There are several misconceptions about intellectual diversity and academic freedom, and we address some of them here.
1. In an educational community, freedom of speech, or the narrower concept of academic freedom, does not mean the freedom to say anything that one wants. For example, freedom of speech does not mean that one can say something that causes physical danger to others. In a learning context, one must both respect those who disagree with oneself and also maintain an atmosphere of civility. Anything less creates a hostile environment that limits intellectual diversity and, therefore, the quality of learning.
2. Students do not have a right to remain free from encountering unwelcome or “inconvenient questions,” in the words of Max Weber. Students who accept the literal truth of creation narratives do not have a right to avoid the study of the science of evolution in a biology course; anti-Semites do not have a right to a history course based on the premise that the Holocaust did not happen. Students protesting their institution’s sale of clothing made in sweatshops do not have a right to interrupt the education of others. Students do have a right to hear and examine diverse opinions, but within the frameworks that knowledgeable scholars—themselves subject to rigorous standards of peer review—have determined to be reliable and accurate. That is, in considering what range of views should be introduced and considered, the academy is guided by the best knowledge available in the community of scholars.
3. All competing ideas on a subject do not deserve to be included in a course or program, or to be regarded as equally valid just because they have been asserted. For example, creationism, even in its modern guise as “intelligent design,” has no standing among experts in the life sciences because its claims cannot be tested by scientific methods. However, creationism and intelligent design might well be studied in a wide range of other disciplinary contexts such as the history of ideas or the sociology of religion.
4. While the diversity of topics introduced in a particular area of study should illustrate the existence of debate, it is not realistic to expect that undergraduate students will have the opportunity to study every dispute relevant to a course or program. The professional judgment of teachers determines the content of courses.
(Association of American Colleges and Universities, "Academic Freedom & Educational Responsibility," Liberal Education 92 [spring 2006]: 6-13, at 9)
Note from KBJ: I have a comment on each paragraph. (1) The main threats to civility, and therefore to intellectual diversity, come from progressives, not conservatives. You don't see conservatives shouting down speakers, throwing pies, and in general acting like thugs. (2) When the academy is dominated by progressives, the "range of views" that are considered to be "reliable and accurate" excludes conservatism. Most progressives think of conservatism as a nonstarter, and some of them (I know from experience) think of it as evil. (3) Global warmism has the same status as "intelligent design," yet it is taught as truth rather than as speculation. (4) It would be fine to leave "diversity of topics" to the "professional judgment of teachers" if the teachers were impartial. When teachers are partial, as they are, conservative ideas end up either not being discussed at all or used as foils. Many professors believe that the only real debate is between liberalism and progressivism. Students end up missing out on the third "ism": conservatism.
This document by the AACU (I encourage you to read the entire thing) is a classic example of something being good in theory but bad in practice. If professors were politically unbiased, their judgments about what is worth discussing would be acceptable. When professors are biased toward progressivism and against conservatism, as they are, academic freedom becomes tyranny. Students are indoctrinated rather than educated. This will remain the case unless and until students themselves demand respect. Currently, they are being treated as mere means to the ends of their professors, whose aim is to revolutionize society. Students should demand to be treated as ends in themselves. This will mean, among other things, calling out their professors when the professors are biased. If you're being made to read feminist literature, for example, insist that there be a counterpoint to it.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 