University Leaders under FIRE

• In Event: Teaching for Equity and Inclusion

Abstract

University Leaders under FIRE: Which presidents and boards are associated with free speech and free inquiry?

by Nathanial Bork, Robert Maranto, and Martha Bradley-Dorsey
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
Rutgers University

The December 5th 2023 and prior congressional hearings on seemingly antisemitic protests at elite universities in part reflected popular and congressional intolerance of unpopular ideas, a longstanding issue in U.S. democracy, and arguably a threat to democratic processes (Corne-Revere, 2021; Sullivan, Piereson & Marcus, 1982). Yet it also reflected perceived hypocrisy: some universities clearly tolerate offensive speech that administrators and activist faculty favor, while punishing offensive speech they disagree with. To shed light on this and related issues, since 2020 the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (Stevens, 2023) has ranked 238 U.S. colleges and universities on an index measuring formal free speech policies, student support for free speech, and the degree to which students report self-censorship.

In this exploratory paper, we do initial hypothesis testing regarding which characteristics predict higher, that is, more support for non-selective free speech. Reflecting long standing work (e.g., Chubb & Moe, 1990) indicating that private institutions generally have more autonomy to determine their missions, we find that just two of the 20 highest FIRE (free speech) institutions are private compared to 13 of the 20 lowest FIRE institutions. Perhaps reflecting diffusion of responsibility on larger governing boards, we find that 14 of the 20 highest FIRE institutions have fewer than 20 board members, compared to just 5 of the 20 lowest FIRE institutions.

Based on prior work, we hypothesize that the backgrounds of university presidents, governing board officers, and CEOs (Author Ref., 2023) will correlate with FIRE measures. Specifically, we will examine demographics, degrees earned (type of degree, field of degree, and where they were earned), and work experience outside of academia in government, the uniformed military, law, and business. Further, we also hypothesize that region, student and faculty demographics, religious diversity, and the size and relative institutional strength of DEI-based bueracracies will have statistical impacts. The final version of the paper will build a model and employ OLS regressions, using the 238 institutions FIRE ranked in 2023.

We stress that serious discussions regarding causation will likely require qualitative case studies and conclude with guidance about how related research should go forward.

References

Chubb, J.E. & Moe, T.M. (1990). Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools. Washington: Brookings Institution.

Corn-Revere, R. (2021). The Eye of the Beholder: The First Amendment and the censor’s dilemma. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mounk, Y. (2023). The Universities That Don’t Understand Academic Freedom, Atlantic Monthly, December 8, 2023, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/harvard-mit-upenn-free-speech-congressional-hearings/676278/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=edit-promo

Stevens, S. (2023). Harvard gets worst score ever in FIRE’s free speech rankings. https://www.thefire.org/news/harvard-gets-worst-score-ever-fires-college-free-speech-rankings, September 6.

Sullivan, J.L., Piereson, J. & Marcus, G.P. (1982). Political Tolerance and American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Author

• Nathanial Bork, University of Arkansas