diversity. We welcome all kinds of people, as long as you think (and vote) exactly the way we all do.
4. Education, knowledge, and science are intrinsically worthwhile.
I will merely refer you to the crisis in academic research, where lots of research can't be reproduced, even stuff from peer-reviewed publications. (I can provide links, but I don't want to get caught in SPAM filters. I will provide links if you ask.)
5. Academic freedom is necessary to the pursuit of knowledge.
Academic freedom is not equivalent to a right to be subsidized by the taxpayer. My interest is mostly in high-energy physics, since I was initially on a track to get a PhD in that field. The current push for a new, higher-energy collider to replace the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland is little more than a jobs program for physicists. (See Sabine Hossenfelder's YouTube channel and her video on "Science is Failing") If built it would cost 100s of billions of dollars, and really has no hope of reaching the next level of discoveries. It is only proposed to support the upcoming generation of post-docs.
6. No amount of accommodation or compliance will protect us.
This is 100% correct. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759. The other quote that comes to mind is from Darth Vader and *The Empire Strikes Back* "I have altered the deal; pray I don't alter it further." (See the statement about taxpayer funding above.)
I mentioned that I was all set to get a PhD. First in physics, later in math, and then in computer science. I was admitted to a program after college, at a prestigious Midwestern state school, but I realized that it was a pyramid scheme. At the time there were something approaching 100 PhDs granted for every tenured position that was likely to open up. Physics is an expensive discipline, and you need at least some access to the national labs to finish your degree. I spent a summer at Oak Ridge National Lab, and met a bunch of post docs who were fighting their way through that insanity, and not happy at the prospects when it was done. That was when I changed my major to mathematics. In the end I decided that I didn't want to be a struggling post-doc when I could work in Information Tech, and make decent money.
you are so right - I got my PhD after 28 years in the IT field and was looking for something after the IT crash and burn in the early 2000’s. I was hired mainly because they wanted me to teach IT and was told to get the PhD. But even then there were no TT jobs in the field. PhD programs tend to be a place for TT faculty to get assistants to do much of the work and justification for the TT Faculty to have a job. God Forbid they actually would have to work in industry and have to produce something.
That said this is my retirement position, the job I have till I retire.
First, I'd have to agree that I do not know what Wake Forest is like. Perhaps, in that bubble, things are a lot different than my experience in the one I am in. But it is not hard for me to believe that it is similar.
All great points. I would especially echo your thoughts on the notion expressed in the letter that "Diversity is essential." In order to agree with this, one first must insist on a definition of diversity - and not just beautiful words, but what it looks like. In academia, that definition is very narrow, and as a value, it is applied to approved groups. The only time one hears about conservative perspectives is when a social psychologist does a presentation on "Conservative backlash" to liberal policies and perspectives. The word "conservative" is often used as a pejorative, much as with the term male (at least in psychology). That is the context within which young "emerging adults" are being educated.
I will provide one link (thanks to Khal S.)
Saving Science https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/saving-science
"But much of this supposed knowledge is turning out to be contestable, unreliable, unusable, or flat-out wrong."
How it science got government funding in WWII. What went right, and what is going really wrong.
Having spent my whole college and working life in academia and science (Ph.D., SUNY Stony Brook, 15 years in Geosciences at the U of Hawaii at Manoa, 20 yrs at Los Alamos National Lab), I wholeheartedly agree in principle with the letter. But I have to wince and grit my teeth a little while agreeing, given the amount of money I have been sending to Greg Lukianoff at FIRE and having read the constant news of intellectual intolerance ruling many universities, even filtering into some STEM fields. I have to concur with the concerns of Zendo Deb and Rich Egan, to wit, perhaps the faculty doth protest too much.
Perhaps we should recall the humiliating circumstances surrounding the cancellation of U of Chicago geophysics professor Dorian Abbot's climate lecture at MIT because he dared question the effectiveness of current college DEI programs, offering his own suggestions on how to get underrepresented students up to speed (by vastly improving their K-12 learning). The U of California only recently stopped requiring DEI "loyalty oaths", which previously had caused the rejection, without considering academic credentials, of about three quarters of applicants to faculty jobs at UC. Judith Curry, a National Academies member, retired early from her faculty job at Georgia Tech as she has lost faith in universities being places open to the unbiased application of the scientific method and proper degrees of scientific skepticism. Or as she said at the time:
"...A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc."
So it seems to me that our universities are getting painful a taste of their own medicine.
Neither the previously ensconced Thought Police at many universities or the current thought policing of campuses by the Trump administration are good ideas, as both stifle free expression and academic freedom and punish the innocent as well as the guilty. I recently attended a rally where numerous grad students in public health at the U of New Mexico found their funding cut off even though they were working on critical health problems in NM, as there were DEI code words in the programs. A friend at Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, an institution reeking with STEM, had a similar story of funding cutoffs, given they are part of Columbia U.
So I hope all of those who signed on to this letter (not aiming this at you, David) were those who have long practiced what they now preach. I concur with the concern.
Good essay by Greg Lukianoff and Angel Eduardo over at The Eternally Radical Idea, titled "The misinformation crisis isn’t about truth, it’s about trust". I'd add the link but it might put this comment in the spam penalty box.
Lukianoff and Eduardo, if it lets me add the link.
https://eternallyradicalidea.com/p/the-misinformation-crisis-isnt-about?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1916753&post_id=159505557&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=2mnqb&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email